Winter, Alexander vs. Cortina Homeowners Association

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314004-BFS
Agency Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Tribunal
Decision Date 2014-03-21
Administrative Law Judge MD
Outcome Dismissed
Filing Fees Refunded
Civil Penalties

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Alexander Winter Counsel Pro Se
Respondent Cortina Homeowners Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl, Esq. (Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, P.L.C.)

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

13F-H1314004-BFS Decision – 387230.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:47:33 (149.4 KB)

13F-H1314004-BFS Decision – 392642.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:47:36 (59.2 KB)

13F-H1314004-BFS Decision – 387230.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:23 (149.4 KB)

13F-H1314004-BFS Decision – 392642.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:23 (59.2 KB)

Briefing Document: Alexander Winter vs. Cortina Homeowners Association (No. 13F-H1314004-BFS)

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative hearing and subsequent final decision in the matter of Alexander Winter vs. Cortina Homeowners Association (Case No. 13F-H1314004-BFS). The dispute centers on alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805, which governs the rights of homeowners to access association records.

The Petitioner, Alexander Winter, alleged that the Cortina Homeowners Association (the "Association") failed to provide specific financial and operational documents within the statutory ten-business-day window. This case followed a prior administrative hearing (Docket No. 13F-H1314001-BFS) where the Association had previously been found in violation of the same statute regarding different record requests.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), M. Douglas, determined that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requested documents existed or were being improperly withheld. Consequently, the ALJ recommended dismissal of the petition, and the decision was certified as the final administrative action on May 1, 2014.


Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Requirements for Record Disclosure (A.R.S. § 33-1805)

The central legal pillar of the case is A.R.S. § 33-1805, which mandates that association records be made "reasonably available for examination" and sets strict timelines for compliance:

  • Examination Timeline: Associations have ten business days to fulfill a request for record examination.
  • Copying Timeline: On request for copies, associations have ten business days to provide them.
  • Fees: Associations may not charge for the review of materials but may charge up to $0.15 per page for copies.
  • Exemptions: Records may be withheld if they involve privileged attorney-client communication, pending litigation, executive session minutes, or personal/financial information of individual members or employees.
2. Burden of Proof and the "Existence" of Records

A primary theme of this hearing was the distinction between a failure to provide records and the non-existence of those records. The ALJ ruled that "Cortina is not responsible for producing documents that do not exist or that it does not possess."

Document Requested Association Status/Response ALJ Finding
Delinquency Reports Did not exist; Accounts Receivable (AR) summaries were provided instead. Petitioner failed to prove reports exist.
2007–2008 Budgets Not in possession; a different management company was used then. Petitioner failed to prove possession.
Duford Contract/Invoice Claimed no request was received and no contract exists. No credible evidence of existence.
JSJ Enterprises Bids Claimed no request was received and no contract/bid exists. No credible evidence of existence.
C&G Communications Bid Claimed no request was received and no bid exists. No credible evidence of existence.
3. Legal Doctrine: Collateral Estoppel

The Petitioner attempted to relitigate issues regarding the "CleanCuts" and "Renaissance Community Partners (RCP)" contracts and invoices. However, because these specific items were already adjudicated in a prior hearing (Docket No. 13F-H1314001-BFS), the ALJ applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel. This precludes the relitigation of issues previously determined in a suit between the same parties. The Association had already provided 3,200 pages of documents to the Petitioner in compliance with the previous order.

4. Administrative Discrepancies and Errors

The hearing revealed procedural errors by the Association’s legal representation. The Association’s verified Answer incorrectly stated it had not received certain requests (specifically an August 8, 2013, request for Board Minutes). The Community Manager, Kevin H. Bishop, admitted this was an error made by the Association's attorney. However, the ALJ did not find this error sufficient to prove a statutory violation regarding the core missing documents.


Important Quotes with Context

On the Statute of Record Disclosure

"The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records by any member… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records."

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) Context: This serves as the legal benchmark against which the Association's conduct was measured.

On the Definition of a Trade Secret

"Arizona statute defines a 'trade secret' as information… that derives independent economic value… from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons."

A.R.S. § 44-401 (referenced in Finding of Fact 8) Context: This was relevant to the prior hearing regarding the Association’s initial reluctance to provide unredacted vendor contracts.

On the Burden of Proof

"The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim… and the standard of proof on all issue in this matter is by a preponderance of the evidence."

Conclusion of Law 2 (citing A.A.C. R2-19-119) Context: The ALJ used this to explain why the Petitioner's assumptions—such as his belief that a vendor bid "should" exist—were insufficient to win the case.

