Rainey, Chad D. / HN&CR Living Trust Dated August 13, 2019

Posted on

Case Summary

Case ID26F-H114-REL
Agency—
Tribunal—
Decision Date2026-10-09
Administrative Law JudgeNicole Robinson
OutcomePetition Granted
Filing Fee Reimbursement—
Civil Penalties$0.00

Parties & Counsel

PetitionerChad D. RaineyCounsel—
RespondentThe Garden Lakes Community AssociationCounsel—

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Case Documents

26F-H114-REL Case document – 1442906.pdf

(57.1 KB)

26F-H114-REL Case document – 1445701.pdf

(48.0 KB)

26F-H114-REL Case document – 1445766.pdf

(45.5 KB)

26F-H114-REL Case document – 1447411.pdf

(57.2 KB)

26F-H114-REL Case document – 1447412.pdf

(7.9 KB)

26F-H114-REL Case document – 1461257.pdf

(45.8 KB)

26F-H114-REL Case document – 1478147.pdf

(155.4 KB)

26F-H114-REL Case document – 1481756.pdf

(43.4 KB)

Executive Briefing: OAH Administrative Proceeding (No. 26F-H114-REL) — Rainey v. The Garden Lakes Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the administrative proceedings, procedural rulings, witness testimony, legal arguments, and evidentiary findings in the matter of Chad D. Rainey / HN&CR Living Trust Dated August 13, 2019 (Petitioner) v. The Garden Lakes Community Association (Respondent), Docket No. 26F-H114-REL, before the State of Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

The dispute centers on allegations by Petitioner Chad Rainey that the Garden Lakes Community Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805(A) by failing to fulfill two formal written records requests—submitted on April 25, 2025, and October 30, 2025—within the statutory 10-business-day window. The requested records pertained to Homeowners Association (HOA) board member training sessions, including dates, providers, agendas, notes, emails, invoices, and certificates of completion.

Respondent contended that the requested documents either do not exist, constitute requests for unrecorded information rather than existing custodial records, fall under attorney-client privilege, or represent third-party educational events outside association custody. Additionally, Respondent raised procedural defenses regarding standing and statute of limitations.

Following procedural orders issued by Administrative Law Judges Tammy L. Eigenheer and Nicole Robinson, an evidentiary hearing convened on August 31, 2026, before ALJ Nicole Robinson. Testimony was taken from Petitioner Chad Rainey, CCMC Community Manager Stephanie Zia, and Association Vice President Wayne Hunt.

Case Overview & Key Administrative Filings

The table below summarizes the core administrative orders, notices, and procedural milestones established in the OAH record.

Filing DateDocument Type / ActionPresiding ALJSummary of Action / Content
July 7, 2026Order Setting HearingTammy L. EigenheerSet initial hearing for July 31, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. via Google Meet or in-person at OAH Phoenix. Established 7-day pre-hearing document submission rule.
July 10, 2026Subpoena IssuedN/ASubpoena issued on behalf of Petitioner Chad Rainey.
July 14, 2026Subpoena ObjectionN/ARespondent filed formal objection to the July 10 subpoena.
July 15, 2026Order Quashing SubpoenaNicole RobinsonTribunal officially quashed the subpoena issued July 10, 2026.
July 15, 2026Order Upholding Quash of SubpoenaNicole RobinsonDenied Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, upholding the quash. Noted Petitioner could renew requests at trial based on case development.
July 20, 2026Order Granting ContinuanceNicole RobinsonGranted Respondent's request to continue the hearing to August 31, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. via Google Meet.
August 26, 2026Minute EntryNicole RobinsonAcknowledged Respondent's notice of intent to appear in-person for the August 31, 2026 hearing.
August 31, 2026Evidentiary HearingNicole RobinsonFormal hearing convened. Testimony taken, exhibits admitted, oral closing arguments delivered. Decision pending (due within 20 days).

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Scope of the Records Dispute under A.R.S. § 33-1805

Petitioner filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which mandates that all financial and other records of a planned community association be made reasonably available for examination within 10 business days.

  • The Initial Request (April 25, 2025 – Exhibit A): Requested (1) dates current board members attended training, (2) the training provider company, (3) meeting agendas, and (4) certificates or documentation showing successful completion.
  • The Second Request (October 30, 2025 – Exhibit G): Circled back to the April request, narrowing the window to the preceding 36 months and asking for communications, notes, records, emails, provider names, invoices, agendas, and completion certificates regarding board member training.
  • ALJ Procedural Ruling on Scope: Respondent argued that the petition should be strictly limited to the April 25, 2025 request. ALJ Robinson overruled the objection, ruling that the October 30, 2025 request directly clarified and pointed back to the initial request under the same alleged statutory violation. Both requests (Exhibits A and G) were admitted and considered part of the single-issue proceeding.
2. Legal Defenses & Threshold Objections

