**Case Summary: Samuel G. Schechter v. Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One**
**Case No. 15F-H1515002-BFS**

**Proceedings Overview**
This administrative hearing was held on September 22, 2015, before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner, Samuel G. Schechter, appeared on his own behalf, alleging that the Respondent, Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One (the Association), violated its Bylaws and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs),.

**Key Facts and Main Issues**
The central dispute involved the Association's alleged failure to enforce CC&R Section 11.g, which prohibits "stripped down, wrecked or junk motor vehicles" on lots,.

* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Schechter, a former Board member, submitted a complaint on September 8, 2014, listing violations regarding junk vehicles,. He argued that the Board failed to take enforcement action for over four months, violating Bylaw Article VII(1), which mandates the Board diligently perform its obligations. Schechter and witness Peter Dodge relied on photographs and observations made during their previous tenure on the Board,.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The Association argued the delay was initially caused by the sudden death of the Environmental Control Committee Chairman. Furthermore, an investigation by Board President Roxanna McGinnis in October 2014 revealed that the Petitioner’s list contained incorrect addresses and outdated information,. The Board requested that the Petitioner resubmit an updated, accurate list, but the Petitioner refused,.

**Key Legal Points and Arguments**
* **Investigation and Accuracy:** Testimony established that the Board attempted to investigate the Petitioner's complaint but found the data flawed. Witness Peter Dodge admitted the Board requested a second survey but stated he and Schechter declined to provide it because they were no longer Board members, calling it a "fool's errand".
* **Burden of Proof:** The Administrative Law Judge noted that the burden of proof falls on the party asserting the claim (the Petitioner) by a "preponderance of the evidence".

**Final Decision and Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the Respondent.

* **Findings:** The Tribunal concluded that the Board’s actions were "reasonable and prudent under the circumstances". Specifically, the Board investigated the allegations, identified inaccuracies, and requested updated information from the complainant.
* **Conclusion:** Because the Petitioner and Mr. Dodge failed to respond to the Board’s request for updated information regarding the alleged violations, the Petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof,.
* **Order:** No action was required of the Respondent, and the matter was dismissed.