On the Non-Existence of Documents

"The credible evidence of record is insufficient and fails to support a finding that the requested Delinquency Reports, Duford Contract and Invoice, JSJ Enterprises Contract/Bid, and the C&G communications bid exist."

Conclusion of Law 5 Context: This was the ultimate justification for the dismissal of the Petitioner's claims.


Actionable Insights

For Association Governance
  • Documentation of Non-Existence: When a member requests a document that does not exist, the Association should provide a clear, written statement explaining that the record is not in their possession and, if applicable, offer the closest equivalent (e.g., providing AR summaries when Delinquency Reports are requested).
  • Record Retention for Management Transitions: The Association faced challenges regarding 2007–2008 records due to a change in management companies. Ensuring a complete transfer of digital and physical archives during management changes is critical for statutory compliance.
  • Accuracy in Legal Filings: The admission that an attorney made an error in a verified Answer highlights the need for community managers to meticulously review legal responses to ensure they accurately reflect the Association’s communication logs.
For Members Requesting Records
  • Proof of Delivery: The Petitioner was unable to prove that certain emails were received by the Association. Using certified mail or requiring a "read receipt" for digital requests can establish the necessary timeline for the ten-business-day compliance window.
  • Evidence of Existence: To succeed in a claim of withheld records, a petitioner must provide more than an assumption that a document "should" exist. Concrete evidence (such as references to the document in other board minutes or emails) is necessary to meet the preponderance of evidence standard.
  • Understanding Collateral Estoppel: Once an administrative judge has ruled on a specific document request, homeowners cannot reopen that specific issue in a new petition; they must instead follow the appeals or rehearing process for the original case.

Final Decision Status

The Administrative Law Judge’s recommendation to dismiss the case was transmitted on March 21, 2014. Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety had until April 25, 2014, to modify or reject the decision. Because no action was taken by the Department, the decision was certified as final on May 1, 2014.

Study Guide: Winter v. Cortina Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Alexander Winter (Petitioner) and the Cortina Homeowners Association (Respondent), specifically focusing on Case No. 13F-H1314004-BFS and its implications for Arizona homeowners' association (HOA) law.

Section 1: Key Legal Concepts and Statutory Framework

A.R.S. § 33-1805: HOA Records Disclosure

This Arizona statute governs the accessibility of association records to its members. The core requirements include:

  • Availability: All financial and other records must be made reasonably available for examination by a member or their designated representative.
  • Timelines: The association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide requested copies.
  • Fees: Associations may not charge for the review of materials but may charge up to $0.15 per page for copies.
  • Withholding and Redaction: Records may be withheld if they relate to:
  1. Privileged attorney-client communications.
  2. Pending litigation.
  3. Minutes from executive/closed board meetings.
  4. Personal, health, or financial records of individual members or employees.
  5. Employee job performance or compensation records.
Burden and Standard of Proof
  • Burden of Proof: In administrative hearings of this nature, the burden falls on the party asserting the claim (in this case, the Petitioner).
  • Standard of Proof: The standard is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the finder of fact must be persuaded that the claim is "more likely true than not."
Collateral Estoppel

This legal principle precludes the relitigation of a fact or issue that has already been determined in a prior suit between the same parties. In this case, it prevented the Petitioner from re-arguing issues regarding records (like the RCP contract) that were already settled in Docket No. 13F-H1314001-BFS.


Section 2: Case Summary and Findings

Element Details
Parties Alexander Winter (Petitioner) vs. Cortina Homeowners Association (Respondent)
Core Allegation Failure to provide requested HOA documents within the statutory ten-day window.
Previous Litigation Docket No. 13F-H1314001-BFS (Respondent was found in violation regarding invoices and contract access).
Requested Documents Delinquency Reports, 2007–2013 Budgets, various vendor contracts (Duford, JSJ Enterprises, C&G), and meeting minutes.
Key Testimony Kevin H. Bishop (Community Manager) and Christopher Scott Puckett (Board President) testified that many requested items did not exist or were already provided.
Final Decision The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the matter, naming the Respondent the prevailing party.

