Case Summary
| Case ID | 25F-H019-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2025-07-01 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Velva Moses-Thompson |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC | Counsel | Danny M. Ford, Esq. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Matthew P. Petrovic | Counsel | — |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Outcome Summary
The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the Respondent's request for rehearing of the underlying ALJ Decision.
Why this result: The Commissioner found grounds (errors of law and arbitrary decision) sufficient to grant the Respondent's motion for rehearing.
Key Issues & Findings
Rehearing Request: Errors of Law and Arbitrary Decision
Respondent Matthew Petrovic successfully requested rehearing of the original ALJ decision, alleging errors of law, improper evidence rejection, procedural irregularities, and that the findings were arbitrary or capricious regarding alleged HOA enforcement violations (landscape, paint, walkway denial).
Orders: The Commissioner granted the rehearing request based on grounds of error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law, and that the findings or decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
- Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
- Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
25F-H019-REL Decision – 1301437.pdf
25F-H019-REL Decision – 1327903.pdf
25F-H019-REL Decision – 1344402.pdf
25F-H019-REL Decision – 1353469.pdf
25F-H019-REL Decision – 1353471.pdf
25F-H019-REL Decision – 1364458.pdf
25F-H019-REL Decision – 1381249.pdf
Briefing Document: Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC vs. Matthew Petrovic
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the key events, arguments, and rulings in the administrative dispute between homeowner Matthew Petrovic (Respondent) and the Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC (Petitioner), case number 25F-H019. Following an initial Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision on May 5, 2025, that found the Petitioner to be the prevailing party, the Respondent successfully petitioned for a rehearing.
The Respondent’s request for a rehearing was based on several grounds, including the misinterpretation of evidence regarding landscaping (Sago palms), insufficient evidence for a paint violation, and the arbitrary denial of a medically necessary walkway. Critically, Mr. Petrovic also cited significant procedural failures, alleging he was denied due process because he was misinformed about the nature of the original hearing and was thus unprepared and without legal counsel. He further claimed that the Petitioner’s witness provided false testimony and that key evidence was improperly excluded.
The Petitioner objected to the rehearing request, arguing solely that it was filed five days past the statutory 30-day deadline. Despite this objection, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing. The official order cites two specific grounds for granting the request: “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding,” and “That the findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” A subsequent continuance has moved the new hearing to October 22, 2025.
Case Overview and Procedural History
The case involves a dispute between a homeowner and his HOA that was initially adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The homeowner, Matthew Petrovic, appealed the initial decision to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) Commissioner and was granted a new hearing.
Key Parties and Representatives:
Name/Entity
Affiliation
Petitioner
Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC
Attorney for Petitioner
Danny M. Ford, Esq.
Goodman Law Group
Respondent
Matthew P. Petrovic
Original ALJ
Velva Moses–Thompson
Office of Administrative Hearings
Deputy Commissioner
Mandy Neat
Arizona Department of Real Estate
ALJ for Continuance
Nicole Robinson
Office of Administrative Hearings
Timeline of Events:
Description
April 15, 2025
Original Hearing
The initial hearing on the dispute takes place.
May 5, 2025
Initial ALJ Decision
ALJ Velva Moses–Thompson issues a decision deeming the Petitioner the “prevailing party.” The decision includes a notice of a 30-day deadline to request a rehearing.
June 9, 2025
Rehearing Request Filed
Respondent Matthew Petrovic files a Dispute Rehearing Request with the ADRE Commissioner.
June 17, 2025
Objection to Rehearing
The Petitioner files a timely response, objecting to the rehearing request on the grounds that it was filed five days past the deadline.
July 3, 2025
Rehearing Granted
The ADRE Deputy Commissioner issues an “Order Granting Rehearing Request.”
July 23, 2025
Notice of Hearing Issued
A notice for the new hearing is issued (as referenced in a later document).
August 28, 2025
Continuance Granted
At the Respondent’s request, ALJ Nicole Robinson grants a continuance for the hearing.
October 22, 2025 (1:00 PM)
Scheduled Rehearing
The new, continued date for the rehearing is set.
Respondent’s Grounds for Rehearing Petition
Matthew Petrovic submitted a detailed petition outlining four primary areas of concern: the factual basis for the violations, procedural irregularities, false testimony, and a lack of due process.
1. Landscape Violation – Sago Palms
Mr. Petrovic argues the ruling that Sago palms are prohibited was incorrect and contradicted the evidence he presented.
