Case Summary
| Case ID | 15F-H1515006-BFS |
|---|---|
| Agency | Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2015-09-14 |
| Administrative Law Judge | M. Douglas |
| Outcome | yes |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $550.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Ferne Skidmore | Counsel | Jonathan A. Dessaules |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association | Counsel | Clint G. Goodman |
Alleged Violations
Article IV, Section 3
Outcome Summary
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the HOA's restriction of the 'Stocking Project' from the clubhouse violated the non-discrimination provisions of the CC&Rs (Article IV, Section 3). The ALJ determined the project was charitable, not religious, and that the HOA had historically allowed non-members and other activities.
Key Issues & Findings
Discrimination in Common Area Use
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated the CC&Rs non-discrimination clause by prohibiting the 'Christmas Stocking Project' from using the clubhouse. The HOA argued the project had a religious affiliation and non-members participated. The ALJ found the project was a charitable organization for homeless children without religious affiliation and that the HOA's exclusion was discriminatory.
Orders: Respondent ordered to fully comply with CC&Rs; Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $550.00 filing fee.
Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
- Article IV, Section 3
- Article VII, paragraph 2
Decision Documents
15F-H1515006-BFS Decision – 457186.pdf
15F-H1515006-BFS Decision – 463653.pdf
**Case Summary: Ferne Skidmore v. Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association**
**Case No. 15F-H1515006-BFS**
**Proceedings Overview**
This administrative hearing, held on August 27, 2015, before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, addressed a petition filed by homeowner Ferne Skidmore against the Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association (HOA). The dispute centered on the HOA Board's decision to prohibit a group known as the "Stocking Project" from using the community clubhouse.
**Key Facts and Arguments**
The Petitioner, Ms. Skidmore, had organized the Stocking Project for approximately six years. The group utilized the clubhouse to assemble Christmas stockings filled with donated items (e.g., toiletries and toys) for needy and homeless children,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The HOA Board argued that it restricted the project to adhere to CC&Rs and Bylaws regarding "religious affiliation." Board members testified they excluded the group to avoid liability associated with religious organizations, because the project's funds did not pass through the HOA treasurer, and because the group included non-members,,.
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Ms. Skidmore argued the ban was discriminatory and violated the HOA's non-discrimination clauses. She testified that the project was purely charitable, had no religious affiliation, and that religion was never mentioned during activities,.
**Evidence and Testimony**
Testimony revealed inconsistencies in the HOA's enforcement of rules. While the Board cited religious affiliation as a reason for the ban, a Board member admitted the Board opens its own sessions with prayer and displays Christmas decorations in the clubhouse,. Additionally, evidence showed the clubhouse was open to other activities involving non-members and monetary prizes (such as card games) without restriction.
**Legal Findings**
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas ruled in favor of the Petitioner based on the preponderance of the evidence,.
1. **Definition of Religious Activity:** The Tribunal found the Stocking Project was a non-profit charitable organization existing to help children, not to promote a specific belief in a deity. Therefore, it did not constitute a "religious activity",.
2. **Violation of CC&Rs:** The Judge concluded the Board's actions were discriminatory, violating Article IV, Section 3 of the Velda Rose CC&Rs, which prohibits discrimination among owners,.
**Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:
* The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party.
* The HOA must fully comply with applicable CC&R provisions in the future.
* The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $550.00 filing fee.
* No civil penalty was assessed.
The decision became the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on October 28, 2015, following a review period during which the Department took no action to reject or modify the ruling.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Ferne Skidmore (Petitioner)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association (Member)
Homeowner; organizer of the Stocking Project - Jonathan A. Dessaules (Attorney)
Dessaules Law Group
Represented Petitioner - F. Robert Connelly (Attorney)
Dessaules Law Group
Listed on service list for Petitioner
Respondent Side
- Clint G. Goodman (Attorney)
Goodman Law Office, P.C.
Represented Respondent - Brodie Poole (Witness)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
Board Member since January 2015; testified Stocking Project had no religious affiliation - Gwendolyn Krogstad (Witness)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
Board Member since January 2015 - Darrell Walklin (Witness)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
Former Board President - Gloria Denesen (Witness)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
Board Treasurer - Roger A. Walklin (Witness)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
Board President (appointed/elected 2013)
Neutral Parties
- M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge - Debra Blake (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Interim Director - Greg Hanchett (Agency Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Interim Director; certified the decision - Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
c/o for Debra Blake - Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Mailed/faxed the decision