Section 3: Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. What is the maximum fee an Arizona HOA can charge per page for copies of records?
  2. How many business days does an association have to fulfill a request for the examination of records under A.R.S. § 33-1805?
  3. According to the ALJ's findings, is an HOA responsible for producing documents that do not exist or are not in its possession?
  4. Identify two categories of records that an HOA is permitted to withhold from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B).
  5. What was the outcome of the prior administrative hearing (Docket No. 13F-H1314001-BFS) regarding the Renaissance Community Partners (RCP) invoices?
  6. Why did the ALJ refuse to rule on the Petitioner's request for the "CleanCuts" and "RCP" contracts in the second hearing?
  7. What happened when the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety failed to take action on the ALJ's decision by April 25, 2014?

Section 4: Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Limits of Transparency: Analyze the balance between a homeowner's right to access records and the association's right (or duty) to protect certain information. Use the redaction requirements for financial records and trade secrets as discussed in the case to support your argument.
  2. The Role of Evidence in Administrative Hearings: Discuss the Petitioner's failure to meet the "preponderance of the evidence" standard in Case No. 13F-H1314004-BFS. Focus on the testimony regarding non-existent documents (e.g., the Duford and JSJ contracts) and the impact of unproven email requests.
  3. Legal Finality and Collateral Estoppel: Explain the significance of the "Final Agency Action" and the doctrine of collateral estoppel in this case. Why is it necessary for the legal system to prevent parties from relitigating the same issues across multiple hearings?

Section 5: Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes): The codified laws of the state of Arizona.
  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over an administrative hearing, hears evidence, and makes findings of fact and conclusions of law.
  • Collateral Estoppel: A legal doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue that has already been decided in a previous court proceeding.
  • Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety: The state agency authorized to receive and process petitions regarding HOA violations.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: A standard of proof in civil and administrative cases where the evidence suggests a proposition is more likely to be true than false.
  • Privileged Communication: Protected interactions (e.g., between an attorney and a client) that are exempt from disclosure in legal proceedings or records requests.
  • Redaction: The process of editing a document to obscure or remove sensitive or confidential information before it is shared.
  • Trade Secret: Information, such as a formula or method, that derives economic value from not being generally known and is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.
  • Verified Answer: A formal written response to a petition or complaint where the respondent affirms under oath that the statements within are true.

HOA Transparency and Your Rights: Lessons from Winter v. Cortina Homeowners Association

Introduction: The Battle for HOA Records

The relationship between a homeowner and a Homeowners Association (HOA) is often a "David vs. Goliath" struggle. On one side, you have residents seeking transparency and accountability for how their dues are spent; on the other, you have corporate-style boards and management companies that may view record requests as administrative nuisances—or worse, threats to their authority.

However, as the case of Alexander Winter vs. Cortina Homeowners Association (No. 13F-H1314004-BFS) proves, even a homeowner with the best intentions can fail if they don't understand the specific legal mechanics of Arizona law. This case serves as a cautionary tale: transparency is a right, but exercising that right requires more than just suspicion—it requires a flawless paper trail and a clear understanding of what an HOA is actually required to produce.

The Legal Framework: Understanding A.R.S. § 33-1805

In Arizona, your primary weapon for transparency is Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805. This law mandates that all financial and other association records must be made reasonably available for a member (or their representative) to examine.

As a rights advocate, I cannot stress this enough: The distinction between "examination" and "purchase" is critical. Under the law, an HOA cannot charge you a dime to sit in their office and look at records. However, if you want copies to take home, they can charge you.

Here are the "Ground Rules" for any document request:

  • The 10-Business-Day Deadline: Once you submit a request, the clock starts. The association has exactly ten business days to either allow you to inspect the records or provide the copies you've requested.
  • The Copying Fee Cap: Associations are legally barred from price-gouging on copies. They can charge a maximum of 15 cents per page.
  • Examination vs. Purchase: You have the right to inspect records for free. If you only request an inspection, the board is not obligated to hand over copies.

The statute is crystal clear on the timeline:

"The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records by any member… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records."

The Case Study: The High Cost of Management Transitions and Missing Proof

Mr. Winter was no stranger to the courtroom. He had already won a prior hearing against Cortina HOA (Docket No. 13F-H1314001-BFS) after the association failed to provide records within the statutory window. However, when he returned to court for a second petition, the tide turned.

In this second dispute, Mr. Winter sought a mountain of data:

  • Financials: Operating Budgets from 2007–2013, Balance Sheets, and Bank Statements.
  • Administrative: Meeting minutes, delinquency reports, and evidence of email votes.
  • Contracts: Detailed records for vendors like Duford Inc., JSJ Enterprises, and C&G Communication.

