Case Summary
| Case ID | 22F-H2222050-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | Arizona Department of Real Estate |
| Tribunal | OAH and Maricopa County Superior Court judicial review |
| Decision Date | 2024-08-02 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Jenna Clark; Superior Court Judge Joseph P. Mikitish |
| Outcome | Superior Court reversed the ADRE decision in part and remanded; Barrs prevailed on disclosure of member names and physical property addresses, but not emails/phone numbers, and fees/costs were denied. |
| Filing Fees Refunded | — |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Tom Barrs | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Desert Ranch Homeowners Association | Counsel | — |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1805; A.R.S. § 10-11601(C)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A); A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 10-11604(C)
Outcome Summary
The original OAH/ADRE result denied the membership-roster claim, but Maricopa County Superior Court case LC2023-000179-001 changed the result. Judge Joseph P. Mikitish held that HOA member names and physical property addresses are not exempt personal records under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and must be disclosed as standard association/corporate records. The court reaffirmed the reversal on August 2, 2024, denied attorneys fees and court costs, and remanded the matter to ADRE.
Why this result: The HOA position failed in Superior Court because the court distinguished public-facing names and property addresses from more private email addresses and phone numbers, and found the ALJ had treated the entire roster as personal information too broadly.
Key Issues & Findings
Membership roster and association records
Tom Barrs requested the HOA membership list and other association records. The HOA and its management company refused to provide the owner directory, and the ALJ initially treated the membership list as protected personal information.
Orders: The Maricopa County Superior Court reversed the ADRE final decision in part and remanded. It held that names and physical property addresses in a membership roster are standard corporate records and are not exempt personal records under A.R.S. § 33-1805, while email addresses and phone numbers may be withheld.
Disposition: Petitioner prevailed on the core membership-roster issue in Superior Court; emails and phone numbers remained protected.
- A.R.S. § 33-1805
- A.R.S. § 10-11601(C)
- LC2023-000179-001
Meeting recordings and other document requests
Barrs also challenged meeting-recording practices and sought additional EDC, contract, financial, and board-communication records.
Orders: The administrative decision granted some record-request issues in part and denied others. The later Superior Court appeal focused primarily on the membership-list ruling.
Disposition: Mixed administrative result; not the primary basis for the Superior Court reversal.
- A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
- A.R.S. § 33-1805
Attorney fees and court costs after appeal
After the Superior Court reversal, Barrs requested $9,309.57 in attorneys fees and costs, including limited-scope legal work, transcript costs, filing fees, and other expenses.
Orders: On August 2, 2024, the Superior Court reaffirmed the reversal and remand but denied attorneys fees and court costs, finding that the statutory fee provision did not apply to this ADRE administrative-review path.
Disposition: Fees and costs denied; final appealable order entered and the matter remanded to ADRE.
- A.R.S. § 10-11604(C)
- Rule 31.2, Arizona Supreme Court Rules
- Boydston v. Strole Development Co.
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 33-1805
- A.R.S. § 10-11601(C)
- A.R.S. § 10-11604(C)
- LC2023-000179-001
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1000763.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1002291.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1035796.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 980693.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 981784.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 982383.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 987368.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 987371.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 998623.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 03a70f36-3fe1-495d-9698-092eb794703c.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 04b57097-5fc0-448c-86d7-da560c293f56.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 06ae9cf4-2a95-4470-933d-cf153537b34f.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 227ae74d-d75f-4dbe-8efd-f31ccdaaaff4.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 44e68fd7-82f7-4ba9-a222-19fc3ea95099.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 54f7ba97-0e3d-461a-bd22-223487748254.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 67a7a92a-c6b5-4184-854f-edc111568186.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 6f9d74b4-927a-473c-a08b-aa3db38663c9.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 704c788f-9635-40d1-8e9a-b853f3ad3d32.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 72298af4-b36d-4dbd-a2da-f2f038e1cc33.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 7d88890f-5ea3-4157-92f9-9274626b6827.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 912071f2-a752-478c-8dd7-9e0ed1f30f80.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 9b6c2ad6-c4f8-4f22-91c3-4ebe8b783341.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 9f123523-7d29-46d2-9826-fd908672d67d.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – Briefing Document_ Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – a563ff2f-ce40-4e22-b960-6422ef07a9e6.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – a98636b9-cc47-4755-bc35-41f84a3be77a.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – b6eba1f1-989f-4bd9-9766-ef77ad5f5dd4.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – c60149f0-4a01-4d88-bf4a-466ae16701fb.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – cb68c130-ddc1-4500-a759-f35d321f2553.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – e98b8ade-a214-49c3-92af-f18449da682e.pdf
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – eff1f8cd-7fc3-4daa-b31b-4601e012458b.pdf
Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
The litigation between Tom Barrs (Petitioner/Appellant) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent/Appellee) involves a protracted dispute over Association records, meeting recording integrity, and the production of homeowner information. The matter, overseen by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and subsequently appealed to the Maricopa County Superior Court, centers on actions taken by a previous Board of Directors and their management company, AAM.
