Case Summary
| Case ID | 24F-H025-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2024-04-18 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Amy M. Haley |
| Outcome | The petition filed by David Y. Samuels against The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association was dismissed. The Tribunal found that Samuels lacked standing to bring the action as an individual, and the cited statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803 (Planned Community Act), was improper for this condominium dispute. |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | David Y. Samuels | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association | Counsel | Ashley N. Turner |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1803
Outcome Summary
The petition filed by David Y. Samuels against The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association was dismissed. The Tribunal found that Samuels lacked standing to bring the action as an individual, and the cited statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803 (Planned Community Act), was improper for this condominium dispute.
Why this result: Petitioner lacked standing because the property was owned by Daso Properties, LLC, not by David Y. Samuels individually. Additionally, the Petitioner brought the action under the incorrect statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803, which governs planned communities, not condominiums.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation concerning late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees for delinquent assessment payments
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 by charging unwarranted late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees for delinquent assessments.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed because Petitioner lacked standing as an individual owner, and the cause of action was brought under the improper statute (Planned Community Act) for a condominium property.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- A.R.S. § 33-1803
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
- A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 33-1803
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
- A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
- A.A.C. R2-19-106(D)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1124651.pdf
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1133120.pdf
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1134423.pdf
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139633.pdf
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139646.pdf
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1157271.pdf
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1168680.pdf
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1124651.pdf
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1133120.pdf
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1134423.pdf
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139633.pdf
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139646.pdf
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1157271.pdf
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1168680.pdf
This summary outlines the proceedings, arguments, and final decision in the matter of *David Y. Samuels vs The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association*, Case No. 24F-H025-REL, heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Amy M. Haley of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
Key Facts and Background
The case concerned a dispute over fees, fines, and assessments related to a condominium unit located in Mesa, Arizona. The property owner is Daso Properties, LLC, and the Petitioner, David Y. Samuels, is the managing member who filed the petition on his own behalf. The Respondent is The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association (HOA). Samuels filed the petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department) around November 1, 2023, alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 by charging late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees without documentation demonstrating they were warranted.
Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments (April 3, 2024)
The hearing focused heavily on the status of the homeowner ledger and procedural issues.
Petitioner's Argument: Mr. Samuels argued that the HOA’s collection efforts were unethical or illegal. He contended that many of the late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees stemmed from a prior balance of $931.95 that was later forgiven or waived because the HOA or prior management companies could not provide documentation to support the charge. He argued that if the unsupported prior balance was removed, he was current (or even ahead) on assessments until 2024, rendering the substantial collection fees unreasonable. Additionally, fines totaling $1,645 were waved, which Samuels asserted was due to the charges being erroneous, not a "good faith gesture".
Respondent's Argument: The HOA, represented by counsel Ashley Turner, denied any statutory violation and asserted that the association was authorized to collect late fees and collection charges due to a delinquency that existed when the matter was referred for collections. More critically, the HOA raised two procedural arguments:
- Improper Statute: The HOA is a condominium association, governed by A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9, yet the petition was brought under A.R.S. § 33-1803, which governs planned communities.
- Lack of Standing: Mr. Samuels, as an individual, was not the legal "owner" of the unit (Daso Properties, LLC), and therefore lacked standing to bring the petition under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A).
Legal Outcome and Final Decision
The ALJ issued a decision on April 18, 2024, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803.
The petition was dismissed based on two fundamental legal flaws:
- Lack of Standing: The Tribunal found that David Y. Samuels, as an individual and not the property owner (Daso Properties, LLC), did not have standing to bring the action under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A).
- Improper Cause of Action: The Tribunal found that the statute cited, A.R.S. § 33-1803, was improper because the property is a condominium, not a planned community, meaning the Respondent was not subject to that chapter. Consequently, Petitioner stated no claim upon which relief could be granted under the cited statute.
The petition was ordered dismissed.
Questions
Question
If my property is owned by an LLC, can I file a petition against the HOA in my own name as the managing member?
Short Answer
No. The petition must be filed by the legal owner (the LLC), not an individual member, or it will be dismissed for lack of standing.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that an individual managing member of an LLC does not have standing to bring an action on behalf of the property owned by the LLC. The dispute statute specifically applies to 'owners' and 'associations'.
Alj Quote
The Tribunal finds that, after taking testimony, Petitioner, as an individual, did not have standing to bring this action… The proper party to bring the action would have been Daso Properties, LLC.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
Topic Tags
- standing
- LLC ownership
- procedural requirements
Question
Can I use laws meant for Planned Communities (A.R.S. § 33-1803) to dispute charges if I live in a Condominium?
Short Answer
No. Condominiums are governed by a different set of statutes (Chapter 9) than Planned Communities (Chapter 16).
Detailed Answer
The ALJ dismissed the claim because the homeowner cited the Planned Community Act (A.R.S. § 33-1803) while the property was legally a condominium. Condominiums are not subject to the Planned Community Act.
Alj Quote
However, the Property is a condominium; therefore, Respondent is not subject to the Planned Community Act. … Chapter 9 governs condominiums.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)
Topic Tags
- jurisdiction
- condominium vs planned community
- statutory application
Question
Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction to hear a dispute if I am not the legal owner of the property?
