Case Summary
| Case ID | 23F-H054-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2023-07-28 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Adam D. Stone |
| Outcome | The Administrative Law Judge denied the single-issue petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(D). The ALJ found that the gathering was a 'workshop' and not necessarily a formal 'meeting of the board of directors,' and further found that the Petitioner had received sufficient notice regardless. |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Felicia Woodward | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association | Counsel | Jonathan D. Ebertshauser |
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the single-issue petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(D). The ALJ found that the gathering was a 'workshop' and not necessarily a formal 'meeting of the board of directors,' and further found that the Petitioner had received sufficient notice regardless.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required by a preponderance of the evidence for the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(D). The tribunal determined the meeting was advertised as a workshop and not a statutory board meeting, and the Petitioner had timely opened the notice email a week prior.
Key Issues & Findings
Petitioner alleges the Respondent has violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by holding a meeting that 'had not been properly noticed…'
Petitioner alleged that the March 14, 2023 meeting was not properly noticed because customary channels (email, calendar, sandwich boards) were not used, and the notice provided did not include the meeting location. Respondent argued notice was given through email survey and the community calendar, meeting the statutory requirements, and that the event was a workshop.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A).
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Analytics Highlights
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H054-REL Decision – 1068018.pdf
23F-H054-REL Decision – 1078258.pdf
23F-H054-REL Decision – 1068018.pdf
23F-H054-REL Decision – 1078258.pdf
This summary addresses the legal case hearing held on July 14, 2023, concerning the matter of Felicia Woodward (Petitioner) versus The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association (Respondent). The hearing was conducted before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
Key Facts and Main Issues
The central issue was whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by failing to properly notice a community event—the Courthome Improvement Workshop—held on March 14, 2023. Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1804(D) mandates that notice for board meetings must be given at least 48 hours in advance by newsletter, conspicuous posting, or other reasonable means, and must state the date, time, and place of the meeting.
Hearing Arguments
Petitioner’s Case:
Petitioner Felicia Woodward argued that the notice was improper because the Association failed to follow customary notice methods (community-wide email, portal calendar, and sandwich boards). Although she received an email survey more than 48 hours prior to the meeting, she alleged that the link provided the date and time, but did not include the location (the Zoom link). She presented evidence suggesting the meeting was not listed on the community calendar 24 hours prior. Woodward also noted that a board member questioned the adequacy of the notice at the meeting.
Respondent’s Case:
The Association, represented by Jonathan D. Ebertshauser and Marcus R. Martinez, argued that the Association complied with A.R.S. § 33-1804, noting that the statute does not require consistent notice methods. The General Manager, Erin Busey, testified that the March 14th event was a workshop, not a regular monthly board meeting, explaining why costly sandwich boards were not used. Busey stated that the meeting information, including the date, time, and location (the Zoom link), was entered into the system and sent via email survey on March 7, 2023, exceeding the 48-hour requirement. Furthermore, evidence showed the Petitioner actually opened the survey email and clicked the link. Counsel emphasized the legal point that the failure of any member to receive *actual* notice does not affect the validity of actions taken, provided notice was issued.
Final Decision and Outcome
The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Petitioner did not meet her burden of proving a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(D) by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Nature of the Meeting: The tribunal was not convinced the workshop was a formal “meeting of the board of directors” under the statute, as it was intended for discussion and review of survey results, with no expectation of voting or decisions.
- Sufficiency of Notice: Even if the event were considered a board meeting, the Petitioner was found to have had sufficient notice, having opened the email containing the survey and link on March 7, 2023, a week before the workshop.
The ALJ issued an Order denying the Petitioner’s petition. Furthermore, the Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.
Questions
Question
Does an HOA workshop count as a 'board meeting' that requires formal legal notice?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If no votes are taken or decisions made, it may not be considered a meeting of the board of directors under the statute.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that an event advertised as a 'workshop,' where comments and survey results were discussed but no items were voted on or decisions made, did not qualify as a 'meeting of the board of directors' requiring statutory notice.
Alj Quote
The tribunal was not convinced that this was a 'meeting of the board of directors' under the statute. … There was no expectation that items would be voted on or decisions made.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
- meetings
- workshops
- definitions
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner must convince the trier of fact that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D).
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
- legal standards
- burden of proof
- procedure
Question
Does a member's failure to see a meeting notice invalidate the actions taken at that meeting?
Short Answer
No. The validity of actions taken at a meeting is not affected if a member fails to receive actual notice.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute explicitly states that if a member does not receive actual notice, it does not void the meeting's actions, provided the notice was properly issued.
Alj Quote
The failure of any member to receive actual notice of a meeting of the board of directors does not affect the validity of any action taken at that meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)
Topic Tags
- notice
- validity
- homeowner rights
Question
How far in advance must an HOA provide notice for a board meeting?
Short Answer
Notice must be given at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Detailed Answer
Unless emergency circumstances exist, the board must provide notice to members via newsletter, conspicuous posting, or other reasonable means at least 48 hours prior.
Alj Quote
notice to members of meetings of the board of directors shall be given at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)
Topic Tags
- notice
- timelines
- HOA obligations
Question
Can a Zoom link be considered the 'location' of a meeting for notice purposes?