Following an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in February 2023, the Association underwent a significant leadership transition. A new Board was elected in April 2023, and the Association moved to a self-managed model after AAM declined to renew its contract. Despite extensive settlement negotiations between the new Board and Barrs, reaching a final resolution proved unsuccessful due to disagreements over the correction of the official record and the payment of attorney fees. The Association currently faces depleted cash reserves, having spent over $29,000 on this matter, and continues to manage ongoing record requests and legal challenges from the Petitioner.
Detailed Analysis of Key Themes
1. Integrity of Meeting Recordings and Documentation
A central point of contention is whether Association meeting recordings were intentionally edited or merely incomplete due to human error. Lori Loch-Lee, the community manager from AAM, testified that while recordings might have been stopped and restarted—specifically during an incident in September 2020 involving Mr. Barrs—she never edited any files.
- Petitioner's Argument: Barrs contends that the recordings are "clearly cut" and that portions discussing him or potential police involvement were intentionally removed. He argues the missing segments (approximately 30 minutes of a one-hour meeting) violate A.R.S. 33-1804(A).
- Respondent's Argument: The management company maintains that "forgetting to restart a recording is [not] the same thing as editing a recording." They attribute gaps to technical issues or the "human" element of management.
2. Information Access and Privacy Policies
The dispute highlights a conflict between a homeowner's right to access records and the Association's duty to protect private information.
- Management Files vs. Board Records: Lori Loch-Lee testified that she maintains internal AAM files for "correspondence homeowners" to which the Board has no control or access. She asserted that these are "personal emails" used for day-to-day business and that no policy requires their production to the Board or homeowners.
- Confidentiality Training: Management applied professional training to withhold homeowner phone numbers and emails, treating them as "private information" protected from production requests.
- The Membership Roster: Barrs alleged AAM refused to provide the roster within the statutory 10-business-day deadline. While the new Board eventually provided access, Barrs continues to seek a formal acknowledgement that the refusal by the prior management was a violation of A.R.S. 33-1805.
3. Transition to Self-Management and Financial Impact
The Association has experienced a complete shift in its operational structure as a direct result of the ongoing litigation.
- Management Termination: AAM chose not to renew the management contract due to the "time and hassle" and "continued legal escalations" associated with the Barrs case.
- Financial Depletion: The Association is currently without cash reserves. To remain solvent, the Board had to borrow $8,000 from the "711 Road Reserves Fund" to cover the General Fund's obligations.
- Volunteer Burden: The Board members (collectively 33 members in the HOA) have spent "hundreds of hours" managing the case without professional counsel, as they lack the resources to retain an attorney.
4. Settlement Impasse and Attorney Fee Disputes
Extensive negotiations occurred between June and December 2023, but ultimately failed over two primary issues: the correction of the ALJ's findings of fact and the reimbursement of legal costs.
- Correction of Findings: Barrs insisted on a "line-by-line" correction of the ALJ's February 21, 2023, decision, claiming it was based on "false assertions" by previous counsel. The Board felt uncomfortable changing the ALJ's decision, particularly findings related to a prior Board they did not represent.