Short Answer
No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to disputes specifically between an owner and an association.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarifies that the administrative hearing process is strictly for disputes involving an 'owner' or 'association'. If the petitioner is not the legal owner (even if they manage the LLC that owns it), the Department lacks jurisdiction.
Alj Quote
The department does not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute that does not involve an owner or an association.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
Topic Tags
- jurisdiction
- standing
- homeowner rights
Question
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner claims an HOA violated state laws?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
In these administrative hearings, it is the responsibility of the person bringing the complaint to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 as alleged in his petition.
Legal Basis
Preponderance of Evidence
Topic Tags
- burden of proof
- evidence
- legal standards
Question
What happens if I base my entire petition on a statute that doesn't apply to my type of property?
Short Answer
The petition will be dismissed because you have stated no claim upon which relief can be granted.
Detailed Answer
Because the petitioner cited the wrong statute (Planned Community Act for a Condominium), the judge ruled that there was no valid legal claim to rule on, resulting in dismissal.
Alj Quote
As such, Petitioner has stated no claim upon which relief can be granted under A.R.S. § 33-1801.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1801
Topic Tags
- dismissal
- legal procedure
- condominium act
Case
- Docket No
- 24F-H025-REL
- Case Title
- David Y. Samuels vs The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association
- Decision Date
- 2024-04-18
- Alj Name
- Amy M. Haley
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Questions
Question
If my property is owned by an LLC, can I file a petition against the HOA in my own name as the managing member?
Short Answer
No. The petition must be filed by the legal owner (the LLC), not an individual member, or it will be dismissed for lack of standing.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that an individual managing member of an LLC does not have standing to bring an action on behalf of the property owned by the LLC. The dispute statute specifically applies to 'owners' and 'associations'.
Alj Quote
The Tribunal finds that, after taking testimony, Petitioner, as an individual, did not have standing to bring this action… The proper party to bring the action would have been Daso Properties, LLC.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
Topic Tags
- standing
- LLC ownership
- procedural requirements
Question
Can I use laws meant for Planned Communities (A.R.S. § 33-1803) to dispute charges if I live in a Condominium?
Short Answer
No. Condominiums are governed by a different set of statutes (Chapter 9) than Planned Communities (Chapter 16).
Detailed Answer
The ALJ dismissed the claim because the homeowner cited the Planned Community Act (A.R.S. § 33-1803) while the property was legally a condominium. Condominiums are not subject to the Planned Community Act.
Alj Quote
However, the Property is a condominium; therefore, Respondent is not subject to the Planned Community Act. … Chapter 9 governs condominiums.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)
Topic Tags
- jurisdiction
- condominium vs planned community
- statutory application
Question
Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction to hear a dispute if I am not the legal owner of the property?
Short Answer
No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to disputes specifically between an owner and an association.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarifies that the administrative hearing process is strictly for disputes involving an 'owner' or 'association'. If the petitioner is not the legal owner (even if they manage the LLC that owns it), the Department lacks jurisdiction.
Alj Quote
The department does not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute that does not involve an owner or an association.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
Topic Tags
- jurisdiction
- standing
- homeowner rights
Question
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner claims an HOA violated state laws?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
In these administrative hearings, it is the responsibility of the person bringing the complaint to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 as alleged in his petition.
Legal Basis
Preponderance of Evidence
Topic Tags
- burden of proof
- evidence
- legal standards
Question
What happens if I base my entire petition on a statute that doesn't apply to my type of property?
Short Answer
The petition will be dismissed because you have stated no claim upon which relief can be granted.
Detailed Answer
Because the petitioner cited the wrong statute (Planned Community Act for a Condominium), the judge ruled that there was no valid legal claim to rule on, resulting in dismissal.
Alj Quote
As such, Petitioner has stated no claim upon which relief can be granted under A.R.S. § 33-1801.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1801
Topic Tags
- dismissal
- legal procedure
- condominium act
Case
- Docket No
- 24F-H025-REL
- Case Title
- David Y. Samuels vs The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association
- Decision Date
- 2024-04-18
- Alj Name
- Amy M. Haley
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- David Y. Samuels (petitioner)
Daso Properties, LLC
Managing member of the property owner (Daso Properties, LLC); Appeared on his own behalf.
Respondent Side
- Ashley N. Turner (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Council for respondent; Also appeared as Ashley N. Moscarello in earlier filings. - Alyssa Butler (community manager)
The Management Trust (TMT)
Witness for the association. - Stephanie Beck (HOA staff)
Involved in prior HOA correspondence regarding fines. - Catherine Green (HOA staff)
Involved in prior HOA correspondence regarding fines.
Neutral Parties
- Amy M. Haley (ALJ)
OAH
Conducted the hearing and issued the final decision. - Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
OAH
Issued an order on March 19, 2024. - A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission via email [email protected]. - V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission via email [email protected]. - D. Jones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission via email [email protected]. - L. Abril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission via email [email protected]. - M. Neat (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission via email [email protected]. - A. Kowaleski (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission via email [email protected]. - G. Osborn (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].