• Evidence Submitted: He claims to have provided copies of the CC&Rs, documentation from the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (AMWUA) classifying Sago palms as drought-tolerant plants and not true palm trees, and supporting witness testimony.
• Allegation of False Testimony: He asserts that the petitioner’s witness, identified as “Kevin,” gave false testimony under oath by stating the plants were not allowed, despite being presented with contrary evidence.
• New Evidence: Since the hearing, Mr. Petrovic states he has directly contacted AMWUA, which confirmed Sago palms are not in the palm family. He also notes that a current board member is willing to testify that the plants are permitted under the HOA’s governing documents.
2. Paint Condition Dispute
The petition contends that the ruling on his home’s paint being “in disrepair” was not supported by credible evidence.
• Conflicting Testimony: Three witnesses, including Mr. Petrovic, testified that the paint is in good condition. The individual who testified against the paint’s condition is reportedly no longer a sitting board member.
• Prior Approval and Inconsistent Reasoning: The exterior paint was reviewed and approved by the HOA board when he purchased the home. He alleges the board has demonstrated “inconsistent reasoning” by first claiming the violation was due to the paint needing to be two colors and later changing the reason to “disrepair.”
• Lack of Evidence from Petitioner: The petition states the board has not submitted objective proof, such as photographs or condition reports, to support its claim. Mr. Petrovic views these actions as potential “selective enforcement and retaliation” for his opposition to prior board actions.
3. Paver Walkway Denial
Mr. Petrovic claims the HOA has engaged in selective enforcement and bad faith by repeatedly denying his application for a modified walkway over the past three years.
• Medical Necessity: The walkway modifications are supported by a physician’s letter referencing chronic back and shoulder conditions.
• Selective Enforcement: Similar walkways have allegedly been approved for other homeowners, yet his requests have been denied without justification.
• Violation of CC&Rs: He argues the denial violates the community’s CC&Rs, which require the board to act reasonably and impartially, and that the denial could be viewed as discrimination.
4. Procedural and Due Process Concerns
A significant portion of the petition focuses on procedural failures that Mr. Petrovic believes deprived him of a fair hearing.
• Exclusion of Evidence: He states that key evidence relevant to his claim of selective enforcement was excluded from the hearing due to concerns about third-party privacy.
• Misunderstanding of Hearing Nature: Mr. Petrovic was “led to believe the meeting was a mediation session” and was unaware that binding decisions could result.
• Inability to Prepare Defense: Due to this misunderstanding and “financial hardship,” he was unable to retain legal counsel or properly prepare his case, which he argues “constitutes a denial of due process.”
Petitioner’s Objection to Rehearing
The Tatum Highlands Community Association, through its attorney Danny M. Ford of Goodman Law Group, filed an objection based on a single procedural argument.
• Untimely Filing: The Petitioner’s core argument is that the request for rehearing was time-barred.
◦ The decision was served on May 5, 2025.
◦ The 30-day statutory deadline, per A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, was June 4, 2025.
◦ Mr. Petrovic filed his request on June 9, 2025, five days late.
• Notice of Deadline: The objection notes that the deadline was “plainly written on the very Decision” and that being unrepresented is not an excuse for missing it.
• Requested Action: The Petitioner respectfully requested that the ALJ deny and dismiss the rehearing request as untimely.
Official Rulings and Current Status
Order Granting Rehearing Request
On July 3, 2025, Deputy Commissioner Mandy Neat of the Arizona Department of Real Estate issued an order granting Mr. Petrovic’s request. The order implicitly overruled the Petitioner’s objection regarding the filing deadline. The Commissioner cited two of the grounds available for granting a rehearing, which directly align with the arguments made in Mr. Petrovic’s petition:
1. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.
2. That the findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
Order Granting Continuance and Current Status
An order dated August 28, 2025, from Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson shows that the rehearing was continued at the request of the Respondent, Matthew Petrovic.
• The rehearing is officially scheduled to take place on October 22, 2025, at 1:00 PM.
