Case Summary
| Case ID | 24F-H030-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2024-04-23 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Velva Moses-Thompson |
| Outcome | Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party based on the finding that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to hold required annual meetings of the Association’s members since 2010. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500 filing fee and comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804. Petitioner failed to establish the remaining alleged violations concerning the Declarant's right to appoint the Board or violations of A.R.S. §§ 33-1810 and 33-1817, or most CC&R sections. |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Michael J Morris | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | StarPass Master Homeowner Association, Inc. | Counsel | — |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party based on the finding that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to hold required annual meetings of the Association’s members since 2010. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500 filing fee and comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804. Petitioner failed to establish the remaining alleged violations concerning the Declarant's right to appoint the Board or violations of A.R.S. §§ 33-1810 and 33-1817, or most CC&R sections.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1810 and 33-1817, or the cited sections of the CC&Rs or Bylaws related to the Declarant's power to appoint the board.
Key Issues & Findings
Declarant control, board appointment without vote or meeting, and failure to hold annual meetings
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated multiple statutes and governing documents by allowing the Declarant to solely appoint the Board of Directors and failing to hold annual meetings. The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to notice or hold annual members meetings since 2010. All other alleged violations were not established.
Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 and directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
- A.R.S. § 33-1804
- A.R.S. § 33-1810
- A.R.S. § 33-1817
- Bylaw Article Section 1
- CC&Rs Article 3 Section 2(b)
- CC&Rs Article 3 Section 5
- CC&Rs Article 11 Section 8
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 33-1804
- A.R.S. § 33-1810
- A.R.S. § 33-1817
- Bylaw Article Section 1
- CC&Rs Article 3 Section 2(b)
- CC&Rs Article 3 Section 5
- CC&Rs Article 11 Section 8
Related election workflow tool
Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H030-REL Decision – 1154358.pdf
24F-H030-REL Decision – 1156053.pdf
24F-H030-REL Decision – 1160349.pdf
24F-H030-REL Decision – 1170315.pdf
24F-H030-REL Decision – 1154358.pdf
24F-H030-REL Decision – 1156053.pdf
24F-H030-REL Decision – 1160349.pdf
24F-H030-REL Decision – 1170315.pdf
This summary focuses on the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision of the dispute between Michael J. Morris and the StarPass Master Homeowner Association (HOA).
Key Facts and Parties
The administrative hearing was held before ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson on March 6, 2024, in Phoenix. The Petitioner, Michael J. Morris (a homeowner), alleged ongoing violations against the Master HOA. The Respondent, StarPass Master Homeowners Association, Inc., was represented by F. Christopher Ansley, who is the Declarant, President of the Board of Directors, and statutory agent of the Master HOA, controlling the association since 1992.
Main Issues in Dispute
The petition alleged that the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. §§ 33-1804, 33-1817) and specific sections of the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The three core factual issues addressed were:
- Whether the Declarant (Mr. Ansley) was the sole person to appoint the Board of Directors without notice, a meeting, or a vote of the members.
- The failure to hold annual meetings of the Association’s members.
- Whether the actions constituted a breach of duty and violated governing documents, particularly concerning the expiration of the Declarant's voting power.
(The ALJ noted a jurisdictional limitation regarding the allegation concerning A.R.S. § 33-1810 related to audits, as the Petitioner filed a single-issue petition).
Key Arguments
Petitioner's Arguments (Mr. Morris):
Mr. Morris and his witnesses argued that the Declarant maintained total control, asserting complete and sole authority to appoint the board and failing to hold regular annual meetings as required by state law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) and the CC&Rs. A key legal contention involved the Declarant’s superior voting rights (Type B membership), which were set to terminate on December 31, 2010, per the CC&Rs (Article III, Section 2(b)). Petitioner argued that the "Sixth Amendment," which attempted to extend these rights, was recorded in May 2011, five months *after* the rights had already terminated, and the subsequent backdating of the amendment was invalid under Arizona law.
Respondent's Arguments (Mr. Ansley):
Mr. Ansley conceded that he was the sole person to appoint board members. He also admitted that he had stopped holding annual members meetings since 2010, citing repeated failure to reach a quorum among Type A (homeowner) members. Mr. Ansley maintained his authority based on his Type B votes, which provided three votes per planned lot, giving the Declarant well over 75% of the total vote. He asserted that the Sixth Amendment extension was valid because the *act* (such as restructuring assessments) was implemented in January 2007, and the later recordation in 2011 served only as public notice, not the effective date of the change.
