Briefing Document: Miera Phx LLC v. Dartmouth Trace Homeowners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Miera Phx LLC v. Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc. (No. 25F-H022-REL). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Homeowners Association (HOA) failed to enforce its governing documents, specifically the prohibition against short-term rentals (STRs) of less than 30 days.

The Petitioner, represented by homeowner Angel Miera, argued that the HOA’s inaction allowed STRs to proliferate, leading to safety concerns, nuisance issues, and a degradation of the community’s residential character. A central claim was that a conflict of interest existed, alleging the HOA Board President himself operated an STR. The Petitioner sought mandated enforcement, board reorganization, and financial compensation for HOA fees.

The Respondent HOA, represented by its management company and a board member, countered that enforcing the STR prohibition was practically impossible without “hard proof,” such as an exterior photo with a unit number, which is difficult to obtain. They cited financial constraints, other pressing maintenance priorities, and limitations imposed by state law on collecting fines as significant hurdles. The board also highlighted its own instability, with only two members remaining—both of whom were in the process of selling their properties—and a severe lack of community volunteers.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petition. The decision concluded that the Petitioner had not met the burden of proof. The ALJ reasoned that the underlying issue was a “homeowner versus homeowner argument,” as the HOA itself cannot violate the rental restrictions, only individual owners can. Furthermore, the governing statute is permissive, stating an association may impose penalties, not that it must. The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to order the reimbursement of HOA dues or to compel board stability.

Case Overview

Case Number

25F-H022-REL

Petitioner

Miera Phx LLC

Petitioner Representatives

Angel Miera (Manager), Bill Miera (Witness)

Respondent

Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.

Respondent Representatives

Gladis Hernandez (Community Manager, Ogden & Co.), Fernanda Lopez (Board VP)

Administrative Law Judge

Nicole Robinson

Hearing Date

February 19, 2025

ALJ Decision Date

March 27, 2025

Central Dispute: Failure to Enforce Short-Term Rental Prohibitions

The foundational issue of the case was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Dartmouth Trace HOA was in violation of its own governing documents by failing to enforce the prohibition on short-term rentals.

The primary governing rule cited is Section 17 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which states:

“No Owner shall permit his Unit to be used for transient or hotel purposes or shall enter into any Lease for less than the entire Unit or for a term of less than thirty (30) days.”

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA’s failure to act on violations of this rule undermined the community’s residential character, stability, and property values.

——————————————————————————–

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (Miera Phx LLC)

The Petitioner, Angel Miera, a resident of 11 years and an owner for three, built her case on several key arguments supported by extensive documentation submitted to the court.

Pervasive and Unenforced STR Activity

• Core Complaint: The community, located near the Chicago Cubs Spring Training facility, has been “overrun” with illegal STRs, transforming it into a “transient hotel.”

• Evidence Provided: Miera submitted numerous online listings from platforms like Airbnb and VRBO, dating from 2022 to the week before the hearing, which she alleged were units within Dartmouth Trace.

• Community Impact: The influx of transient guests has allegedly led to numerous disturbances, including noise complaints, police calls, and overuse of common amenities like the pool and parking. Miera noted her car had been dinged by vehicles in the adjacent STR unit’s parking space and that oversized vehicles often made it difficult for her to exit her own car.

• History of Complaints: Miera documented a three-year history of reporting suspected STRs to the HOA and its management company, Ogden & Company, Inc., which she claimed resulted in no meaningful enforcement action.

Conflict of Interest on the HOA Board

• Central Allegation: The failure to enforce the rules stems from a direct conflict of interest, as key board members have allegedly operated STRs themselves.

• Board President Rod Proce: Miera submitted a listing she claims was for Board President Rod Proce’s unit (Unit 29), which advertised it as a vacation rental. She also submitted his recent MLS listing for the sale of the unit, in which the description states, “This condo has been a great vacation rental.”

• Former Board Member: Allegations were also made against former board member Tiffany Barentine, who reportedly operated STRs and resigned from the board after Miera raised the issue.

Retaliation and Lack of Homeowner Engagement

• Perceived Retaliation: Miera testified that since she began raising the STR issue, her requests for essential landscaping maintenance for her unit have been ignored for three years, while common areas advertised in STR listings (e.g., the pool area) remain “impeccable.”

• Suppressed Engagement: The HOA moved from monthly meetings to a single annual meeting, which Miera argued made it “nearly impossible for homeowners to effectively raise concerns.” She also testified that her attempt to run for a board position was accepted and then blocked without explanation.

Requested Remedies

1. Mandated Enforcement: An order compelling the HOA to take “meaningful corrective action,” including issuing fines, notices, and liens against illegal STR owners.

2. Oversight and Transparency: Creation of a tracking system for STRs, installation of prohibitive signage, and mandatory disclosures to new buyers about STR restrictions.

3. Board Reorganization: The removal of the two current board members (Rod Proce and Fernanda Lopez) due to alleged mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and the fact that both had their units listed for sale.

4. Financial Compensation: Reimbursement for the $500 case filing fee and over $8,000 in HOA fees paid over the last three years, during which her safety and property concerns were allegedly ignored.

——————————————————————————–

Respondent’s Position and Rebuttal (Dartmouth Trace HOA)

The HOA and its representatives acknowledged the existence of STRs as a problem but argued that their ability to act was severely constrained by practical, legal, and financial limitations.

The Challenge of “Hard Proof”

• Enforcement Standard: Community Manager Gladis Hernandez stated that the HOA cannot issue fines without “hard proof” that would withstand a legal challenge. Based on legal advice, this means obtaining an online ad that includes an exterior photo showing the building and a specific unit number.

• Impracticality of Investigation: Hernandez argued it would be an improper use of association funds to book suspected STRs simply to obtain their addresses. She stated, “we don’t hunt them down.” The HOA does not have the resources or software to run license plates to identify owners.

• Action on Confirmed Units: Regarding Miera’s neighboring unit (Unit 26), Hernandez testified that upon confirmation, she contacted the owner. The owner asserted that her rental listing is for a 30-day minimum, which complies with the CC&Rs.

Resource and Legislative Constraints

• Volunteer Board: Board VP Fernanda Lopez emphasized that board members are unpaid volunteers. She herself joined the board as a “disgruntled resident” but was met with the reality of limited budgets and significant responsibilities. The board has only two members, both of whom are selling their units, and no other homeowners are willing to volunteer.

• Financial Priorities: The HOA faces significant expenses for larger projects like roofing ($35,000 for parking lot repairs) and rising water bills, leaving limited funds for other issues like comprehensive landscaping or legal battles over STRs.

• Limited Power of Fines: Hernandez testified that recent changes in state legislation prevent HOAs from pursuing foreclosure based on unpaid fines. This weakens the power of fines as a deterrent, as homeowners can choose to pay their assessments but ignore fines without severe consequence.

Response to Specific Allegations

• Board President’s Actions: Hernandez confirmed that Rod Proce admitted to a past STR listing from around 2022 but stated it was no longer active.

• Retaliation Claim: Lopez countered the landscaping claim by stating that Miera’s unit is in the same section as Rod Proce’s unit, and “he’s looking at bare dirt as well.” She asserted that she gave Miera’s unit “preferential treatment” with the new landscaping company to address her long-standing complaints.

——————————————————————————–

Key Testimonies

Angel Miera, Petitioner: “For the governing documents to have any real meaning, they must be enforced. This court has the authority to require the HOA to fulfill its obligations, and I ask that it does so today.”

Gladis Hernandez, Community Manager: “It is not proper to go spend association money to see if this unit… is being Airbnbed out to go and spend association money just to find out if it’s a unit within that community itself. … I believe that every homeowner that pays their assessments would also agree that it’s not proper use of funds.”

Fernanda Lopez, Board Vice President: “I highly recommend that you change your LLC to your name so that you can be part of that board and have those conversations and figure out solutions because it’s not just easy. You can complain every single day, but to find solutions is the difficult part.”

Bill Miera, Petitioner’s Witness, on the Board President’s attitude: “[He said] ‘well, you know, we don’t want to be the meanies and you know, give out violations.’ That was his response.”

——————————————————————————–

Final Judgment and Rationale

On March 27, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety.

Conclusions of Law

The ALJ’s decision was based on the following key legal conclusions:

1. Homeowner vs. Homeowner Dispute: The judge determined that the core issue was a dispute between homeowners, not a direct violation by the HOA itself. The decision states, “Ultimately, Petitioner’s underlying complaint is a homeowner versus homeowner argument and that type of complaint is not addressed in this forum.”

2. HOA Cannot Violate Occupancy Rules: The Association itself cannot violate the Use & Occupancy restrictions or the Bylaws cited by the Petitioner; only a homeowner can.

3. Enforcement is Permissive, Not Mandatory: The judge cited Arizona statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(11)), which states that an “Association MAY… impose reasonable monetary penalties.” The use of the word “may” makes the action discretionary, not mandatory. Therefore, the HOA’s failure to issue fines was not a violation of the law or its governing documents.

4. Lack of Jurisdiction for Requested Remedies: The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to order the reimbursement of HOA dues or to intervene in the internal stability of the HOA board.

Final Order

• The Petitioner’s petition was denied.

• The Respondent HOA was not ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.

• The decision noted that the Petitioner is not barred from seeking further legal recourse outside the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of Real Estate.