- Attorney Fees: Barrs sought $9,309.57 in costs and fees. The Association argues that because they offered a $2,000 settlement on September 8, 2023, which Barrs rejected, he is barred from seeking fees under A.R.S. 12-341.01(a) as the final judgment (which awarded no damages) was less favorable to him than their offer.
Important Quotes with Context
| Quote | Context |
|---|---|
| "Do you believe that forgetting to restart a recording is the same thing as editing a recording? Absolutely not." | Lori Loch-Lee (AAM) testifying about the gaps in the September 2020 meeting audio. |
| "Homer information of emails and phone numbers are considered private information and I've learned that from different seminars and conferences… my training said not to produce that information." | Lori Loch-Lee explaining why homeowner contact details were withheld from Barrs' record requests. |
| "I am their community manager. I'm not an agent." | Loch-Lee's response when questioned about her official capacity and duty to the Association regarding the retention of unedited recordings. |
| "The Board has been forced to do this, as this litigation has left us without cash reserves." | From the Association’s response to the Superior Court, explaining why they are appearing pro se. |
| "I've said repeatedly that I want to be a part of that positive, forward motion… I'm wondering if it may be helpful… for you to join us during a portion of an Exec Session." | Board President Nan Wickman in an email to Tom Barrs (July 6, 2023) attempting to find a settlement path. |
| "The Board would prefer that this legal action ends here, so that we can spend our volunteered time to get the HOA back to functioning and dealing with all its business properly." | Final statement in the Association's legal response regarding the emotional and operational toll of the case. |
Timeline of Key Events (2023-2024)
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 9-10, 2023 | OAH Hearing conducted by ALJ Jenna Clark. |
| February 21, 2023 | ALJ Decision issued regarding the dockets. |
| April 29, 2023 | Annual Member Meeting; new Board of Directors elected (Nan Wickman, Michael Olley, Cynthia Dryden, etc.). |
| May 23, 2023 | Tom Barrs files Appeal for Judicial Review. |
| June 15, 2023 | Court orders case stayed for 90 days pending settlement. |
| July 13, 2023 | Board proposes settlement: $1,000 payment to Barrs, no fault admitted, release of claims. |
| August 22, 2023 | Barrs counters with an agreement requiring a $2,000 payment and agreement to all his corrections of the ALJ decision. |
| September 8, 2023 | Board offers $2,000 settlement; Barrs rejects the amended agreement. |
| September 15, 2023 | Court lifts the stay; litigation resumes. |
| April 4, 2024 | Court finds in favor of Appellant (Barrs) and allows for an affidavit to obtain fees. |
| May 24, 2024 | Association files response questioning the validity and substantiation of Barrs' $9,309.57 fee request. |
Actionable Insights
- Documentation Standards: The Association should implement formal policies for recording meetings, including a requirement that any pauses or technical restarts be explicitly noted in the official meeting minutes to prevent allegations of "editing."
- Management Transition Audit: For self-managed HOAs, a comprehensive audit of all records formerly held by third-party management (like AAM) is necessary to ensure the Board has full custody of "statutory agent" files vs. "personal/internal" management files.
- Financial Contingency Planning: The depletion of cash reserves for legal fees suggests a need for the Association to evaluate its D&O (Directors and Officers) insurance coverage and legal defense funds for future disputes.
- Record Request Protocols: Given the Petitioner’s ongoing "frivolous requests" (as characterized by the Board), the Association must maintain a strict, standardized response log that tracks response times and costs incurred per A.R.S. 33-1805 to provide a defense against claims of non-compliance.
Study Guide: Tom Barrs vs. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and administrative matters between Tom Barrs (Petitioner/Appellant) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent/Appellee). It synthesizes information from hearing transcripts, board meeting minutes, and court filings to outline the core conflicts regarding association management, record-keeping, and litigation.
I. Key Concepts and Themes
1. Management and Agency
A central point of contention in the proceedings is the role of the management company, Associated Asset Management (AAM), and its relationship with the Board.
