Case Summary
| Case ID | 25F-H057-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | — |
| Tribunal | Office of Administrative Hearings |
| Decision Date | 2025-11-24 |
| Administrative Law Judge | VMT |
| Outcome | — |
| Filing Fees Refunded | — |
| Civil Penalties | — |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | John R Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association | Counsel | — |
Alleged Violations
No violations listed
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
25F-H057-REL Decision – 1345301.pdf
25F-H057-REL Decision – 1348059.pdf
25F-H057-REL Decision – 1351266.pdf
25F-H057-REL Decision – 1354250.pdf
25F-H057-REL Decision – 1354340.pdf
25F-H057-REL Decision – 1364599.pdf
25F-H057-REL Decision – 1364611.pdf
25F-H057-REL Decision – 1372120.pdf
Briefing Document: Krahn Living Trust vs. Tonto Forest Estates HOA (Case No. 25F-H057-REL)
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and final decision in case number 25F-H057-REL, a dispute between the John R. Krahn Living Trust (Petitioner) and the Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was an allegation that the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by providing an improperly redacted version of the March 2025 check register in response to a formal records request.
The Petitioner argued that the redaction was unjustified, targeted, and part of a larger pattern of non-compliance and bad faith by the HOA’s board. The Respondent countered that mailing the redacted document was a clerical error and that it fulfilled its statutory duty by making the complete, unredacted check register available to all members on its online portal within the 10-day legal timeframe.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed the petition. The decision found that while the Respondent had mistakenly mailed a redacted document, the subsequent posting of the unredacted version on the community portal rendered the issue moot. The ALJ concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove the Respondent’s actions were purposeful, “personal,” or part of a negligent pattern of behavior.
Case Overview
Detail
Description
Case Number
25F-H057-REL
Petitioner
John R. Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust (represented by John Khran)
Respondent
Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (represented by President Dwight A. Jolivette)
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Core Statute
A.R.S. § 33-1805: Association financial and other records
Chronology of Key Events
• March 31, 2025: John Khran submits a written request to the HOA for the March 2025 check register and specific legal invoices from Maxwell & Morgan.
• c. April 10, 2025: The HOA responds via U.S. Mail, sending a packet that includes a partially redacted version of the March 2025 check register.
• April 14, 2025: The statutory 10-business-day deadline for the records request. The HOA asserts it uploaded the unredacted check register to its online portal on this date.
• April 14 – April 21, 2025: The ALJ’s final decision establishes that the unredacted check register was made available on the portal during this period.
• May 19, 2025: Mr. Khran files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
• September 17, 2025: The ALJ denies the Petitioner’s request for a subpoena requiring an in camera review, deeming it unnecessary.
• September 26, 2025: The ALJ denies the Petitioner’s motion to order an exchange of position statements but allows parties to file prehearing memorandums.
• October 22, 2025: The evidentiary hearing is held. Both John Khran and Dwight Jolivette provide sworn testimony.
• November 3, 2025: The official record for the hearing closes after a period allowing for the submission of post-hearing exhibits and responses.
• November 24, 2025: ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson issues the final decision, dismissing the petition.
Petitioner’s Position and Arguments
The Petitioner, represented by John Khran, contended that the HOA willfully withheld records and acted in bad faith, violating both the letter and spirit of state law.
Core Allegation: Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805
The central claim was that the HOA failed to make records “reasonably available” by providing a version of the March 2025 check register with a blacked-out line item. Khran argued this act constituted a direct violation of the statute.
Argument 1: Improper and Targeted Redaction
• The redacted information consisted of routine financial metadata: general ledger code (5703), budget category (“Legal General”), and an invoice number (53189).
• Khran demonstrated that this information was not privileged by showing it was unredacted on other parts of the same document, in the prior month’s (February 2025) check register, and on the legal invoice itself.
• He argued the redaction served no lawful purpose and was applied specifically to his request, as evidenced by the HOA later publishing the full, unredacted version to the community portal.
• Key Quote: “This kind of inconsistent, personal and excessive reaction is not only justified, his violate the RS 331805A and respond statutory duty to treat all members fairly.”
Argument 2: Pattern of Non-Compliance and Bad Faith
• Khran asserted this was the HOA’s third violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, citing cases 24F13 and 25FH11.
• He accused the board of adopting a “litigate every ing strategy,” escalating every complaint to the OAH rather than seeking resolution through mediation or negotiation, which he claimed caused “serious and lasting harm” to the 52-member community.
• He noted that the HOA ignored a subpoena’s explicit warning that “excessive or unjustified redactions” could be deemed bad faith.
Requested Relief
The Petitioner requested four specific orders from the court:
1. A finding that the Petitioner was the prevailing party.
2. Reimbursement of the $500 filing fee.
3. An order mandating the HOA’s future compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805.
4. Imposition of a symbolic $1 civil penalty to deter future non-compliance and prevent the board from claiming vindication.
