Briefing Document: Westerman v. Bridgewood Nine 30 Homeowners Association (Case No. 25F-H029-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and subsequent decision regarding the matter of Debbie Westerman v. Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association. The dispute centered on a records request initiated by Westerman (Petitioner) against the Association (Respondent) concerning legal expenditures and financial documentation spanning the last decade.

The core of the conflict involved the Petitioner’s demand for detailed legal billing statements to investigate potential fund misappropriation, while the Respondent maintained that such records were exempt from disclosure under Arizona's statutory protections for attorney-client privilege. Following an evidentiary hearing held on February 20, 2025, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Samuel Fox ruled in favor of the Association, determining that the requested documents were privileged and that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of the relevant condominium statutes.

---

Case Overview and Participants

The hearing was conducted at the Office of Administrative Hearings as an independent state agency matter pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.

Role	Name	Affiliation
Administrative Law Judge	Samuel Fox	Office of Administrative Hearings
Petitioner	Debbie Westerman	Homeowner/Member, Bridgewood Nine 30
Respondent Counsel	Mark Lines	Attorney, Shaw & Lines, LLC
Witness (Respondent)	Michael Brubaker	President of the Board/Community Manager
Witness (Respondent)	Roy Shot	Board Member

---

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Framework and Procedural Accuracy

A significant portion of the proceedings addressed the specific statutes governing records requests. The Petitioner originally filed the petition citing A.R.S. § 33-1805, which pertains to Planned Communities. However, the Respondent is a Condominium Association, making the applicable law A.R.S. § 33-1258.

The Respondent’s counsel argued that the Petitioner's request was "procedurally and substantively flawed" because:

• It cited the incorrect statutory scheme.
• It failed to formally request an inspection of records, which is the primary right granted under the statute.
• It did not provide notice that legal action would be pursued if records were not produced within the statutory 10-day window.

The ALJ ultimately decided to address the matter based on the correct condominium statute (A.R.S. § 33-1258), noting no "undue prejudice" in correcting the reference.

2. Attorney-Client Privilege vs. Transparency

The Petitioner sought "all statements from Shaw and Lines from 2015 through today" to verify legal spending, citing a specific concern regarding $50,000 spent in 2018. She clarified during the hearing that she only desired "numbers" and was not interested in confidential details.

The Association countered that under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(1), books and records may be withheld if they relate to privileged communications between the association and its attorney. The Respondent argued that legal invoices constitute privileged work product and communications. The ALJ upheld this position, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof because the documents she sought were legally exempt from disclosure.

3. Allegations of Financial Mismanagement

The Petitioner raised several concerns regarding the Association's financial operations:

• Report Distribution: Allegations that financial reports are prepared and distributed by Board members (Michael Brubaker and Roy Shot) rather than the official accountant.
• Operating Practices: Concerns that Board members are "running a business" within the association.
• Lack of Transparency: Claims that the Board "passed these issues with everyone's knowledge and consent" but failed to provide verification of expenditures to the members.

The Association disputed these claims, providing a financial flowchart and meeting minutes as evidence of their standard operating procedures and efforts to advise the community on accounting methods.

4. Communication and Meeting Invitations

A point of contention was the communication between the parties following the November 26, 2024, request.

• The 10-Day Rule: The Association admitted to not responding within the statutory ten business days but highlighted subsequent efforts to engage.
• The Meeting Invitation: Respondent provided evidence that the Petitioner was invited to a Board meeting on January 9, 2025, to discuss her concerns. The Petitioner claimed she was "uninvited" via a note from Michael Brubaker, who allegedly stated her participation was "unwise" due to ongoing litigation against the Association.
• Document Production: The Association produced several documents (flowcharts, rules, and minutes) on January 18, 2025. The Petitioner testified she received these but had not reviewed them prior to the hearing.

---

Important Quotes with Context

From Petitioner (Debbie Westerman)

"I would just like to know how much money our association has paid in legal fees in the last decade… I don't care who it's for. I don't care what it was about. I just want the figures."

• Context: This statement defines the Petitioner’s primary objective: a purely financial audit of legal costs to ensure funds were not misappropriated.

From Respondent Counsel (Mark Lines)

"Miss Westerman is quick to rush to seek legal redress based on insufficient and procedurally deficient methods of request. And it's ironic… she is probing into legal fees… when she herself has been involved in the litigation with my client over many years."

• Context: The Respondent argued that the Petitioner's own history of filing lawsuits (in city, state, and bankruptcy courts) was a primary driver of the high legal fees she was now questioning.

From the Administrative Law Judge (Samuel Fox)

"Based upon counsel’s representation that the requested documents were privileged, the Tribunal finds that the preponderance of the evidence supports the requested documents were privileged."

• Context: This is the pivotal legal finding of the March 12, 2025, decision, which concluded that the Association had the legal right to withhold the specific records requested.

---

Actionable Insights

For Association Boards

• Strict Adherence to Timelines: Although the Association prevailed, the ALJ noted the failure to respond within ten business days. Boards should prioritize responding to records requests—even if the response is a formal denial based on privilege—within the statutory window to avoid administrative petitions.
• Clear Distinction of Privilege: When withholding records, Boards should explicitly cite A.R.S. § 33-1258(B) (for condos) or A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) (for planned communities) to provide a legal basis for non-disclosure.
• Record Maintenance: The Respondent noted that statutes typically require maintaining records for three years. Demands for ten years of records (as requested in this case) may be considered "overburdensome" and beyond statutory requirements.

For Association Members

• Verify Statutory Basis: Before filing a petition, members must ensure they are citing the correct chapter of Title 33 (Condominiums vs. Planned Communities).
• Understand Inspection Rights: The statutory right is primarily for the examination and copying of records. A request for an association to generate new reports or "email all statements" may not be technically covered under the right to inspect.
• Review Produced Materials: The Petitioner’s failure to review documents provided by the Association prior to the hearing weakened her position. Members should thoroughly audit any produced materials to identify specific gaps before proceeding to a hearing.

---

Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Respondent be deemed the prevailing party. The Petitioner's request for the intervention of the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) was denied because the Association acted within its rights to withhold privileged attorney-client communications.