- Capacity of the Community Manager: Lori Loch-Lee, the community manager from AAM, testified that she acted in a limited capacity as defined by a management agreement. While she acknowledged AAM is a "statutory agent," she distinguished her role as a community manager from that of a general agent of the board.
- Transition to Self-Management: Following the non-renewal of AAM’s contract (attributed by the Board to the ongoing litigation), the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (DRHOA) transitioned to a self-managed model in early 2023.
2. Record-Keeping and Transparency
The dispute involves allegations of missing or edited evidence, specifically regarding meeting recordings and homeowner correspondence.
- Editing vs. Omission: A primary legal argument involves whether "forgetting to restart" a recording constitutes "editing." Loch-Lee maintained that pausing a meeting (e.g., due to an interruption) is not the same as editing the record.
- Access to Records: Tom Barrs sought access to membership rosters and homeowner information. The association initially resisted, citing training that homeowner emails and phone numbers are "private information."
- Personal vs. Association Files: Loch-Lee testified that her day-to-day "correspondence homeowners" file was an internal AAM file, not accessible or controllable by the Board.
3. Litigation and Settlement Dynamics
The case moved from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to the Superior Court of Maricopa County.
- The ALJ Decision: An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on February 21, 2023, which Barrs subsequently sought to appeal or amend.
- Settlement Negotiations: Numerous attempts were made to reach a "Joint Stipulation" to correct alleged errors in the ALJ’s findings of fact. Key issues in settlement included the payment of filing fees, the release of liability for current/former board members, and the accuracy of the membership roster.
- Recovery of Fees (ARS 12-341.01): The Association argued that Barrs was ineligible for attorney fees because he rejected a settlement offer ($2,000) that was more favorable than the eventual court determination.
II. Short-Answer Practice Questions
- Who represented Tom Barrs at the January 2023 hearing?
- Answer: Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.
- What was the specific AAM policy regarding recording at their business office?
- Answer: No tape or visual recording was permitted at the AAM business office during record inspections or meetings.
- According to Lori Loch-Lee, what two categories of information are considered "private" and excluded from general homeowner requests?
- Answer: Homeowner email addresses and phone numbers.
- What was the "711 Road Reserves Fund" loan used for?
- Answer: An $8,000 loan was taken from the 711 Road Reserves Fund to the General Fund to maintain solvency and meet the 2023 budget.
- Why did the Board claim they had to become self-managed?
- Answer: Their management company (AAM) chose not to renew the contract due to the continued legal escalations by Tom Barrs.
- What happened during the September 15, 2020, meeting recording?
- Answer: The recording was stopped and restarted twice (at approximately 17:20 and 31:09) following interruptions or rucksacks involving Mr. Barrs.
- What was the total amount Tom Barrs claimed for "Limited Scope Representation" from Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.?
- Answer: $5,480.00.
- Who were the four new board members elected on April 29, 2023?
- Answer: Nan Wickman (President), Michael Olley (Vice President), Cynthia Dryden (Secretary/Treasurer), and David Hughes (At-large). Susan Klinefelter was also elected as an at-large member.
III. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration
- The Ethics of Administrative Record-Keeping: Discuss the implications of a community manager "forgetting" to record portions of a board meeting. Does the distinction between "omission" and "editing" hold legal weight in the context of HOA transparency requirements under Arizona law?
- The Impact of Litigation on Small Communities: Using the Desert Ranch HOA as a case study, analyze how prolonged legal disputes between a single homeowner and an association can affect the financial health (e.g., depletion of cash reserves) and the volunteer spirit of the board (e.g., mass resignations).
- Privacy vs. Disclosure: Evaluate the conflict between a homeowner's right to access association records (ARS 33-1805) and the management’s duty to protect homeowner privacy (emails and phone numbers). Where should the line be drawn for an "unredacted" membership roster?