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “25F-H019-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Tatum Highlands Community Association, Inc. v. Matthew P. Petrovic”,
“decision_date”: “2025-12-26”,
“alj_name”: “Nicole Robinson”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an HOA violation hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “The Petitioner (usually the HOA initiating the case) bears the burden of proof.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the party filing the petition (the Petitioner) must prove that the other party violated the governing documents by a preponderance of the evidence.”,
“alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the aforementioned CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”,
“topic_tags”: [
“burden of proof”,
“legal standards”,
“procedure”
]
},
{
“question”: “What is the standard of proof used in these hearings?”,
“short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the existence of a contested fact is more probable than not.”,
“alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence means ‘proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.'”,
“legal_basis”: “In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 238 (App. 2005)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“legal standards”,
“evidence”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can I install a driveway extension without prior HOA approval if neighbors have similar ones?”,
“short_answer”: “No. You must seek approval first.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Even if neighbors have similar features, failing to seek Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval prior to installation constitutes a violation of the CC&Rs. The presence of other potentially non-compliant homes does not excuse the failure to follow the approval process.”,
“alj_quote”: “Regardless, the record has established that Respondent did not seek ARC approval prior to installing the paver driveway extension. … As such, Petitioner has established that Respondent violated CC&R, Section 4.2.1.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.1”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural control”,
“driveways”,
“selective enforcement”
]
},
{
“question”: “What happens if I plant trees that the Architectural Committee specifically denied?”,
“short_answer”: “It is a violation of the governing documents.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Proceeding to install landscaping that was explicitly denied by the Architectural Review Committee establishes a clear violation of the community’s restrictions.”,
“alj_quote”: “In regard to the pigmy palm tree matter, the evidence clearly established that Respondent requested to plant two pigmy palm trees in his front yard, was denied by ARC, and planted them anyway. … Hence, Petitioner has established that Respondent violated CC&R Section 4.2.7.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.7 / Design Guidelines”,
“topic_tags”: [
“landscaping”,
“architectural control”,
“violations”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge rule on Fair Housing Act discrimination claims?”,
“short_answer”: “No, that venue cannot address Fair Housing Act claims.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The Office of Administrative Hearings for the Department of Real Estate does not have jurisdiction to address claims regarding violations of the Fair Housing Act in these proceedings.”,
“alj_quote”: “In addition, Respondent’s claims regarding the Association violating the Fair Housing Act cannot be addressed in this venue.”,
“legal_basis”: “Jurisdiction limits”,
“topic_tags”: [
“jurisdiction”,
“discrimination”,
“Fair Housing Act”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the HOA fine me for ‘disrepair’ of paint if the paint is just old but not damaged?”,
“short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if evidence shows it is not in disrepair.”,
“detailed_answer”: “If witness testimony establishes that the paint is not actually in disrepair, fines based on that allegation may be waived, even if the homeowner needs to eventually repaint to meet new color schemes.”,
“alj_quote”: “Also, the evidence established from firsthand witnesses that Respondent’s paint was not in disrepair. Therefore, Respondent should be given the opportunity to move forward with the ARC approval for painting his home and any fines he received in regards to the paint be waived.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.7”,
“topic_tags”: [
“maintenance”,
“paint”,
“fines”
]
},
{
“question”: “Do I have to reimburse the HOA’s filing fees if I lose the hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, typically for the issues on which the HOA prevails.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ may order the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fees. In this case, the Respondent was ordered to pay fees proportional to the two issues the HOA won.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 in certified funds for the two issues.”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”,
“topic_tags”: [
“penalties”,
“fees”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does the HOA have to waive fines if a violation was not proven?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes.”,
“detailed_answer”: “If the HOA fails to prove a specific violation (e.g., that paint was in disrepair), the ALJ may order the Association to waive fines related to that specific issue.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner waive all fines issued to Respondent in regards to the paint issue.”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“penalties”
]
}
]
}
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “25F-H019-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Tatum Highlands Community Association, Inc. v. Matthew P. Petrovic”,
“decision_date”: “2025-12-26”,
“alj_name”: “Nicole Robinson”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an HOA violation hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “The Petitioner (usually the HOA initiating the case) bears the burden of proof.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the party filing the petition (the Petitioner) must prove that the other party violated the governing documents by a preponderance of the evidence.”,
“alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the aforementioned CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”,
“topic_tags”: [
“burden of proof”,
“legal standards”,
“procedure”
]
},
{
“question”: “What is the standard of proof used in these hearings?”,
