**Case Summary: 13F-H1314001-BFS**

**Case Title:** *Alexander Winter v. Cortina Homeowners Association*
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona
**Decision Date:** December 12, 2013 (Certified Final on January 17, 2014)

**Proceedings**
On November 22, 2013, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer presided over a hearing regarding a dispute between homeowner Alexander Winter (Petitioner) and the Cortina Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide access to requested Association records within the statutory timeframe.

**Key Facts**
* On June 12, 2013, the Petitioner submitted a written request to inspect and copy various records, including budgets, general ledgers, and specific vendor contracts and invoices ("Clean Cuts" and "Renaissance Community Partners").
* On June 21, 2013, the Respondent’s manager, Kevin Bishop, replied via email. He agreed to provide some documents but refused to provide copies of Renaissance invoices, claiming they contained protected financial information of individual members.
* Regarding the contracts, Bishop stated they were viewable for inspection only (no copies) but deferred the inspection until after his return from vacation on July 7, 2013—a date beyond the statutory 10-business-day requirement.
* The Petitioner filed a complaint with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on July 3, 2013, after being unable to access the records.

**Key Arguments**
* **Petitioner:** Argued he was entitled to the records to understand the Association's financial standing. He contended that if invoices contained personal data, he should have received redacted copies rather than a total denial. He further argued he was denied the opportunity to view contracts within the required 10 business days.
* **Respondent:** Argued that the Renaissance invoices contained detailed assessments and late fees related to individual members, making them protected under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4). The Respondent also claimed vendor contracts contained "trade secrets" and that their policy was to allow inspection but not copying.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, establishing a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 based on the following:

1. **Withheld Invoices:** The ALJ acknowledged that A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) protects personal member financial records. However, the Respondent had a statutory obligation to provide *redacted* copies of the invoices rather than withholding the documents entirely.
2. **Delayed Inspection:** Although the Petitioner initially acknowledged that contracts were for inspection only, the Respondent failed to make them available within the statutory 10-business-day window. The manager's vacation caused a delay of 18 business days, constituting a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
3. **Available Documents:** For other documents that were copied and made available but not picked up by the Petitioner, no violation was found.

**Outcome and Order**
* The Petition was granted.
* **Order:** The Respondent was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing the Petitioner with copies of the requested documents (appropriately redacted) within ten days.
* **Costs:** The Respondent was