Respondent’s Position and Arguments
The Respondent, represented by its President Dwight Jolivette, maintained that it had complied with its statutory obligations and that the incident was an unintentional error.
Core Defense: Compliance via Portal Publication
• The HOA’s primary defense was that the unredacted March 2025 check register was made available for review by all members on the community portal on April 14, 2025, within the 10-day statutory deadline.
• Jolivette argued this action satisfied the requirement to make records “reasonably available for examination.”
• Key Quote: “Our sole question today is whether or not the board provided the March 2025 check register as requested by the petitioner under ARS 331805 for review within the 10day time frame specified by the law. Our position is we did.”
Argument 1: Clerical Error and Miscommunication
• Jolivette testified that sending the redacted check register was not intentional but was “simply a mistake caused by miscommunication.”
• He explained that both redacted and unredacted versions were prepared, and a clerk mistakenly included the redacted version in the mail packet sent to Khran. The board was unaware of the error until the complaint was filed.
Argument 2: Lack of Malicious Intent
• Jolivette argued that since the HOA publishes the check register unredacted for the entire community every month, there was no logical reason to single out Khran’s request for redaction.
• Key Quote: “Why? Why would we suddenly want to redact this stuff? We’re hoping for a little common sense here today to go along with the law.”
Argument 3: Petitioner’s Failure to Mitigate
• The Respondent pointed out that Khran, a former board member familiar with the process, did not contact the board to report the error. Had he done so, Jolivette stated, the issue would have been corrected immediately without the need for a formal hearing.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s final decision focused on the material facts and the legal concept of mootness, ultimately dismissing the Petitioner’s case.
Summary of Findings
1. Request and Response: The Petitioner submitted a records request on March 31, 2025. On or about April 10, 2025, the Respondent mailed copies of the requested items but “mistakenly gave Petitioner a redacted 2025 check register.”
2. Portal Publication: The Respondent uploaded an unredacted March 2025 check register to its online portal, making it available to all members, sometime between April 14, 2025, and April 21, 2025.
3. Lack of Evidence for Intent: The ALJ found “insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent purposefully neglected to mail Khran an unredacted March 2025 check register or that the failure to include the correct check register…was ‘personal.'”
4. No Pattern of Negligence: The decision also stated there was “insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent had a negligent pattern of responding to records requests in error or untimely.”
Central Legal Conclusion: Mootness
The core of the legal decision rested on the issue being moot. The ALJ determined that because the unredacted document was made available on the online portal before the Petitioner filed the complaint, the underlying issue was resolved.
• Key Quote from Decision: “It is undisputed that the unredacted March 2025 check register was uploaded to Respondent’s online portal which is available to all members before the petition was filed… Even if the unredacted check register was made available on its website after the 10-day statutory period, the issue is now moot.”
Final Order
“IT IS ORDERED that John R Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust’s petition against Respondent Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association is dismissed.”
Study Guide: Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (No. 25F-H057-REL)
This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing regarding the records request dispute between the John R. Krahn Living Trust and the Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (HOA). It covers key legal concepts, procedural history, and the final judicial determination.
Section 1: Key Concepts and Case Overview
Case Summary
The central issue in case No. 25F-H057-REL was whether the Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by willfully withholding association records. The Petitioner, John Krahn, alleged that the HOA failed to provide an unredacted March 2025 check register within the legally mandated timeframe after a formal request.
The Parties
| Party | Role | Representation/Key Figure |
|---|---|---|
| John R. Krahn Living Trust | Petitioner | John Krahn (Trustee and former board member) |
| Tonto Forest Estates HOA | Respondent | Dwight A. Jolivette (President) |
| Office of Administrative Hearings | Tribunal | Velva Moses-Thompson (Administrative Law Judge) |
Legal Standards and Statutory Requirements
- A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): Requires that all financial and other association records be made "reasonably available" for examination by a member or their representative.
- Timeline: The association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
- Exemptions (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)): Associations may withhold records in specific categories, such as privileged legal communications, but redactions must not exceed the minimum necessary to protect that information.
- Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bears the burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence (showing the contention is "more probably true than not").
Section 2: Case Timeline (2025)
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 31 | John Krahn submits a written records request for the March 2025 check register and legal invoices. |
| April 10 | The HOA mails records to Krahn, but the check register contains redactions (blacked-out lines). |
| April 14 | The HOA's online portal is updated with the unredacted check register (the 10th business day). |
| May 19 | Krahn files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging a violation. |
| August 7 | Notice of Hearing is issued. |
| September 2 | ALJ grants a continuance, moving the hearing from Sept 8 to Oct 22. |
| September 17 | ALJ denies a subpoena request for in camera review of evidence, citing it as unnecessary. |
| September 26 | ALJ issues an "Order Nunc Pro Tunc" to correct a typographical error in a previous order. |
| October 22 | Formal evidentiary hearing is conducted. |
| November 24 | ALJ issues the Final Decision, dismissing the petition. |
Section 3: Short-Answer Practice Questions
- What specific document was at the heart of the dispute?
