# Briefing Document: Petitioners vs. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association

## Executive Summary

This briefing document details the legal proceedings and administrative decisions regarding a series of consolidated cases brought before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The disputes involve several homeowners and living trusts (Petitioners), represented primarily by John Krahn and Michael Holland, against the Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent or TFE), represented by Board President Dwight Jolivette.

The litigation, overseen by Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) Adam D. Stone and Velva Moses-Thompson, encompassed six distinct petitions (Case Nos. 24F-H033-REL, 25F-H002-REL, 25F-H006-REL, 25F-H009-REL, 25F-H011-REL, and 25F-H020-REL). These petitions alleged various violations of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), Bylaws, and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) governing planned communities. 

Following hearings conducted between December 2024 and May 2025, the OAH issued a final decision on June 4, 2025 (later amended on June 5, 2025). The tribunal ruled in favor of the Petitioners in five out of the six matters, ordering TFE to comply with community documents and state statutes, and requiring the reimbursement of $3,500 in filing fees. While the tribunal found several violations, it consistently declined to award civil penalties, noting the Respondent’s efforts to remedy technical issues and ensure future compliance.

---

## Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

### 1. Septic System Assessment and Maintenance Responsibilities
The tribunal addressed two separate issues regarding septic systems under CC&R 4.32.

*   **Assessment of Undeveloped Lots (24F-H033-REL):** Petitioners argued that TFE improperly assessed empty or undeveloped lots for septic-related expenses. The ALJ ruled that according to CC&R 4.32, the obligation to install and subsequently maintain a sewage treatment system is tied to the construction of a "Dwelling Unit." Therefore, only lots with dwelling units are subject to these assessments. Dividing costs among empty lots was found to be a violation of the governing documents.
*   **Repair vs. Replacement (25F-H002-REL):** A dispute arose regarding a $75.00 reimbursement to a former Board member for a "P-Series Float." Petitioners contended this was a replacement part, which is the homeowner's financial responsibility, while TFE argued it was a repair covered by the Association. The ALJ concluded the float was a replacement part, making the reimbursement an improper use of Association funds.

### 2. Notice of Violation and Enforcement Procedures (25F-H006-REL)
Petitioners challenged a notice regarding tree trimming, alleging it failed to meet statutory requirements under A.R.S. § 33-1803.
*   **Statutory Compliance:** The tribunal found that although the notice was framed as a "Friendly Reminder," it lacked necessary guidance. Specifically, it did not identify the specific CC&R section allegedly violated or provide clear instructions on the extent of required trimming.
*   **Due Process:** The tribunal noted that Mr. Krahn requested an appeal on the violation, but the Board failed to schedule it.

### 3. Ballot Secrecy and Post-Election Storage (25F-H020-REL)
This matter centered on the anonymity of the voting process under Bylaw 3.9.
*   **Violation of Secret Ballot:** Petitioners alleged that TFE attached signature verification pages to ballots after elections, potentially allowing anyone reviewing records to identify how members voted.
*   **Ruling:** The ALJ ruled that while the Bylaws do not explicitly detail storage procedures, the requirement for a "secret written ballot" implies that anonymity must be maintained even after the count is complete.

### 4. Board Transparency and Open Meeting Requirements (25F-H009-REL)
Petitioners alleged TFE violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by deciding to invoke Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance coverage during a closed session rather than an open meeting.
*   **The Litigation Exception:** This was the only case where the Respondent prevailed. The ALJ determined that because there was pending litigation (a defamation suit filed by Mr. Krahn against the Board), the Board was within its rights to both discuss and decide on insurance invocation in a closed session. 
*   **Financial Impact:** Petitioners argued the insurance claim led to policy cancellation and increased costs, but the Respondent testified that the cancellation was due to the insurer withdrawing from the market, not the claim itself.

### 5. Access to Association Records (25F-H011-REL)
Petitioners sought copies of all violation notices sent to other homeowners regarding "aesthetics" and tree trimming, requesting that personally identifying information be redacted.
*   **Withholding of Records:** TFE withheld the documents based on legal advice, claiming they were part of ongoing litigation. 
*   **Ruling:** The ALJ found the records were wrongfully withheld. Because the notices were drafted and distributed by the Association’s manager prior to the litigation, they were not privileged and should have been produced within the statutory ten-business-day window.

---

## Case Outcomes and Financial Summary

| Case Number | Primary Issue | Ruling | Filing Fee Reimbursement |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **24F-H033-REL** | Septic assessments on empty lots | **Granted** (For Petitioner) | $1,000.00 |
| **25F-H002-REL** | Improper septic part reimbursement | **Granted** (For Petitioner) | $500.00 |
| **25F-H006-REL** | Improper notice of violation | **Granted** (For Petitioner) | $500.00 |
| **25F-H009-REL** | Open meeting violation (Insurance) | **Denied** (For Respondent) | $0.00 |
| **25F-H011-REL** | Failure to provide records | **Granted** (For Petitioner) | $500.00 |
| **25F-H020-REL** | Violation of ballot secrecy | **Granted** (For Petitioner) | $500.00 |
| **Total** | | | **$3,500.00** |

---

## Important Quotes

### Regarding Assessment Practices (24F-H033-REL)
> "To divide the costs amongst the empty lots would result in those property owners paying 'more' of share of the assessment while owners with only one lot would pay less of share... the CC&R is clear that only lots with dwelling units are required to share in the Assessments issued." (ALJ Decision, Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law)

### Regarding Notice Standards (25F-H006-REL)
> "The tribunal finds that although the notice was merely a 'Friendly Reminder' and not an actual fine notice... it still did not provide Mr. Krahn with guidance as to which section of the CC&R’s was violated." (ALJ Decision, Conclusions of Law)

### Regarding Ballot Storage (25F-H020-REL)
> "While it is true that the Bylaw does not reference storage following the election, it would necessarily follow that all ballots after counting, should be stored in a similar anonymous fashion." (ALJ Decision, Conclusions of Law)

### Regarding Record Disclosure (25F-H011-REL)
> "The tribunal finds that Respondent wrongfully withheld the notices requested, as they were not privileged in anyway. The tribunal disagrees with Mr. Jolivette’s interpretation of 'pending litigation' as defined in this statute." (ALJ Decision, Conclusions of Law)

---

## Actionable Insights

*   **Assessment Accuracy:** Homeowners associations must strictly adhere to the specific language of their CC&Rs when levying assessments. If the governing documents link maintenance costs to "Dwelling Units," undeveloped lots cannot be included in that specific financial pool.
*   **Enforcement Documentation:** Compliance notices—even informal "friendly reminders"—must cite the specific community document provision being violated. Failure to do so renders the enforcement action legally deficient under A.R.S. § 33-1803.
*   **Voter Anonymity Infrastructure:** To comply with "secret ballot" requirements, associations should implement storage policies that decouple identifying information (like signature pages) from the ballots themselves immediately after verification and before archiving.
*   **Transparency vs. Privilege:** While Boards may discuss and act on insurance and legal strategies in closed sessions during active litigation, they cannot use "pending litigation" as a blanket excuse to withhold general association records (such as violation notices) that were generated in the normal course of business.
*   **Financial Risk of Non-Compliance:** The consolidation of multiple single-issue petitions can lead to significant financial liability for an association. In this matter, the failure to address individual grievances resulted in a $3,500 reimbursement obligation to the Petitioners.