Outcome and Final Decision
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on April 23, 2024, holding that the Petitioner was the prevailing party.
Most Important Legal Point:
The ALJ found it undisputed that the Respondent failed to notice or hold an annual meeting of the members from 2010 to the current time. This failure established a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(B), which mandates that a meeting of the members' association must be held at least once each year.
The ALJ concluded that Petitioner failed to establish violations of the other statutes or the CC&Rs/Bylaws related to the Declarant’s ability to appoint board members or concerning the expiration of Type B rights.
Orders Issued:
- Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee.
- Respondent was directed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward (i.e., hold annual members meetings).
- No Civil Penalty was deemed appropriate.
Questions
Question
Can an HOA stop holding annual meetings if they are unable to get enough members to attend (quorum)?
Short Answer
No. State law requires an annual meeting regardless of past attendance issues.
Detailed Answer
Even if an HOA has failed to reach a quorum for many years, they are still strictly required by Arizona law to notice and hold a meeting of the members at least once each year. Failing to do so is a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) requires that a meeting of the members' association be held at least once each year.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)
Topic Tags
- meetings
- quorum
- compliance
Question
If I claim the HOA violated the Bylaws, do I have to submit the Bylaws as evidence?
Short Answer
Yes. You must submit the specific governing documents you claim were violated.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner argues that the HOA violated a specific provision of the Bylaws (such as election procedures), they must enter those Bylaws into evidence. Without the actual document in the record, the judge cannot find a violation.
Alj Quote
Although Petitioner argued in his written closing argument that as of November 18, 2012, elections should have begun by the membership under Article 5 of Respondent’s Bylaws, Petitioner did not submit a copy of Respondent’s Bylaws into evidence, nor was section 5 of the Bylaws submitted with the petition.
Legal Basis
Evidentiary Burden
Topic Tags
- evidence
- procedure
- bylaws
Question
Can the Administrative Law Judge order the HOA to appoint specific homeowners to the Board?
Short Answer
No. The judge's power is limited to ordering compliance with laws and documents.
Detailed Answer
The tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to appoint specific individuals to a 'transition Board' or replace directors. It can only order the HOA to follow the statutes and community documents going forward.
Alj Quote
While Petitioner requested that he and other owners be appointed to a transition Board, the Administrative Law Judge’s jurisdiction in this tribunal is limited to ordering a party to abide by applicable statutes and community documents.
Legal Basis
Jurisdiction
Topic Tags
- remedies
- board of directors
- jurisdiction
Question
What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove that their claims are 'more probably true than not.' This is the standard evidentiary burden in administrative hearings.
Alj Quote
Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the Act or Respondent’s CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
- legal standards
- burden of proof
Question
Does the HOA automatically get fined if the judge finds they violated state law?
Short Answer
No. Civil penalties are not automatic.
Detailed Answer
A judge may find that a violation occurred (such as failing to hold meetings) but still decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate in that specific matter.
Alj Quote
No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.
Legal Basis
Administrative Discretion
Topic Tags
- penalties
- fines
- enforcement
Question
Can I get my $500 filing fee back if I win the hearing?
Short Answer
Yes. The judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the homeowner is deemed the prevailing party, the judge may order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the Petitioner the amount of the filing fee within a set timeframe.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Prevailing Party Costs
Topic Tags
- fees
- reimbursement
- costs
Question
Is it illegal for a developer (Declarant) to appoint the Board without an election?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, unless specific statutes or bylaws prohibit it.
Detailed Answer
Simply alleging that a Declarant is appointing the board without a vote is not enough to prove a violation. The homeowner must prove that specific statutes or the community's CC&Rs/Bylaws expressly prohibit this arrangement at the current time.
Alj Quote
Regarding the remaining alleged violations, the statutes listed in the petition do no bar [the Declarant] from appointing the Board members or operating as the President of the Board.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs / Statutes
Topic Tags
- declarant control
- board appointments
- elections
Case
- Docket No
- 24F-H030-REL
- Case Title
- Michael J. Morris vs. StarPass Master Homeowner Association, Inc.
- Decision Date
- 2024-04-23
- Alj Name
- Velva Moses-Thompson
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Questions
Question
Can an HOA stop holding annual meetings if they are unable to get enough members to attend (quorum)?
Short Answer
No. State law requires an annual meeting regardless of past attendance issues.