Respondent's counsel (Lauren Elliott Stine, Esq. and Jack Contrera, Esq. of Quarles & Brady LLP) raised three primary defenses:

  • Lack of Standing: Respondent contended that the subject property is titled to the HN&CR Living Trust Dated August 13, 2019, with Heather Rainey listed as the trustor/owner under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 and CC&R definitions. Petitioner refuted this by presenting an admitted designation document (Exhibit 8_07-Heather Rainey designation), signed by Heather Rainey, designating Chad Rainey as her authorized representative for all non-voting association matters.
  • Statute of Limitations: Respondent posited that claims regarding the April 25, 2025 request were time-barred under A.R.S. § 12-541(5) (one-year limitation for actions created by statute), as the petition was filed on April 26, 2026. The ALJ noted procedural concerns regarding unbriefed threshold motions raised at hearing and permitted the hearing to move forward on the merits, while giving counsel latitude regarding briefing.
  • Attorney-Client Privilege: Respondent asserted that communications between property management and legal counsel, as well as substance discussed during internal board trainings conducted by association counsel, are protected under attorney-client privilege. ALJ Robinson sustained multiple privilege objections regarding direct communications between Manager Stephanie Zia and Attorney Curtis Eckmark.
3. Evidentiary Findings & Witness Testimony
Stephanie Zia (CCMC Community Manager)
  • Search Conducted: Upon receiving Rainey’s requests, Zia searched board meeting minutes dating back to 2017 (the limit of records stored on the association portal/website).
  • Findings in Minutes: Found references to board training in three specific meeting minutes:
  • July 16, 2020 (Exhibit B): Board set a training date for August 12, 2020.
  • May 20, 2021 (Exhibit C): Board scheduled training with the law firm Carpenter Hazelwood for June 7, 2021.
  • May 19, 2022 (Exhibit D): Board set training for June 28, 2022.
  • Non-Existence of Additional Documents: Zia testified under oath that no separate agendas, notes, invoices, or completion certificates exist for those three sessions. She confirmed she did not search individual email archives or personal calendars because no separate board training records existed outside the meeting minutes.
  • Third-Party Educational Events: Regarding a CCMC summer 2025 seminar (legislative and case law update presented by Attorney Curtis Eckmark), Zia clarified that this was a general CCMC-hosted seminar made available to all CCMC-managed community associations, not a Garden Lakes board training event or an association record.
Wayne Hunt (Vice President & Former Board President)
  • Nature of HOA Board Training: Hunt (a board member for 10–11 years) testified that "board training" at Garden Lakes typically involves general counsel advising board members on their statutory and fiduciary duties.
  • Absence of Secondary Documentation: Confirmed that board trainings do not generate completion certificates, formal agendas, written handouts, or separate records kept in the ordinary course of business.
  • Attendance at Third-Party Seminars: Confirmed attending the CCMC summer 2025 legislative update at CCMC’s office after receiving an email invitation sent directly to his personal email address. He confirmed the invitation was not an association record, was not forwarded to board files, and did not involve Garden Lakes-specific records.
Chad Rainey (Petitioner / Pro Se)
  • Main Contention: Argued that the association’s own meeting minutes prove board trainings occurred. He asserted that an adequate search would have yielded email invites, RSVPs, calendars, or presentation slides held either by the board or its management agent (CCMC).
  • Fulfillment Duty: Maintained that A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) requires actual fulfillment or formal notification of non-existence within 10 business days, rather than counsel asking clarifying questions or attempting to narrow the request.

Important Quotes with Context

The following quotes from the August 31, 2026 hearing record highlight crucial legal rulings, witness statements, and party positions:

1. On Administrative Jurisdiction and Post-Petition Evidence

Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson: "Anything that has to do with the June 2026 meeting is after your petition, and it's not relevant here today… Once again, I said it is not — I don't have jurisdiction over that time frame."

  • Context: ALJ Robinson ruling to strike and exclude Petitioner's attempts to introduce audio recordings and transcripts from a June 18, 2026 board meeting held after the petition was filed.
2. On the Definition and Reality of HOA Board Training

Wayne Hunt (Vice President, Garden Lakes): "Board training is typically we have our attorney, our general counsel come in and describe to the board what the duties of a board member are… No, it is not [mandatory]."

  • Context: Testimony explaining the informal and advisory nature of board sessions conducted by legal counsel, addressing why completion certificates or formal educational records do not exist.
3. On Custodial Records and Non-Existence of Agendas/Certificates

Stephanie Zia (CCMC Community Manager): "I checked our meeting minutes which would reference the dates and times. So, I checked the meeting minutes. Um, so I did do a search and located what he had and that was the extent… as there was no agendas or anything else."