- Settlement and Good Faith: Analyze the timeline of settlement offers between Barrs and the Board. Did the insistence on correcting the "Findings of Fact" in the ALJ decision, rather than focusing on monetary or policy outcomes, indicate a lack of "good faith" in negotiations as alleged by the Association?
IV. Glossary of Important Terms
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| AAM | Associated Asset Management; the professional management company previously contracted by the Desert Ranch HOA. |
| Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) | A judge who presides over hearings and makes findings of fact in disputes involving state agencies (in this case, the Arizona Department of Real Estate). |
| ARS 12-341.01 | An Arizona statute regarding the recovery of attorney fees in contested actions arising out of a contract. |
| Joint Stipulation | A formal agreement between opposing parties to recognize certain facts as true or to follow a specific course of action in a legal case. |
| Limited Scope Representation | A legal arrangement where an attorney handles only specific parts of a case rather than providing full representation. |
| Minute Entry | A brief written record of the court's actions, orders, or findings during a specific proceeding. |
| Pro Se | Representing oneself in a legal proceeding without the assistance of an attorney. |
| Statutory Agent | An entity (like AAM) designated to receive legal service of process and official communications on behalf of a corporation or association. |
| Stay Pending Settlement | A temporary suspension of court deadlines and proceedings to allow parties to finalize a settlement agreement. |
Behind the Minutes: Lessons in Transparency and the Cost of HOA Litigation
1. Introduction: When Governance Becomes a Legal Battlefield
Thirty-three homes, four years of litigation, and a $29,000 legal bill—how did the Desert Ranchers Association find itself in a war over a Zoom recording?
In community governance, the distance between a minor administrative oversight and a catastrophic financial burden is often shorter than most boards realize. The matter of Tom Barrs vs. Desert Ranchers Association serves as a stark case study in the high price of protracted conflict. For an association of only 33 members, the $29,000 spent on this single legal matter (excluding the Petitioner’s personal costs) represents a staggering per-household burden of nearly $880. This dispute, which centered on records requests, membership rosters, and the integrity of meeting recordings from 2020 through early 2024, offers critical lessons for any board seeking to practice "preventative governance."
2. The "Recording" Debate: Human Error vs. Intentional Editing
A cornerstone of this litigation was a technical dispute regarding the September 2020 board meeting recording. The Petitioner, Tom Barrs, alleged that the recording was intentionally edited to omit sensitive discussions. Community Manager Lori Loch-Lee testified that while technical gaps existed, they were the result of "stops and starts" caused by human error or technical interruptions.
The technical timestamps are revealing: the recording stopped at the 17-minute and 31-minute marks. Critically, the transcript indicates that at these specific junctions, the board's conversation shifted to whether they should call the police on Mr. Barrs. This context fueled the Petitioner's allegations of intentional editing; it wasn't just any segment that was missed, but a highly sensitive discussion regarding the Petitioner himself. Loch-Lee maintained that as a "human," she simply forgot to restart the recording after interruptions.
Spotlight: Is It Editing or Forgetting? The Distinction: Management distinguished between editing (altering existing footage) and forgetting (failing to capture a segment). The Legal Risk: In the eyes of a governance expert, "selective recording"—even if unintentional—creates a "transparency gap" that is nearly impossible to defend in court once personal animosity is involved.
3. The Transparency Gap: Internal Files and Agent Boundaries
The case highlighted a significant point of confusion in the HOA industry: the legal status of the management company. During testimony, Lori Loch-Lee initially admitted, "AAM is a statutory agent. Yes." However, when pressed by counsel, she later asserted, "I am their community manager. I’m not an agent."
This contradiction illustrates the tension between a management firm acting as an agent of record and an individual manager acting as a representative of that firm. Loch-Lee argued that her "day-to-day" emails were personal business files kept in an internal AAM file, to which the Board had "absolutely no" control or access. This created a wall between the homeowners and the communications used to conduct association business—a wall that often triggers litigation when members feel that information is being shielded behind "limited capacity" management agreements.
4. The High Price of Standing on Principle
The dispute did more than deplete the association's bank account; it broke the community's leadership structure.