The Management Transition Trap One of the most common hurdles homeowners face is the "management handoff." Mr. Winter sought budgets from 2007 and 2008, but the HOA claimed they did not have them. Why? Because the HOA had utilized a different management company during those years. When boards switch management firms, records often fall through the cracks. The court ruled that an HOA cannot produce what it does not possess, leaving the homeowner in a lurch.

The "Proof of Service" Failure Perhaps the most painful lesson for advocates is the "email ghost." Mr. Winter claimed he requested the Duford and JSJ contracts, but the HOA denied ever receiving the emails. Because Mr. Winter had no actual proof that the emails were sent and received, the judge dismissed those claims entirely.

Legal Limitations: What an HOA Can Withhold

Transparency is not absolute. Arizona law provides HOAs with "shields" to protect certain sensitive information.

Record Disclosure: What's Public vs. What's Protected
Reason for Withholding Statutory Basis (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)) Journalist Note
Attorney-Client Privilege Subsection (B)(1) Protects legal strategies and advice.
Pending Litigation Subsection (B)(2) Records regarding active or upcoming lawsuits.
Confidential Meeting Minutes Subsection (B)(3) Minutes from executive sessions.
Personal/Financial Records Subsection (B)(4) Protects individual member/employee privacy.
Employee Performance Subsection (B)(5) Complaints or health records of staff.

The Redaction Bridge: In the Winter case, the HOA produced Renaissance Community Partners (RCP) invoices but redacted certain sections. This is the mandatory legal compromise: the HOA must provide the record but must black out information related to the personal financial data of other members.

The Ruling: The Burden of Proof and the Finality of "ALJCERT"

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed Mr. Winter’s claims, and the decision highlights two insurmountable legal barriers:

1. The "Non-Existent Records" Rule

You cannot sue an HOA for not giving you something that doesn't exist. Mr. Winter requested "Delinquency Reports," but the board testified they only maintain "Accounts Receivable (AR) summaries." Because the specific document title he requested did not exist in their filing system, the HOA was not in violation.

2. Collateral Estoppel: No "Second Bites"

The judge invoked Collateral Estoppel. This is a legal doctrine that prevents you from relitigating an issue that has already been decided. Because the disputes over the "CleanCuts" and "RCP" contracts were handled in the first hearing, Mr. Winter was barred from bringing them up again. Once a judge rules on a specific document request, that door is closed.

Conclusion: Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

The Winter v. Cortina decision is a roadmap for how to—and how not to—handle a records dispute.

For Homeowners: Use the "Paper Trail" Strategy

  1. Certified Mail is King: Never rely on standard email for statutory requests. As Mr. Winter learned, if the HOA says "we didn't get it," and you don't have a return receipt, you lose. Use Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested.
  2. Be Specific but Flexible: If you ask for a "Delinquency Report" and they offer an "AR Summary," take it. Don't let a naming convention defeat your right to information.
  3. The 10-Business-Day Rule: Mark your calendar. If they haven't responded in 10 business days, your right to file a petition is triggered.

For HOA Boards: Documentation is Your Best Defense

  1. Maintain Transition Logs: When changing management companies, ensure all historical budgets and contracts are transferred and archived.
  2. Organization Prevents Litigation: Cortina successfully argued their case in part because they could show they had already turned over 3,200 pages of documents, demonstrating a "good faith" effort to comply.

Finality of the Law: This decision carries "ALJCERT" status. Because the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to modify the judge's ruling by the April 25, 2014 deadline, the ALJ’s decision became the final agency action. It is the settled word on this dispute.

Foraging Further: Rights and Resources

If you believe your HOA is stonewalling you, you have options. Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(A), you can request a rehearing, or you can take the fight to the Superior Court under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H).

Knowledge is your best advocate. You can research the full, updated text of the Arizona Revised Statutes at the official State Legislature website: [http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp](http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp).

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Alexander Winter (Petitioner)
    Cortina Homeowners Association
    Owner of a residence and member of Cortina.

Respondent Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, P.L.C.
    Represented Respondent Cortina Homeowners Association.
  • Kevin H. Bishop (Community Manager / Statutory Agent)
    Renaissance Community Partners
    President of RCP and statutory agent for Cortina.
  • Christopher Scott Puckett (Board President)
    Cortina Homeowners Association
    President of the Board of Directors for Cortina.

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Authored the Administrative Law Judge Decision.
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presided over the prior related hearing (Docket No. 13F-H1314001-BFS).
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Electronically transmitted the recommended order.
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the final administrative decision.
  • Joni Cage (Staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Received copy of certification on behalf of Gene Palma.
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed, e-mailed, or faxed the copies of the certification.
Facebook Comments Box