**Case Summary: Hodge v. Cottonfields Community Association**
**Case No:** 15F-H1516002-BFS
**Tribunal:** Office of Administrative Hearings / Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

**Background and Facts**
Petitioner Kesha A. Hodge, a homeowner in the Cottonfields Community, filed a petition against the Respondent, Cottonfields Community Association. The dispute centered on the "Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement" (REMA) governing the community’s Golf Course Property.

In 2011, the Association's Board voted to amend the REMA ("Revisions") regarding the definition of the Golf Course Property. Due to disagreements over whether these Revisions required member approval, the Board recorded "Notices of Errata" stating the Revisions were void and unenforceable. In 2014, litigation arose between the Association and the golf course owner, Jaguar Premium Properties, LLP. To settle this litigation in July 2015, the Board voted to record "Notices of Withdrawal" regarding the previous Notices of Errata.

**Main Issues**
The central legal issue was whether the Board's July 2015 vote to record the Withdrawals constituted a modification of land use restrictions that required a vote of the membership.

* **Petitioner’s Argument:** The Petitioner alleged that withdrawing the Notices of Errata effectively ratified the 2011 Revisions, thereby allowing the golf course owner to use the property for purposes other than open space or golf. The Petitioner argued this constituted a change to the use restrictions which, under Section 14.2 of the Declaration and Article 12 of the REMA, required written approval from two-thirds of the members.
* **Respondent’s Argument:** The Association argued the Withdrawals were legally meaningless and did not render the 2011 Revisions valid. They asserted that because the Withdrawals were not amendments to community documents, the Board’s action did not require member approval and was outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

**Hearing Proceedings and Analysis**
The matter was heard by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes regarding violations of planned community documents.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) analyzed the legal effect of the recorded documents. The ALJ determined:
1. **Scope of Review:** The petition specifically challenged the July 2015 vote to record the Withdrawals, not the validity of the original 2011 Revisions.
2. **Legal Effect:** The ALJ found that just as the Notices of Errata did not legally rescind the Revisions, the Withdrawals did not legally ratify them. The Withdrawals essentially had "no legal effect amending the Declaration".
3. **Conclusion:** Because the Withdrawals did not legally amend the community documents, the Board was not required to obtain a two-thirds vote of the members. Therefore, the Board's vote to record the Withdrawals did not violate the Declaration.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ recommended that the complaint be dismissed. On June 3, 2016, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire and Life Safety because the Department took no action to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ's recommendation within the statutory timeframe.