“short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the existence of a contested fact is more probable than not.”,
“alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence means ‘proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.'”,
“legal_basis”: “In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 238 (App. 2005)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“legal standards”,
“evidence”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can I install a driveway extension without prior HOA approval if neighbors have similar ones?”,
“short_answer”: “No. You must seek approval first.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Even if neighbors have similar features, failing to seek Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval prior to installation constitutes a violation of the CC&Rs. The presence of other potentially non-compliant homes does not excuse the failure to follow the approval process.”,
“alj_quote”: “Regardless, the record has established that Respondent did not seek ARC approval prior to installing the paver driveway extension. … As such, Petitioner has established that Respondent violated CC&R, Section 4.2.1.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.1”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural control”,
“driveways”,
“selective enforcement”
]
},
{
“question”: “What happens if I plant trees that the Architectural Committee specifically denied?”,
“short_answer”: “It is a violation of the governing documents.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Proceeding to install landscaping that was explicitly denied by the Architectural Review Committee establishes a clear violation of the community’s restrictions.”,
“alj_quote”: “In regard to the pigmy palm tree matter, the evidence clearly established that Respondent requested to plant two pigmy palm trees in his front yard, was denied by ARC, and planted them anyway. … Hence, Petitioner has established that Respondent violated CC&R Section 4.2.7.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.7 / Design Guidelines”,
“topic_tags”: [
“landscaping”,
“architectural control”,
“violations”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge rule on Fair Housing Act discrimination claims?”,
“short_answer”: “No, that venue cannot address Fair Housing Act claims.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The Office of Administrative Hearings for the Department of Real Estate does not have jurisdiction to address claims regarding violations of the Fair Housing Act in these proceedings.”,
“alj_quote”: “In addition, Respondent’s claims regarding the Association violating the Fair Housing Act cannot be addressed in this venue.”,
“legal_basis”: “Jurisdiction limits”,
“topic_tags”: [
“jurisdiction”,
“discrimination”,
“Fair Housing Act”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the HOA fine me for ‘disrepair’ of paint if the paint is just old but not damaged?”,
“short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if evidence shows it is not in disrepair.”,
“detailed_answer”: “If witness testimony establishes that the paint is not actually in disrepair, fines based on that allegation may be waived, even if the homeowner needs to eventually repaint to meet new color schemes.”,
“alj_quote”: “Also, the evidence established from firsthand witnesses that Respondent’s paint was not in disrepair. Therefore, Respondent should be given the opportunity to move forward with the ARC approval for painting his home and any fines he received in regards to the paint be waived.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.7”,
“topic_tags”: [
“maintenance”,
“paint”,
“fines”
]
},
{
“question”: “Do I have to reimburse the HOA’s filing fees if I lose the hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, typically for the issues on which the HOA prevails.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ may order the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fees. In this case, the Respondent was ordered to pay fees proportional to the two issues the HOA won.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 in certified funds for the two issues.”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”,
“topic_tags”: [
“penalties”,
“fees”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does the HOA have to waive fines if a violation was not proven?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes.”,
“detailed_answer”: “If the HOA fails to prove a specific violation (e.g., that paint was in disrepair), the ALJ may order the Association to waive fines related to that specific issue.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner waive all fines issued to Respondent in regards to the paint issue.”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“penalties”
]
}
]
}
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Danny Ford (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Attorney for Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC. - Kevin Hufnagel (board member)
Tatum Highlands HOA Board
Testified as a witness for Petitioner; served on Board of Directors. - Brian Lumpkey (board member)
Tatum Highlands HOA Board
Board Vice President; testified as witness/representative for Petitioner. - Elizabeth Lindlam (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Appeared for observation only. - Pat Diaz (board member)
Tatum Highlands HOA Board
Current President, previously on ARC Board. - Leanne Dilberto (property manager)
Trestle Management
Observed violations during paint audit; referred to as Leanne Dilberto, Lean Zioto, and Leand Alberto in sources. - Caitlyn Flores (staff)
Trestle Management
Denied ARC application. - Karen Vanderos (staff)
Trestle Management
Trestle Management employee.
Respondent Side
- Matthew P. Petrovic (respondent)
Appeared on behalf of himself; also testified. - Tracy Kennedy (witness)
Listed as a potential witness for Respondent. - Todd Pearson (witness)
Listed as a potential witness for Respondent. - Thomas KTO (witness)
Listed as a potential witness for Respondent.
Neutral Parties
- Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Administrative Law Judge for the initial decision. - Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
ADRE - Mandy Neat (Deputy Commissioner)
ADRE - Nicole Robinson (ALJ)
Administrative Law Judge for the rehearing. - vnunez (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE. - djones (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE. - labril (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE. - lrecchia (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE. - gosborn (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE. - dmorehouse (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE.