- Answer: The March 2025 check register, which was initially provided to the Petitioner in a redacted format via mail.
- How did the Respondent (HOA) explain the delivery of the redacted check register?
- Answer: The HOA President testified it was a "clerical error" or "dumb mistake." A clerk accidentally mailed a version intended for internal training/legal review instead of the unredacted version.
- According to A.R.S. § 33-1805, how many days does an association have to fulfill a records request?
- Answer: Ten business days.
- Why did the Petitioner argue that the redaction was targeted and improper?
- Answer: Krahn argued the redacted information (ledger codes and invoice numbers) was routine financial metadata, was disclosed unredacted in other parts of the same document, and had been published unredacted in previous months.
- What was the Petitioner’s requested "symbolic" remedy regarding the civil penalty?
- Answer: A civil penalty of $1 to deter future non-compliance.
- What was the ALJ’s primary reason for dismissing the petition?
- Answer: The ALJ found the issue "moot" because the unredacted record had been made available on the community portal before the petition was filed, and there was insufficient evidence of "willful" withholding or a negligent pattern.
Section 4: Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration
- The Definition of "Reasonably Available": In this case, the HOA provided a redacted hard copy but posted an unredacted version on a digital portal. Analyze whether posting a document to a member portal satisfies the statutory requirement to make records "reasonably available" to a specific requester, especially if the requester is not notified of the digital upload.
- Intent vs. Error in Administrative Law: The Respondent argued the violation was a "clerical error," while the Petitioner argued it was "willful" and "personal." Discuss the importance of proving "intent" or "bad faith" when seeking civil penalties in HOA disputes, citing the ALJ’s findings on the sufficiency of evidence.
- The Doctrine of Mootness: The ALJ dismissed the case because the unredacted documents were eventually made available on the portal. Explore the implications of the "mootness" doctrine in records disputes. Does the eventual provision of records excuse a failure to meet the initial 10-day statutory deadline?
Section 5: Glossary of Important Terms
- Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A judge who overrules proceedings in administrative agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings.
- In Camera Review: A private review of sensitive documents by a judge (in their chambers) to determine if the information should be disclosed to the other party or used in court.
- Moot: A legal term meaning that the matter has already been resolved or the circumstances have changed such that a judicial determination would have no practical effect.
- Nunc Pro Tunc: A Latin phrase meaning "now for then." In this case, it refers to an order issued to correct a clerical or typographical error in a previous ruling, treating the correction as if it had been made on the original date.
- Petitioner: The party who initiates the lawsuit or petition (in this case, the Krahn Living Trust).
- Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases; it means that the evidence shows that a fact is more likely than not to be true.
- Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, the Tonto Forest Estates HOA).
- Subpoena: A legal order requiring a person to appear in court or to produce specific documents.
- Willful Withholding: An intentional act of refusing to provide records, as opposed to an accidental or negligent omission.
The 10-Day Rule and the Portal Loophole: Lessons from a Recent Arizona HOA Transparency Dispute
The delicate friction between a homeowner’s statutory right to information and a board’s administrative execution remains a primary source of litigation in Arizona community associations. Under Arizona Revised Statute A.R.S. § 33-1805, homeowners are granted the right to inspect association records, and boards are mandated to make those records "reasonably available" within 10 business days. However, as the case of John R. Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust vs. Tonto Forest Estates HOA (No. 25F-H057-REL) demonstrates, the distinction between a "clerical error" and "willful withholding" is often determined by the presence of a digital portal, which can provide a decisive legal "out" for associations even when technical violations occur.
2. The Conflict: Redactions, Records, and Requests
The dispute in this Mesa, Arizona community was triggered on March 31, 2025, when Petitioner John Krahn submitted a formal records request. He sought the March 2025 check register and all legal invoices from the association's counsel, Maxwell & Morgan, dating back to December 2024.
The conflict intensified when the HOA mailed a physical packet containing a redacted version of the check register. The Petitioner’s strategy centered on the theory of selective targeting, arguing that the redactions—which obscured routine financial metadata such as General Ledger codes—were unnecessary and intended to obstruct transparency.
Case at a Glance Petitioner: John R. Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust Respondent: Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Mesa, Arizona) Statute in Question: A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Association financial and other records) Central Issue: Willful withholding of association records.
