The ALJ ruled that while the HOA could remove the obsolete fountain, the CC&Rs required restoration of the common element. Leaving the base filled with rubble violated the requirement to restore property to an attractive condition. The HOA was ordered to install a replacement fountain.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to restore common element (fountain)
Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly removed a large fountain at the entry way and failed to restore the property, leaving a base filled with debris. The HOA claimed obsolescence and lack of funds.
Orders: Respondent is ordered to comply with paragraph 10.2 of the CC&Rs by the installation of a common element that is in substance a 'fountain,' to be 'substantially' in the location of the former fountain, and that is 'attractive, sound and [of] desirable condition' within 180 days.
Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Decision Documents
11F-H1112002-BFS Decision – 283494.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:26 (110.8 KB)
11F-H1112002-BFS Decision – 286426.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:27 (59.7 KB)
Briefing Doc – 11F-H1112002-BFS
Select all sources
283494.pdf
286426.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
11F-H1112002-BFS
2 sources
These legal documents detail a dispute between James Vincent Gruner and the Hunters Pointe Condominium Association regarding the unauthorized removal of a community fountain. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the association violated its governing Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to maintain the property according to its original plans. While the association argued that financial hardship and modern safety codes justified the removal, the court found the resulting debris to be an unattractive safety hazard. Consequently, the association was ordered to restore the fountain within 180 days and reimburse the petitioner’s filing fees. A subsequent certification confirmed this ruling as the final administrative decision after the state agency failed to modify or reject the judge’s initial findings.
How did the association justify removing the community fountain?
What was the final ruling regarding the fountain’s restoration?
How do CC&Rs govern the maintenance of common elements?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 7:06 AM
Slide Deck
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Data Table
Study Guide – 11F-H1112002-BFS
Select all sources
283494.pdf
286426.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
11F-H1112002-BFS
2 sources
These legal documents detail a dispute between James Vincent Gruner and the Hunters Pointe Condominium Association regarding the unauthorized removal of a community fountain. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the association violated its governing Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to maintain the property according to its original plans. While the association argued that financial hardship and modern safety codes justified the removal, the court found the resulting debris to be an unattractive safety hazard. Consequently, the association was ordered to restore the fountain within 180 days and reimburse the petitioner’s filing fees. A subsequent certification confirmed this ruling as the final administrative decision after the state agency failed to modify or reject the judge’s initial findings.
How did the association justify removing the community fountain?
What was the final ruling regarding the fountain’s restoration?
How do CC&Rs govern the maintenance of common elements?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 7:06 AM
Slide Deck
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Data Table
Blog Post – 11F-H1112002-BFS
Select all sources
283494.pdf
286426.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
11F-H1112002-BFS
2 sources
These legal documents detail a dispute between James Vincent Gruner and the Hunters Pointe Condominium Association regarding the unauthorized removal of a community fountain. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the association violated its governing Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to maintain the property according to its original plans. While the association argued that financial hardship and modern safety codes justified the removal, the court found the resulting debris to be an unattractive safety hazard. Consequently, the association was ordered to restore the fountain within 180 days and reimburse the petitioner’s filing fees. A subsequent certification confirmed this ruling as the final administrative decision after the state agency failed to modify or reject the judge’s initial findings.
How did the association justify removing the community fountain?
What was the final ruling regarding the fountain’s restoration?
How do CC&Rs govern the maintenance of common elements?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 7:06 AM
Slide Deck
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
James Vincent Gruner(Petitioner) Hunters Pointe Condominium Association (Resident) Resided in association for 15 years
Ronald W. Stephenson(Witness) Hunters Pointe Condominium Association (Resident, Unit 2016) Testified on behalf of Petitioner
Respondent Side
Jeffrey B. Corben(Attorney) Maxwell & Morgan P.C. Represented Hunters Pointe Condominium Association
Cathy Gillespie(Board Member) Hunters Pointe Condominium Association Board Secretary; testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Brian Brendan Tully(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma(Agency Director) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety Director receiving transmittal
Cliff J. Vanell(Director) Office of Administrative Hearings Certified the ALJ decision
Beth Soliere(Agency Staff) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety Recipient of decision copy
