Case Summary
| Case ID | 25F-H018-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2025-03-31 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Velva Moses-Thompson |
| Outcome | full |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Joseph P. Allan | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | The Springs Condominiums Association | Counsel | — |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner met his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A). Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party, and Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee and comply with the statute in the future.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to provide access to financial and other records within ten business days.
Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to allow Petitioner to examine original invoices for May 2024 (requested July 9, 2024) and bank statements from four accounts (requested September 23, 2024) within the required ten business days, despite receiving the requests through board members.
Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days and is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) going forward. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
- A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
- MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
- BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
- MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
- BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
25F-H018-REL Decision – 1263777.pdf
25F-H018-REL Decision – 1288586.pdf
Briefing Document: Case No. 25F-H018-REL, Allan v. The Springs Condominiums Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the key facts, arguments, and legal conclusions from the administrative hearing and subsequent decision in the matter of Joseph P. Allan (Petitioner) versus The Springs Condominiums Association (Respondent). The central issue was the Respondent’s failure to provide financial records to the Petitioner within the timeframe mandated by Arizona law.
The Petitioner, a homeowner and former board member, formally requested to examine bank statements and original invoices by sending emails directly to the association’s board members. The Respondent, represented by the owner of its property management company, did not fulfill these requests within the statutory ten-business-day period. The primary defense offered was that the requests were not sent to the management company, which is the customary channel for processing such items, and the board failed to forward the requests.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found conclusively in favor of the Petitioner. The decision established that the legal obligation to comply with Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1258 rests with the association itself, and internal procedural preferences or communication failures between the board and its management agent do not absolve the association of this statutory duty. The documents were ultimately provided on the eve of the hearing, well past the legal deadline. The final order deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party, mandated the refund of his $500 filing fee, and directed the association to ensure future compliance with state law.
Case Overview
Case Number
25F-H018-REL
Jurisdiction
Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
Petitioner
Joseph P. Allan
Respondent
The Springs Condominiums Association
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Hearing Date
March 11, 2025
Decision Date
March 31, 2025
Core Allegation and Legal Framework
The dispute centered on the Petitioner’s allegation that The Springs Condominiums Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1258, which governs a member’s right to access association records.
• Statutory Requirement (A.R.S. § 33-1258 A): The statute mandates that “all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member.” It explicitly states, “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”
• Specific Violations Alleged: The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate after the association failed to respond to two separate requests for documents:
1. A request for original invoices for May 2024.
2. A request for bank statements from four association accounts.
Chronology of Events
• July 9, 2024: Mr. Allan emails several board members, including the President and Vice President, requesting to examine original invoices for May 2024.
• September 23, 2024: Mr. Allan emails several board members requesting to examine bank statements from four association accounts.
• October 2024 (approx.): After receiving no response, Mr. Allan files a petition with the Department of Real Estate, alleging the violations. The petition incorrectly listed the request dates as July 29 and September 24, a discrepancy clarified and acknowledged by both parties at the hearing.
• January 16, 2025: An “Order Granting Continuance” is issued at the Petitioner’s request, moving the hearing date.
• March 10, 2025: At 6:45 PM, the evening before the scheduled hearing, the Respondent provides the requested documents to Mr. Allan.
• March 11, 2025: The evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson.
• March 31, 2025: The ALJ issues the final decision and order.
Analysis of Testimony and Arguments
Petitioner’s Position (Joseph P. Allan)
Mr. Allan, representing himself, argued that he followed the law by submitting his requests directly to the association. His key points were:
• Direct Communication with the Association: He intentionally sent his requests to the board members (President, Vice President, Treasurer, and Director) because he considers them to be the “association” as defined by the statute.
• Investigation of Management Company: He deliberately bypassed the management company because he was actively investigating its conduct.
• Lack of Timely Response: It was undisputed that the association failed to provide the documents within the 10-day period. He confirmed receipt only on March 10, 2025, months after the requests were made.
• Past Experience: As a former board member for three years, he was familiar with the association’s financial documents and was requesting them to ensure everything was correct due to perceived problems.
Respondent’s Position (The Springs Condominiums Association)
The association was represented by Belen Guzman, the owner of its management company, SSC Property Management. Her defense centered on a procedural failure, not a denial of the Petitioner’s right to the documents.
• Improper Channel of Request: The primary defense was that Mr. Allan failed to follow standard practice by not including the management company in his email requests.
• Board’s Failure to Act: Ms. Guzman testified that the board members who received the emails did not forward them or follow up. She stated she was unaware of the requests until after the official complaint was filed and one of the board members, Petri (the president at the time), forwarded an email to her.
• Lack of Written Policy: Ms. Guzman acknowledged that the association has no written policy requiring requests to be sent to the management company, but stated the board had verbally instructed Mr. Allan in a meeting to include management on such communications.
• Knowledge of Procedure: She argued that as a former board member, Mr. Allan was aware that record requests are typically handled by the management company.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
The ALJ’s decision provided a clear legal interpretation of the events and the responsibilities of the parties.
Key Findings of Fact
• It was undisputed that the Petitioner is a member of the Respondent association.
• The Petitioner made formal requests for records via email to board members on July 9, 2024, and September 23, 2024.
• These requests were not sent to the Respondent’s property management company.
• The Respondent did not respond to the requests within the ten-business-day timeframe required by law.
• The Respondent provided the requested documents on March 10, 2025.
• The Respondent’s representative, Ms. Guzman, did not dispute that the board members had received the requests.
Key Conclusions of Law
• The Petitioner successfully met his burden to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).
• The Respondent failed to provide any legal authority supporting its defense that a request must be sent to its property management company to be valid.
