**Case Summary: Griffith v. Alisanos Community Association**
**Case No:** 15F-H1516011-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date:** April 8, 2016 (Certified Final June 3, 2016)

**Proceedings and Issue**
This hearing involved a dispute between Petitioner Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. and Respondent Alisanos Community Association regarding the community’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). While the Petitioner initiated the action, the parties agreed to amend the hearing issue to determine whether the Petitioner violated CC&R Section 7.7, which prohibits exterior property alterations without Architectural Review Committee approval. The specific object in dispute was a concrete ring installed around a jacaranda tree in the Petitioner's yard.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Griffith received approval to plant the jacaranda tree in December 2008. He argued that his submitted plan included a "squiggly line" intended to represent the concrete ring, meaning the structure was approved. He completed the installation in early 2009. He further argued that the Association conducted inspections of his property in 2009 regarding a separate issue (artificial grass) and did not object to the ring at that time.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association argued the ring was never approved by the Committee. They asserted that they did not notice the ring until 2012 or 2013, claiming it only became visible after tree roots lifted it. The Association first issued a written notice of the alleged violation in January 2014.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden applied the preponderance of the evidence standard, noting that the Respondent bore the burden of proof to establish the violation.

1. **Approval Defense:** The ALJ found the Petitioner failed to prove the ring was explicitly approved in 2008. The judge noted that "squiggly lines" on landscape plans typically represent bushes or trees, not concrete structures.
2. **Constructive Notice:** Despite the lack of initial approval, the ALJ determined that the Respondent had **constructive notice** of the ring in 2009. This conclusion was based on evidence that the Association conducted routine inspections of the Petitioner's yard in 2009 and reserved the right to inspect completed improvements.
3. **Failure to Meet Burden:** Because the Association had constructive notice of the structure in 2009 but failed to inform the Petitioner of the alleged violation until 2014, the ALJ concluded the Respondent failed to meet its burden of proof that a violation of CC&R Section 7.7 existed at the time of the hearing.

**Outcome**
The ALJ ruled that the Petitioner was the prevailing party. The Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner’s $750.00 filing fee. The decision became final on June 3, 2016, after the relevant state department declined to modify or reject the ALJ's decision.