3. The Timeline of a Tipping Point
The legal determination rested on a narrow window of administrative activity in April 2025. The following timeline illustrates the sequence of events analyzed by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ):
- March 31, 2025: Petitioner submits the records request via email.
- April 10, 2025: The HOA mails a physical packet containing a redacted version of the March check register.
- April 14, 2025: The 10th business day deadline. The HOA’s management software generated a report which the Association claimed was synonymous with its upload to the community portal.
- April 21, 2025: The Petitioner acknowledges the presence of the unredacted version on the community portal.
- May 19, 2025: The Petitioner files a formal petition alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
A pivotal evidentiary moment occurred during the hearing when the Respondent introduced Exhibit A, an email from the former community manager dated October 22, 2025. This document served as the "smoking gun" for the defense, confirming that the unredacted register was uploaded to the portal on April 14, meeting the 10-day statutory requirement despite the errors in the physical mailing.
4. Inside the Hearing: Two Sides of a "Dumb Mistake"
During the hearing on October 22, 2025, the parties presented competing narratives regarding the Association's intent.
The Petitioner's Case
The Petitioner argued that the redactions served no lawful purpose under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B), noting that specific metadata, such as General Ledger code "5703 – Legal General," was left unredacted in other documents but obscured in the register sent to him. He alleged a "conscious disregard" for the tribunal’s authority, claiming the Association had simply "photocopied" excessive redactions from a prior subpoena response into the current request. Driven by principle, the Petitioner requested only a symbolic $1 civil penalty to underscore the need for accountability.
The Association's Defense
Dwight Jolivette, HOA President, characterized the mailing of redacted records as a "clerical error." He testified that the version sent to the Petitioner was actually a "training draft" intended for the Association’s attorney to review redaction standards, which was mailed by a clerk in error. The defense argued that because the unredacted version was accessible via the member portal by April 14, the Association had fulfilled its duty to make the records "reasonably available."
Competing Perspectives
| Petitioner’s Claim: Willful Withholding | Respondent’s Claim: Clerical Error |
|---|---|
| Redactions were targeted, inconsistent, and obscured non-privileged metadata like GL Code 5703. | Redactions were part of a "training draft" for counsel, sent accidentally by administrative staff. |
| The Association showed bad faith by photocopying old redactions despite subpoena warnings. | The Association acted in good faith by ensuring unredacted files were live on the portal. |
| Failure to notify the Petitioner of the portal upload constitutes withholding. | Digital availability on the portal satisfies the "reasonably available" statutory standard. |
5. The Verdict: Why the ALJ Dismissed the Case
On November 24, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson issued a decision dismissing the petition. The ruling was based on the "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard, finding the Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof.
The ALJ's dismissal focused on three legal pillars:
- Insufficient Evidence of Malice: The court found no proof that the HOA "purposefully neglected" the request or that the error was "personal" in nature.
- Lack of Pattern: There was no established history of the HOA consistently responding to records requests with negligent errors or delays.
- The "Mootness" Nuance: This was the critical legal takeaway. The ALJ ruled that because the unredacted records were available on the member portal before the Petitioner filed his complaint in May, the issue was moot. Crucially, the court found that even if a technical timing violation occurred, the availability of the records prior to the filing of a petition effectively cures the violation.
6. Conclusion: Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards
The Tonto Forest Estates decision offers essential guidance for navigating the administrative complexities of HOA governance.
- The "Portal Defense": This case establishes that digital availability can mitigate physical administrative errors. Boards should maintain a consistent "upload-first" policy for financial records to ensure they meet the "reasonably available" standard.
- The Burden of Proof: Proving "willful" withholding is an exceptionally high bar. Administrative judges are reluctant to penalize boards for "dumb mistakes" or "clerical errors" in the absence of a documented, malicious pattern.
- Communication First: A simple inquiry regarding the "clerical error" could have resolved the dispute. The ALJ’s findings suggest that homeowners should seek clarification or request a corrected copy before committing to the costs of a formal petition.
- The High Cost of Friction: The Petitioner noted that legal expenses for this 52-member community had exceeded $135,000 due to a "litigate everything" environment. Transparency is not only a statutory duty but a fiduciary necessity to protect the association's financial health.
Document Credits & Statutory Reference
- Primary Statute: Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805
- Case Reference: John R. Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust vs. Tonto Forest Estates HOA, Case No. 25F-H057-REL
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- John R. Krahn (Trustee)
John R. Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust
Testified on behalf of the petitioner; requested the records; former board member of the respondent HOA.
Respondent Side
- Dwight A. Jolivette (President)
Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
Testified on behalf of the respondent HOA.
Neutral Parties
- Velva Moses-Thompson (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presiding judge who issued the final administrative law judge decision. - Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed in the transmission logs for the tribunal's orders and decisions.