Detailed Answer
Even if an HOA has failed to reach a quorum for many years, they are still strictly required by Arizona law to notice and hold a meeting of the members at least once each year. Failing to do so is a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) requires that a meeting of the members' association be held at least once each year.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)
Topic Tags
- meetings
- quorum
- compliance
Question
If I claim the HOA violated the Bylaws, do I have to submit the Bylaws as evidence?
Short Answer
Yes. You must submit the specific governing documents you claim were violated.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner argues that the HOA violated a specific provision of the Bylaws (such as election procedures), they must enter those Bylaws into evidence. Without the actual document in the record, the judge cannot find a violation.
Alj Quote
Although Petitioner argued in his written closing argument that as of November 18, 2012, elections should have begun by the membership under Article 5 of Respondent’s Bylaws, Petitioner did not submit a copy of Respondent’s Bylaws into evidence, nor was section 5 of the Bylaws submitted with the petition.
Legal Basis
Evidentiary Burden
Topic Tags
- evidence
- procedure
- bylaws
Question
Can the Administrative Law Judge order the HOA to appoint specific homeowners to the Board?
Short Answer
No. The judge's power is limited to ordering compliance with laws and documents.
Detailed Answer
The tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to appoint specific individuals to a 'transition Board' or replace directors. It can only order the HOA to follow the statutes and community documents going forward.
Alj Quote
While Petitioner requested that he and other owners be appointed to a transition Board, the Administrative Law Judge’s jurisdiction in this tribunal is limited to ordering a party to abide by applicable statutes and community documents.
Legal Basis
Jurisdiction
Topic Tags
- remedies
- board of directors
- jurisdiction
Question
What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove that their claims are 'more probably true than not.' This is the standard evidentiary burden in administrative hearings.
Alj Quote
Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the Act or Respondent’s CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
- legal standards
- burden of proof
Question
Does the HOA automatically get fined if the judge finds they violated state law?
Short Answer
No. Civil penalties are not automatic.
Detailed Answer
A judge may find that a violation occurred (such as failing to hold meetings) but still decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate in that specific matter.
Alj Quote
No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.
Legal Basis
Administrative Discretion
Topic Tags
- penalties
- fines
- enforcement
Question
Can I get my $500 filing fee back if I win the hearing?
Short Answer
Yes. The judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the homeowner is deemed the prevailing party, the judge may order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the Petitioner the amount of the filing fee within a set timeframe.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Prevailing Party Costs
Topic Tags
- fees
- reimbursement
- costs
Question
Is it illegal for a developer (Declarant) to appoint the Board without an election?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, unless specific statutes or bylaws prohibit it.
Detailed Answer
Simply alleging that a Declarant is appointing the board without a vote is not enough to prove a violation. The homeowner must prove that specific statutes or the community's CC&Rs/Bylaws expressly prohibit this arrangement at the current time.
Alj Quote
Regarding the remaining alleged violations, the statutes listed in the petition do no bar [the Declarant] from appointing the Board members or operating as the President of the Board.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs / Statutes
Topic Tags
- declarant control
- board appointments
- elections
Case
- Docket No
- 24F-H030-REL
- Case Title
- Michael J. Morris vs. StarPass Master Homeowner Association, Inc.
- Decision Date
- 2024-04-23
- Alj Name
- Velva Moses-Thompson
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Michael J. Morris (petitioner)
StarPass Master Homeowner Association member; Sub-HOA President - Bruce Prior (witness)
StarPass Master Homeowner Association member; past subHOA president - Michael Schmidt (witness)
Wildcat Pass HOA Board member
Also referred to as Michael Smidt
Respondent Side
- F. Christopher Ansley (declarant)
StarPass Master Homeowner Association President/Property Manager; Devcon LLC
Also referred to as Chris Ansley or mistakenly as Craig Ansley - David Makavoy (lawyer)
Ansley's lawyer concerning amendment recording
Neutral Parties
- Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Also referred to as Alderman Thompson - Brian Larson (CPA)
Brian Larson CTA
Provided quarterly financial statements for Master HOA - Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
- Jimmy Liscos (board member)
StarPass Master Homeowner Association Board of Directors; focus group member
Appointed board member who was also part of the focus group/group of seven - Jamie Haw (board member)
StarPass Master Homeowner Association Board of Directors; focus group member
Appointed board member who resigned - Nikki Morton (focus group member)