  • Context: Manager Zia explaining her document search upon receiving Petitioner's October 30, 2025 request and testifying that no standalone agendas or completion certificates exist.
4. On Legal Counsel's Intermediary Role and Response

Chad Rainey (Petitioner): "They have 10 days to fulfill the request, not ask questions… Well, it's past the 10 days, so really too late to have a conversation about this."

  • Context: Petitioner Rainey recounting his email exchange with Association General Counsel Curtis Eckmark on November 14, 2025 (Exhibit H), where Eckmark asked for specific details to locate files, and Rainey terminated discussions due to the expiration of the 10-day statutory window.
5. On the Third-Party Nature of Management Seminars

Lauren Elliott Stine, Esq. (Respondent's Counsel): "The 2025 CCMC legislative update, that's not a board training. That's not specific to Garden Lakes. That's something that's put on by CCMC for all of its associations… that's not a board record."

  • Context: Closing argument emphasizing that general management company legal seminars are not official association records under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Actionable Insights & Strategic Implications

Based on the evidence, witness testimonies, and administrative rulings in Docket No. 26F-H114-REL, the following operational and legal takeaways apply to HOA record governance and administrative litigation:

1. Distinguish Requests for Information vs. Requests for Records
  • Analysis: A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) obligates associations to provide access to existing custodial records. It does not require associations or management companies to compile answers, generate non-existent summaries, or answer interrogatory-style inquiries (e.g., listing dates or provider names where no record exists).
  • Actionable Insight: When responding to statutory requests, community managers should explicitly differentiate between providing existing documents (e.g., meeting minutes) and disclaiming obligations to create new documentation or provide non-recorded information.
2. Formalize Written Written Responses within the Statutory 10-Day Window
  • Analysis: A primary driver of this petition was the lack of a direct, formal written response from management within 10 business days explicitly stating that no separate agendas, invoices, or certificates existed.
  • Actionable Insight: If a search reveals that requested documents do not exist or are protected by attorney-client privilege, management or legal counsel must issue a formal written notice to the requesting owner within the 10-business-day window stating the exact disposition (e.g., "No responsive records exist outside public meeting minutes" or identifying specific statutory exemptions).
3. Establish Clear Boundaries for Third-Party & Educational Events
  • Analysis: Confusion arose because board members attended a summer 2025 legislative update hosted by CCMC. Because invitations were emailed directly to personal email accounts by a third-party management firm, Petitioner argued they constituted association records.
  • Actionable Insight: Management companies should clearly label external multi-client educational seminars as "Third-Party Educational Events Hosted by CCMC" rather than board-specific trainings, preventing mischaracterization as association-specific business records.
4. Record Maintenance and Portal Archives
  • Analysis: CCMC maintained web portal access to meeting minutes dating back to 2017. Witnesses established under oath that meeting minutes represent the sole official record of scheduled board training dates.
  • Actionable Insight: Associations should maintain a standardized digital archive of all approved meeting minutes and ensure public portal access is continuously updated, as publicly accessible portal documents fulfill statutory disclosure requirements under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Study Guide: Administrative Law Hearing and Records Request Dispute (Rainey v. The Garden Lakes Community Association)

1. Executive Summary & Case Overview

This study guide provides an exhaustive review of the administrative law matter Chad D. Rainey / HN&CR Living Trust Dated August 13, 2019 v. The Garden Lakes Community Association (Docket No. 26F-H114-REL), adjudicated before the State of Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

The dispute centers on allegations by Petitioner Chad D. Rainey that The Garden Lakes Community Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805(A) by failing to fulfill statutory requests for association records pertaining to board member training sessions within the mandatory 10-business-day response window.

“ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | CASE IDENTIFICATION MATRIX | +--------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Tribunal | Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), Phoenix, Arizona | | Docket Number | No. 26F-H114-REL | | Petitioner | Chad D. Rainey / HN&CR Living Trust Dated August 13, 2019 | | Respondent | The Garden Lakes Community Association | | State Oversight Agency | Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) (Commissioner Susan Nicolson) | | Presiding Judges | Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer (Initial Scheduling Order) | | | Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson (Subpoena Rulings, Hearing ALJ) | | Governing Statute | A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Planned Community Records Disclosure) | | Management Entity | Capital Consultant Management Company (CCMC) (Prior: AAM) | +--------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ “

2. Key Concepts & Legal Framework

A. Statutory Duty of Disclosure (A.R.S. § 33-1805)
  • 10-Business-Day Rule: Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), planned community associations are required to make all financial and other records reasonably available for examination within 10 business days after receipt of a written request.
  • Scope of Records: The statute encompasses "all financial and other records of the association" and records kept on or on behalf of the association and the board of directors.
  • Exceptions to Disclosure: A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) provides specific statutory exemptions where records may be withheld from disclosure (e.g., attorney-client privileged communications, pending litigation, executive session matters).
B. Procedural Motions and Orders
  1. Subpoena Quashing and Reconsideration:
  • On July 10, 2026, the Tribunal issued a subpoena at Petitioner Rainey's request.
  • On July 14, 2026, Respondent objected to the subpoena.
  • On July 15, 2026, ALJ Nicole Robinson issued an Order Quashing the Subpoena.
  • Shortly after, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Order Quashing Subpoenas. On the same day (July 15, 2026), ALJ Robinson issued an Order Upholding the Quash of the Subpoena, preserving Petitioner's right to renew requests during the hearing based on case development.
  1. Continuance Rulings:
  • The hearing was originally scheduled by ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer for July 31, 2026, at 3:00 p.m.
  • Upon Respondent's request and good cause appearing, ALJ Nicole Robinson granted a continuance via Orders issued July 20, 2026, rescheduling the hearing to August 31, 2026, at 1:00 PM.
  1. Standing Objections:
  • Respondent's counsel argued that Petitioner Chad D. Rainey lacked standing under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 because fee simple title to the property was held by the HN&CR Living Trust, with Heather N. Rainey designated as the trustor/owner.
  • Petitioner countered by submitting an official document (Heather Rainey Designation Form, referenced as 8_07-Heather Rainey designation), establishing Chad Rainey as her authorized designated representative for all non-voting association matters pursuant to community CC&Rs.
C. Analysis of Document Requests at Issue
  • Request #1 (Submitted April 25, 2025):
  • Requested training dates for current board members, the names of training provider companies, preparatory agendas, and certificates/documentation showing successful completion.
  • Request #2 (Submitted October 30, 2025):
  • Referenced circling back to unanswered requests. Explicitly scoped to the preceding 36 months, seeking all communications, notes, records, emails, provider names, invoices, agendas, and certificates regarding board member training.
  • Respondent's Defenses:
  1. Non-Existence of Documents: Respondent contended that beyond public board meeting minutes (which noted past training dates for 2020, 2021, and 2022), no separate agendas, certificates, invoices, or instructional materials exist.
  2. Attorney-Client Privilege: Discussions held during board trainings with association legal counsel (e.g., Carpenter Hazelwood, Ekmark) are protected by attorney-client privilege.
  3. Third-Party Events: A Summer 2025 "Legislative and Case Law Update" presented by attorney Curtis Ekmark at CCMC's office was a broad third-party vendor seminar for all CCMC-managed HOAs, not an official, exclusive Garden Lakes board training session or association record.

3. Timeline of Key Events

“ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | CHRONOLOGICAL CASE TIMELINE | +--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Date | Event Description | +--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | July 16, 2020 | Board meeting minutes record board setting training date for August 12, 2020.| | May 20, 2021 | Board meeting minutes record board training with Carpenter Hazelwood on June 7| | May 19, 2022 | Board meeting minutes record board setting training date for June 28, 2022. | | April 25, 2025 | Petitioner submits Request #1 for board member training records. | | Summer 2025 | Attorney Curtis Ekmark presents legislative update seminar at CCMC office. | | October 30, 2025 | Petitioner submits Request #2 for board training records over past 36 months. | | November 14, 2025 | Attorney Curtis Ekmark emails Rainey seeking clarification/dates; Rainey | | | replies that the 10-business-day window has already expired. | | April 26, 2026 | Rainey files formal OAH Petition (Docket No. 26F-H114-REL). | | July 7, 2026 | ALJ Eigenheer issues Order setting hearing for July 31, 2026. | | July 10, 2026 | Subpoena issued on behalf of Petitioner. | | July 14, 2026 | Respondent objects to subpoena. | | July 15, 2026 | ALJ Robinson quashes subpoena; Rainey files Motion for Reconsideration; ALJ | | | Robinson issues Order Upholding Quash of Subpoena. | | July 20, 2026 | ALJ Robinson issues Order Granting Continuance to August 31, 2026, at 1:00 PM. | | August 26, 2026 | ALJ Robinson issues Minute Entry noting Respondent's intent to appear in-person| | August 31, 2026 | Formal Administrative Hearing conducted via Google Meet and in-person. | +--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ “

4. Key Entities & Witness Roster

  • Chad D. Rainey: Petitioner appearing pro se; trustee and designated representative for property held under the HN&CR Living Trust Dated August 13, 2019. Part-time resident (snowbird) living primarily in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
  • Heather N. Rainey: Trustor/Owner of the property within Garden Lakes; spouse of Chad Rainey.
  • Stephanie Ziola (spelled S-T-E-C-H-A-N-I-E Z-I-O-L-A in transcript): Community Manager for CCMC managing Garden Lakes since March 2024 (previously with CCMC for 6 years, left in 2022–2023 to work for AAM, returned in 2024). Testified regarding record searches and portal availability.
  • Wayne Hunt: Resident of Garden Lakes since 1993; Board of Directors member for 10–11 years; Vice President and Chair of Landscape & Lakes Committee; former Board President during 2020–2022.
  • Lauren Elliott Stine, Esq. & Jack Contrera, Esq. (Quarles & Brady LLP): Legal counsel representing Respondent, The Garden Lakes Community Association.
  • Curtis Ekmark (or Eckmark / Ekmark): General legal counsel for The Garden Lakes Community Association who corresponded with Rainey in November 2025 regarding the scope of his requests.

5. Short-Answer Practice Quiz

Questions
  1. What specific Arizona statute is alleged to have been violated in Docket No. 26F-H114-REL?
  2. What is the statutory deadline specified under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) for an association to make records available following a written request?
  3. What specific documentation did Petitioner seek in his initial request dated April 25, 2025 (Request #1)?
  4. Who was the presider over the August 31, 2026 hearing, and what administrative office does she represent?
  5. How did Respondent's legal counsel frame the standing objection regarding Chad D. Rainey?
  6. What evidence did Petitioner introduce to counter Respondent's standing objection?
  7. What legal law firm was explicitly named in the May 20, 2021 board meeting minutes as conducting a board training session?
  8. **What was the outcome of Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Quashing Subpoenas issued on July 15, 2026?**
  9. Explain the distinction made by Stephanie Ziola and Wayne Hunt regarding the Summer 2025 CCMC seminar versus official board training.
  10. According to Stephanie Ziola’s testimony, how far back do accessible meeting minutes extend on the community website portal?
  11. Why did Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson refuse to admit evidence or transcript excerpts regarding the June 18, 2026 board meeting?
  12. What rule did ALJ Robinson establish regarding the 20-day timeframe for issuing a final decision following the conclusion of the hearing?
Answer Key
  1. A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which governs member rights to inspect and audit planned community association records.
  2. Ten (10) business days after receipt of a formal written request.
  3. Dates of board member training attendance, names of provider companies, agendas for training sessions, and certificates or other documentation showing successful completion of training for each current board member.
  4. Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
  5. Respondent argued that under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 and CC&R definitions, legal title to the property is vested in the HN&CR Living Trust whose trustor is Heather N. Rainey, making her the sole legal "owner" rather than Chad D. Rainey.
  6. A executed designation document (8_07-Heather Rainey designation), wherein Heather N. Rainey formally designated Chad D. Rainey as her authorized representative for all non-voting association matters pursuant to CC&Rs Section 6.7 and Article 1 Section DD.
  7. Carpenter Hazelwood.
  8. ALJ Nicole Robinson issued an Order Upholding the Quash of the Subpoena, affirming the July 15, 2026 order quashing the subpoena issued July 10, 2026 (noting Rainey could renew requests at the hearing depending on case development).
  9. They testified that the Summer 2025 event was an informational legislative/case law update hosted by CCMC for all community associations it manages, not an exclusive, official board training session organized for or by The Garden Lakes Community Association board.
  10. To 2017.
  11. ALJ Robinson ruled that events occurring in June 2026 occurred after the filing of the petition on April 26, 2026, placing them outside the tribunal's jurisdiction for this proceeding and rendering them irrelevant to the alleged pre-petition statutory violations.
  12. Under governing administrative procedure, the ALJ must issue a final decision within 20 days after the conclusion of the hearing.

6. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

Prompt 1: Intersection of Statutory Disclosure Mandates and Non-Existent Records

Analyze the legal obligations of a planned community association under A.R.S. § 33-1805 when a member requests documentation (such as training certificates or preparatory agendas) that the association asserts was never created or maintained. In your response, evaluate:

  • The distinction between requesting existing custodial records versus demanding the creation of information.
  • How an association must demonstrate that a thorough, good-faith search was conducted across management files, online portals, and legal communications.
  • The legal effect of providing public meeting minutes that reference an event when no underlying administrative documentation exists.
Prompt 2: Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege in Administrative HOA Disputes

Examine the boundary between statutory record disclosure rights and attorney-client privilege during board member education sessions. Synthesize the hearing testimony of Wayne Hunt and Stephanie Ziola regarding legal advice provided by law firms (e.g., Carpenter Hazelwood, Curtis Ekmark) to board members.

  • Under what circumstances do legal training materials, handouts, or communications become privileged legal advice rather than disclosable association records?
  • Does attendance at a multi-association seminar hosted by a third-party management company (CCMC) waive attorney-client privilege? Explain based on the record.
Prompt 3: Procedural Standing and Representation in Administrative Tribunals

Discuss the procedural requirements governing standing in Arizona Department of Real Estate/OAH dispute resolution proceedings involving real estate held in trust. Evaluate the arguments presented by Respondent regarding fee simple title under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 versus Petitioner’s reliance on explicit spousal designation forms under community CC&Rs. Assess how administrative law judges balance strict statutory definitions of "owner" against practical representative designations.