Short Answer
Yes, providing a Zoom link can satisfy the requirement for a meeting location.
Detailed Answer
The decision accepted testimony that a reminder notice containing a Zoom link was considered the location of the meeting, contributing to sufficient notice.
Alj Quote
Ms. Busey testified that a reminder notice was sent out the day of the workshop with the Zoom link, which was considered the 'location' of the meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
- virtual meetings
- notice
- technology
Question
If I lose my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
No. If the petition is denied, the filing fee is generally not reimbursed.
Detailed Answer
The order specifically stated that because the petition was denied, the Respondent (HOA) was not required to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
- fees
- penalties
- outcomes
Question
Can opening an email with a survey link constitute receiving notice of a meeting?
Short Answer
Yes. Evidence that a homeowner opened an email/link about the event in advance can establish sufficient notice.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that because the Petitioner clicked a survey link related to the workshop a week prior, they had sufficient notice of the event.
Alj Quote
Petitioner opened the email regarding the survey and clicked on the link on March 7, 2023, a week prior to the workshop. Therefore, even if this were considered a 'board meeting' Petitioner would have had sufficient notice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
- notice
- digital communication
Case
- Docket No
- 23F-H054-REL
- Case Title
- Felicia Woodward vs The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association
- Decision Date
- 2023-07-28
- Alj Name
- Adam D. Stone
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Questions
Question
Does an HOA workshop count as a 'board meeting' that requires formal legal notice?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If no votes are taken or decisions made, it may not be considered a meeting of the board of directors under the statute.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that an event advertised as a 'workshop,' where comments and survey results were discussed but no items were voted on or decisions made, did not qualify as a 'meeting of the board of directors' requiring statutory notice.
Alj Quote
The tribunal was not convinced that this was a 'meeting of the board of directors' under the statute. … There was no expectation that items would be voted on or decisions made.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
- meetings
- workshops
- definitions
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner must convince the trier of fact that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D).
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
- legal standards
- burden of proof
- procedure
Question
Does a member's failure to see a meeting notice invalidate the actions taken at that meeting?
Short Answer
No. The validity of actions taken at a meeting is not affected if a member fails to receive actual notice.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute explicitly states that if a member does not receive actual notice, it does not void the meeting's actions, provided the notice was properly issued.
Alj Quote
The failure of any member to receive actual notice of a meeting of the board of directors does not affect the validity of any action taken at that meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)
Topic Tags
- notice
- validity
- homeowner rights
Question
How far in advance must an HOA provide notice for a board meeting?
Short Answer
Notice must be given at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Detailed Answer
Unless emergency circumstances exist, the board must provide notice to members via newsletter, conspicuous posting, or other reasonable means at least 48 hours prior.
Alj Quote
notice to members of meetings of the board of directors shall be given at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)
Topic Tags
- notice
- timelines
- HOA obligations
Question
Can a Zoom link be considered the 'location' of a meeting for notice purposes?
Short Answer
Yes, providing a Zoom link can satisfy the requirement for a meeting location.
Detailed Answer
The decision accepted testimony that a reminder notice containing a Zoom link was considered the location of the meeting, contributing to sufficient notice.
Alj Quote
Ms. Busey testified that a reminder notice was sent out the day of the workshop with the Zoom link, which was considered the 'location' of the meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
- virtual meetings
- notice
- technology
Question
If I lose my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
No. If the petition is denied, the filing fee is generally not reimbursed.
Detailed Answer
The order specifically stated that because the petition was denied, the Respondent (HOA) was not required to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
- fees
- penalties
- outcomes
Question
Can opening an email with a survey link constitute receiving notice of a meeting?
Short Answer
Yes. Evidence that a homeowner opened an email/link about the event in advance can establish sufficient notice.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that because the Petitioner clicked a survey link related to the workshop a week prior, they had sufficient notice of the event.
Alj Quote
Petitioner opened the email regarding the survey and clicked on the link on March 7, 2023, a week prior to the workshop. Therefore, even if this were considered a 'board meeting' Petitioner would have had sufficient notice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
- notice
- digital communication
Case
- Docket No
- 23F-H054-REL
- Case Title
- Felicia Woodward vs The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association
- Decision Date
- 2023-07-28
- Alj Name
- Adam D. Stone
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Felicia Woodward (petitioner)
Property owner/Association member
Full name is Felicia Anne Woodward; Appeared via Google Meet.
Respondent Side
- Jonathan D. Ebertshauser (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado, & Bolen
Represented Respondent. - Marcus R. Martinez (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado, & Bolen
Represented Respondent. - Erin Busey (witness/general manager)
First Service Residential (The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association)
Called as a witness by Respondent; Identified herself as Aaron Ducy during testimony.
Neutral Parties
- Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings - Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official transmission. - AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official transmission. - vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official transmission. - djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official transmission. - labril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official transmission.
Other Participants
- Debbie Robinson (witness)
Referenced by Petitioner as the person who took a screenshot exhibit; Presence/testimony not confirmed in hearing record.