• The statutory obligation to provide records lies with the “association.” The failure of the board to forward the requests to its management agent does not excuse the association’s non-compliance.
• The ALJ concluded: “Respondent violated A.R.S. section 33-1258(A) when it failed to allow Petitioner to examine the May 2024 original invoices and bank statements from four of Respondent’s accounts, within ten business days of the date of Petitioner’s requests.”
Final Order and Implications
Based on the findings, the ALJ issued a binding order with the following components:
1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, Joseph P. Allan, was deemed the prevailing party.
2. Reimbursement: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee within thirty days of the order.
3. Future Compliance: The Respondent was formally directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) going forward.
4. No Civil Penalty: The judge determined that a civil penalty was not appropriate in this matter.
The primary implication of this decision is that a condominium or homeowner association is directly and legally responsible for fulfilling its statutory obligations. It cannot use internal protocols, informal procedures, or communication breakdowns between its board and third-party vendors (like a management company) as a legal defense for failing to comply with state law.
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H018-REL”, “case_title”: “Allan, Joseph P v. The Springs Condominiums Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-03-31”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I send a records request to the Board but not the management company, can the HOA ignore it?”, “short_answer”: “No. Sending the request to Board members is sufficient to trigger the HOA’s legal obligation to respond.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the management company prefers requests to go directly to them, the Association is still obligated to comply with the law if the Board receives the request. In this case, the management company argued they didn’t know about the request because it went to the Board, but the judge ruled the violation still occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent did present any legal authority to establish that it was not obligated to comply with A.R.S. section 33-1258(A), for the reason that the requests were not sent to Respondent’s property management company.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “HOA obligations”, “property management” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to let me examine the records I requested?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA must make records available for examination within 10 business days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law grants the Association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination after receiving it.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “timelines”, “records request”, “statutory requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee just to look at the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA can charge for copies (up to 15 cents per page), they are explicitly prohibited from charging a fee for the act of making materials available for review.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “records request”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “What happens if I win my hearing against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “You may be deemed the prevailing party and the HOA can be ordered to reimburse your filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the judge rules in your favor, they can order the HOA to pay back the filing fee you paid to bring the case. In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the homeowner $500.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “penalties”, “reimbursement”, “ruling” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to provide original invoices if I request them?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Financial records, including original invoices, must be made reasonably available.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision confirms that failure to allow examination of original invoices constitutes a violation of the statute governing association records.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent violated A.R.S. section 33-1258(A) when it failed to allow Petitioner to examine the May 2024 original invoices and bank statements”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “invoices”, “financial records”, “transparency” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof for proving the HOA violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by showing it is ‘more probably true than not.’ This is the standard evidentiary weight required in these administrative hearings.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 (A) by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “burden of proof”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA always be fined a civil penalty if they break the law?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The judge has discretion on whether to apply a civil penalty.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if a violation is found (as it was in this case regarding the records), the judge may decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate based on the circumstances.”, “alj_quote”: “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalty”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] } ] }
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H018-REL”, “case_title”: “Allan, Joseph P v. The Springs Condominiums Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-03-31”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I send a records request to the Board but not the management company, can the HOA ignore it?”, “short_answer”: “No. Sending the request to Board members is sufficient to trigger the HOA’s legal obligation to respond.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the management company prefers requests to go directly to them, the Association is still obligated to comply with the law if the Board receives the request. In this case, the management company argued they didn’t know about the request because it went to the Board, but the judge ruled the violation still occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent did present any legal authority to establish that it was not obligated to comply with A.R.S. section 33-1258(A), for the reason that the requests were not sent to Respondent’s property management company.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “HOA obligations”, “property management” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to let me examine the records I requested?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA must make records available for examination within 10 business days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law grants the Association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination after receiving it.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “timelines”, “records request”, “statutory requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee just to look at the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA can charge for copies (up to 15 cents per page), they are explicitly prohibited from charging a fee for the act of making materials available for review.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “records request”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “What happens if I win my hearing against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “You may be deemed the prevailing party and the HOA can be ordered to reimburse your filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the judge rules in your favor, they can order the HOA to pay back the filing fee you paid to bring the case. In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the homeowner $500.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “penalties”, “reimbursement”, “ruling” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to provide original invoices if I request them?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Financial records, including original invoices, must be made reasonably available.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision confirms that failure to allow examination of original invoices constitutes a violation of the statute governing association records.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent violated A.R.S. section 33-1258(A) when it failed to allow Petitioner to examine the May 2024 original invoices and bank statements”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “invoices”, “financial records”, “transparency” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof for proving the HOA violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by showing it is ‘more probably true than not.’ This is the standard evidentiary weight required in these administrative hearings.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 (A) by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “burden of proof”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA always be fined a civil penalty if they break the law?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The judge has discretion on whether to apply a civil penalty.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if a violation is found (as it was in this case regarding the records), the judge may decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate based on the circumstances.”, “alj_quote”: “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalty”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Joseph P. Allan (petitioner)
Appeared on behalf of himself. Name also appears as Joseph P. Allen.
Respondent Side
- Belen Guzman (property manager)
SSC Property Management
Owner of the property management company for the Respondent. Appeared on behalf of the Respondent. - Peetri Ahon (board member)
The Springs Condominiums Association
Was the President of the board at the time of requests, later identified as a member at large.
Neutral Parties
- Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge. Name also appears as Fala Moses Thompson. - Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
- Carmen (homeowner)
The Springs Condominiums Association
A homeowner who was CC'd on an email.