7. Comprehensive Glossary

“ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | GLOSSARY OF TERMS | +-------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Term | Definition & Context | +-------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) | The Arizona statute requiring planned communities to make financial | | | and administrative records reasonably available within 10 business days | | | of receiving a written request. | | | | | A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 | The Arizona statute governing the jurisdiction of administrative | | | hearing tribunals over disputes between property owners and HOAs. | | | | | Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)| An independent, neutral adjudicator presiding over contested state | | | regulatory matters within the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). | | | | | Burden of Proof | The legal obligation of a party to establish a fact or allegation by a | | | specified standard. In this proceeding, the burden lies on Petitioner | | | by a preponderance of the evidence. | | | | | CCMC | Capital Consultant Management Company; the property management firm | | | hired by Garden Lakes to manage day-to-day association operations. | | | | | Continuance | A formal order postponing a scheduled legal proceeding to a later date. | | | Granted on July 20, 2026, moving the hearing to August 31, 2026. | | | | | Designated Representative | An individual formally authorized in writing by a property owner to | | | act on their behalf regarding non-voting association matters. | | | | | Google Meet | The digital video-conferencing platform utilized by OAH for remote and | | | hybrid administrative hearings. | | | | | Minute Entry | An official written record or notice made by the tribunal summarizing a | | | procedural update (e.g., acknowledging Respondent's intent to appear | | | in-person on August 26, 2026). | | | | | Order Quashing Subpoena | A judicial ruling invalidating a previously issued subpoena, determined | | | by ALJ Robinson on July 15, 2026, and upheld upon reconsideration. | | | | | Preponderance of Evidence | The evidentiary standard in civil administrative hearings requiring that | | | a claim be proven more likely true than not. | | | | | Statutory Limitation Period | The legal timeframe within which a cause of action must be filed | | | (raised by Respondent under A.R.S. § 12-541(5) asserting a 1-year limit). | +-------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ “

Behind the Scenes at the Office of Administrative Hearings: Lessons from a Dispute Over HOA Board Training Records

1. Introduction: A Deep Dive into HOA Transparency & Document Requests

Disputes over access to community records remain one of the most volatile friction points in modern homeowners association (HOA) governance. Under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805(A), planned community associations are statutorily obligated to make all financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member or their designated representative within 10 business days of receiving a written request. However, administrative tribunals are routinely called upon to resolve a complex operational tension: What occurs when a homeowner submits a statutory request for records that an association contends were never created or retained in the ordinary course of business?

This pivotal question was tested before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in Chad D. Rainey / HN&CR Living Trust Dated August 13, 2019 v. The Garden Lakes Community Association (Docket No. 26F-H114-REL). Petitioner Chad D. Rainey filed a formal administrative petition alleging that Garden Lakes violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to produce comprehensive documentation—including agendas, internal notes, supporting emails, invoices, and completion certificates—related to board member training sessions. The Association maintained that while board training sessions were referenced in official, publicly accessible meeting minutes, no separate standalone documentation, invoices, or certificates were ever generated or retained by the association or its management company.

The administrative proceeding brought together key participants from across Arizona's legal and property management sectors:

  • Administrative Law Judges: ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer (who issued the initial scheduling order) and ALJ Nicole Robinson (who presided over pre-hearing evidentiary motions, subpoena quashal orders, and the full administrative hearing).
  • Petitioner: Chad D. Rainey, appearing pro se on behalf of himself and the HN&CR Living Trust Dated August 13, 2019.
  • Respondent: The Garden Lakes Community Association, represented by legal counsel Lauren Elliott Stine, Esq., and Jack Contrera, Esq., of Quarles & Brady LLP, alongside general counsel Curtis Ekmark.
  • Witnesses: Stephanie Ziola (Community Manager with Capital Consultants Management Company / CCMC) and Wayne Hunt (Board Vice President and former President of Garden Lakes).

2. The Procedural Timeline: From Records Request to Virtual Hearing Room

The legal dispute traversed a detailed administrative trajectory marked by statutory inspection demands, discovery motions, subpoena challenges, and scheduling continuances before proceeding to a full evidentiary hearing before the tribunal.

DateProcedural Action / DocumentKey Detail / Ruling
April 25, 2025Initial Written Records RequestPetitioner submits initial written request under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) for board member training dates, providers, agendas, and completion certificates/documentation.
October 30, 2025Second Written Records RequestPetitioner submits an expanded request covering the preceding 36 months for communications, notes, records, emails, invoices, agendas, and certificates concerning board member training.
July 7, 2026OAH Hearing OrderALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer issues initial Order scheduling the administrative hearing for July 31, 2026, via Google Meet.
July 10, 2026Subpoena IssuedOAH issues a subpoena on behalf of Petitioner targeting witness testimony and associated records.
July 15, 2026Orders Quashing SubpoenaALJ Nicole Robinson issues an Order Quashing the Subpoena following Respondent's objection, and subsequently issues an Order Upholding the Quash after Petitioner files a Motion for Reconsideration.
July 20, 2026Order Granting ContinuanceALJ Robinson grants Respondent's continuance request, rescheduling the Google Meet virtual hearing to August 31, 2026, at 1:00 PM.
August 26, 2026OAH Minute EntryALJ Robinson issues a Minute Entry acknowledging Respondent’s formal notice of intent to appear in-person at 1740 W. Adams Street, Phoenix, AZ.
August 31, 2026Evidentiary Hearing ConvenedFull administrative hearing conducted digitally (via Google Meet) and in-person before ALJ Robinson.

3. Inside the Hearing: Key Arguments & Testimony Breakdown

At the outset of the August 31, 2026 proceeding, ALJ Nicole Robinson addressed critical threshold procedural matters regarding the scope of the administrative petition. Respondent counsel Lauren Elliott Stine objected to the inclusion of Petitioner's Exhibit G (the October 30, 2025 request), arguing that it represented a separate and impermissibly expanded claim beyond the initial April 25, 2025 request. Overruling Respondent’s objection, ALJ Robinson ruled that the October 30 request was an explicit continuation and clarification pointing back to the initial request, consolidating both filings under a single statutory issue under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

3.1 Petitioner’s Argument (Chad D. Rainey)

Chad D. Rainey contended that Garden Lakes committed a statutory violation by failing to fulfill his written document requests within the mandatory 10-business-day window mandated by A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). To prove that board training had taken place, Rainey entered into evidence approved association meeting minutes from July 16, 2020, May 20, 2021, and May 19, 2022. The May 20, 2021 minutes explicitly referenced an upcoming board training session with legal counsel Carpenter Hazelwood. Additionally, Rainey highlighted a November 14, 2025 email exchange with HOA counsel Curtis Ekmark, which acknowledged that several Garden Lakes board members had attended a Summer 2025 legislative and case law update session hosted at CCMC's corporate offices.

Rainey argued that because official minutes and legal correspondence confirmed these training events occurred, responsive non-privileged association records—such as preparatory agendas, emails, attendance rosters, seminar slides, or vendor invoices—must exist. He asserted that the management company's failure to furnish these records, combined with an inadequate electronic search across management servers, constituted an improper withholding of association documents under the statute.

3.2 Management & Board Testimony (Stephanie Ziola & Wayne Hunt)
  • Stephanie Ziola (CCMC Community Manager):

Ziola testified regarding CCMC's role as the custodial manager of association records. Upon receiving record requests, Ziola searched official meeting minutes back to 2017—the maximum archive depth available on the homeowner portal. She confirmed that while approved minutes referenced scheduled board training dates, CCMC possessed no standalone agendas, completion certificates, invoices, or separate instructional files for the 2020, 2021, or 2022 sessions. Under cross-examination by Rainey, Ziola made key admissions regarding CCMC's search protocol: she acknowledged that she did not perform any electronic keyword searches across CCMC’s email servers or inbox calendars when processing the October 30, 2025 request. Instead, after verifying the portal meeting minutes, she delegated the formal handling and statutory response entirely to HOA legal counsel Curtis Ekmark.

  • Wayne Hunt (Board Vice President):

Hunt testified regarding the actual nature of association board training. He explained that internal Garden Lakes training sessions consisted of closed legal consultations where general counsel instructed board members on fiduciary obligations, statutory duties, and governance rules. Hunt testified that no separate agendas, vendor invoices, or completion certificates were ever generated or received for these internal legal updates. Addressing the Summer 2025 event referenced in counsel’s email, Hunt clarified that he personally attended this session in person at CCMC's corporate offices alongside approximately 25 to 30 board members representing various HOAs across the region. He confirmed that this was a multi-association seminar hosted generally by CCMC rather than an exclusive, association-specific Garden Lakes board training session, and that no individual board member retained association business records from the event.

3.3 Procedural & Legal Objections

Throughout the proceeding, legal counsel for the Association raised key threshold defenses and evidentiary objections, while the tribunal managed pro se hearing boundaries:

  • Standing & Homeowner Designation: Respondent argued that legal title to the property was held by the HN&CR Living Trust Dated August 13, 2019, with Heather Rainey designated as trustor/owner, questioning Chad Rainey’s independent standing under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01. Rainey successfully countered this challenge by relying on the formal instrument titled 8_07-Heather Rainey designation executed pursuant to Article 1, Section DD and Section 6.7 of the Garden Lakes CC&Rs. This document formally designated Rainey as the authorized homeowner representative for non-voting association matters, bringing his inspection demand squarely within A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
  • Statute of Limitations Defense: Respondent argued that claims arising from the April 25, 2025 request were time-barred under A.R.S. § 12-541(5)—which imposes a one-year statute of limitations on actions created by statute—because the petition was filed over one year after the initial request.
  • Attorney-Client Privilege: Respondent asserted strict attorney-client privilege over communications, legal advice, and operational discussions exchanged between board members and association counsel during board updates, objecting to cross-examination inquiries seeking the substance of legal consultations.
  • Pro Se Hearing Dynamics & Evidentiary Boundaries: ALJ Robinson repeatedly instructed the parties on trial management and administrative tribunal jurisdiction. When Rainey sought to introduce post-petition evidence—specifically an transcript excerpt and audio file from a June 18, 2026 board meeting—ALJ Robinson sustained Respondent's objection and struck the evidence, ruling that events occurring after the filing of the petition fell outside the tribunal’s evidentiary jurisdiction.

4. Crucial Takeaways for Homeowners and HOA Boards

The administrative proceedings in Rainey v. The Garden Lakes Community Association provide essential legal clarity for property managers, HOA boards, and community members navigating statutory document disclosures:

  1. Document Requests vs. Information Requests
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) grants members the legal right to inspect and copy existing association business records. It does not impose an affirmative duty on HOAs or management companies to create new documents, draft written responses, compile customized data summaries, or answer interrogatory-style questions regarding dates, vendor identities, or historical facts not embodied in existing records.
  1. The Non-Existence of Records as a Complete Defense
  • An association cannot be adjudicated in statutory violation of disclosure laws for failing to produce records—such as standalone agendas, certificates, or invoices—that were never created, generated, or retained in the ordinary course of business operations.
  1. Publicly Accessible Minutes Fulfill Statutory Transparency
  • Posting approved board meeting minutes on a community web portal satisfies statutory disclosure obligations regarding board governance activities noted within those minutes. When meeting minutes reflect that a legal update occurred, the minutes themselves constitute the official association record of that event.
  1. Multi-HOA Seminars vs. Privileged Legal Consultations
  • Administrative transparency requirements distinguish between third-party educational events and internal legal advice. Broad, management-sponsored seminars (such as CCMC multi-HOA legislative updates attended by directors from numerous communities) are general instructional events that do not yield association-specific business records. Conversely, internal board consultations with association legal counsel constitute executive-level legal advice protected by attorney-client privilege, meaning underlying legal materials cannot be compelled through standard statutory record inspection demands.

5. Conclusion & Summary

The administrative decision-making process in Rainey v. The Garden Lakes Community Association illustrates the boundary separating a homeowner's statutory inspection rights from the legal realities of document creation and custodial retention limits. While A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) provides robust mechanisms for community oversight, administrative tribunals strictly constrain inspection mandates to existing association business records. Where an HOA's official meeting minutes document board legal updates, but secondary materials like certificates or invoices were never generated, the association satisfies its statutory obligations by providing access to the meeting minutes. Both community members and HOA boards benefit when management protocols establish clear, early communication regarding which records physically exist versus requests that seek non-existent or privileged documentation.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Chad Rainey (Petitioner / Designated Representative)
    HN&CR Living Trust
    Homeowner and authorized designated representative for HN&CR Living Trust.
  • Heather Rainey (Trustee / Trustmaker)
    HN&CR Living Trust
    Trustee and trustmaker of the HN&CR Living Trust Dated August 13, 2019.

Respondent Side

  • Lauren Elliott Stine (Attorney for Respondent)
    Quarles & Brady LLP
    Counsel representing The Garden Lakes Community Association.
  • Jack Contrera (Attorney for Respondent)
    Quarles & Brady LLP
    Counsel representing The Garden Lakes Community Association.
  • Stephanie Villa (Community Manager / Witness)
    Capital Consultant Management Company
    Association Community Manager employed by CCMC; witness for Respondent.
  • Wayne Hunt (Board Vice President / Witness)
    The Garden Lakes Community Association
    Board Member and Vice President of The Garden Lakes Community Association; witness for Respondent.
  • Curtis Ekmark (Attorney / Legal Counsel)
    Legal counsel for CCMC / Association who responded to records requests.
  • Mike Dropic (Board Member)
    The Garden Lakes Community Association
    Board member of The Garden Lakes Community Association.
  • Paul Lemon (Board Member)
    The Garden Lakes Community Association
    Board member of The Garden Lakes Community Association.
  • Bob Gendrich (Board Member)
    The Garden Lakes Community Association
    Board member of The Garden Lakes Community Association.
  • Kevin Bald (Former Community Manager)
    The Garden Lakes Community Association
    Former community manager for Garden Lakes.

Neutral Parties

  • Nicole Robinson (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding Administrative Law Judge.
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge who issued an order setting the hearing date.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Facebook Comments Box