The Financial and Human Toll
| Category | Impact Details |
|---|---|
| Legal Spending | Over $29,000 spent by the HOA (nearly $880 per household), excluding Tom Barrs' personal costs. |
| Administrative Burden | Hundreds of hours of volunteer time lost to hearings, document preparation, and executive sessions. |
| Human Cost | Resignations of Board members Cynthia Dryden and Nan Wickman due to "mental anguish"; other owners refused to join the "depleted Board" because of the litigation. |
| Management Impact | AAM terminated the contract due to the "time and hassle" represented by the dispute, forcing the HOA into a high-risk self-managed model. |
5. The Settlement Slog: A Timeline of Negotiation
Despite the Board’s eventual desire for "closure," the litigation continued long after the original Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision. A key governance failure identified here is that providing the requested records does not always end the conflict if the "integrity of the record" remains at issue.
- April 29, 2023: New Secretary Cynthia Dryden provides Tom Barrs access to the membership roster. Despite this, Barrs files an appeal on May 23.
- June 2023: Barrs provides a settlement outline requesting line-by-line corrections to the ALJ’s "findings of fact."
- July 2023: The HOA offers a $1,000 reimbursement for filing fees with a "no fault" clause.
- September 2023: The HOA increases the offer to $2,000. Barrs rejects it, insisting on correcting the ALJ record.
- December 6, 2023: The parties reach a tentative "no-cost" agreement regarding the roster, yet they are unable to agree on the specific settlement language.
- April 2024: Following a court ruling in Barrs' favor, he submits a final claim for $9,309.57 in costs and fees.
6. Conclusion: Moving Forward and Key Takeaways
Today, the Desert Ranchers Association is self-managed—a state of transition born of necessity rather than choice. When a community becomes a high-liability client, professional management firms often walk away, leaving volunteers to navigate complex legal and financial waters alone. The failure to reach a "no-cost resolution" earlier in the process underscores the danger of allowing a dispute over "findings of fact" to outweigh the pragmatic need for community stability.
Governance Gold Nuggets
- Maintain Unedited Recordings: To avoid allegations of tampering, ensure recordings are continuous. If a meeting is paused, the chair must announce the pause and the resumption on the record, with corresponding notes in the minutes.
- Adopt a Records Retention and Production Policy: Minimize the "transparency gap" by defining the scope of association records versus management business files before a dispute arises.
- Ensure Roster Transparency: Per ARS 33-1805, membership rosters are a fundamental record. Access should be proactive and standardized to prevent "withholding" claims.
- Prioritize Early Resolution: The escalation from a $1,000 offer to a $29,000 bill is a cautionary tale. Boards must identify when a dispute has shifted from "governance" to "animosity" and seek mediation before reserves are depleted.
Ultimately, the goal of a board is the preservation of the community. In Desert Ranchers, the cost of the "battle" was the very peace and professional oversight the board was elected to protect.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Tom Barrs (Petitioner)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Homeowner and member of the association - Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel for Petitioner)
Dessaules Law Group - Daryl Manhart (Limited Scope Counsel)
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
Retained for the appeal brief - Aaron Duell (Limited Scope Counsel)
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
Retained for the appeal brief
Respondent Side
- B. Austin Baillio (Counsel for Respondent)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C. - Brian Schoeffler (Witness)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Board Member, Secretary/Treasurer - Gerard Mangieri (Witness)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Board Member, President - Lori Loch-Lee (Witness)
Associated Asset Management
Community Manager - Monte E. Matz (Witness)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Board Member, Vice President - Michelle Aerni (Witness)
Subpoenaed witness - Cynthia Dryden (Board Member)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Elected as Secretary/Treasurer in 2023 - Nan Wickman (Board Member)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Elected as President in 2023 - David Hughes (Board Member)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Elected in 2023 - Michael Olley (Board Member)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Elected in 2023 - Amanda Shaw (Statutory Agent)
Associated Asset Management
Neutral Parties
- Jenna Clark (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings - Joseph P. Mikitish (Judge)
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
Presiding judge for the subsequent appeal - Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate