**Case Summary: Satterlee v. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owners Association**
**Case No. 17F-H1716018-REL-RHG**

**Overview**
This summary covers the administrative proceedings involving Petitioner Thomas Satterlee and Respondent Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owners Association. The proceedings culminated in a **rehearing** decision issued on March 15, 2018. The central legal issue throughout both the original hearing and the rehearing was whether the Respondent qualifies as a "planned community" under Arizona law, which determines the subject matter jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

**Original Proceedings (June–July 2017)**
* **Procedural History:** The original consolidated matters were heard regarding the Respondent's motion to vacate based on a lack of jurisdiction.
* **Key Facts:** Both parties agreed that the Respondent association did not own or operate real estate, nor did it possess a roadway easement or covenant.
* **Arguments:** The Petitioner argued the OAH should exercise jurisdiction because a former Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had done so in a 2015 case involving the same parties, and because the community documents contemplated being bound by planned community laws.
* **Decision:** The ALJ dismissed the case. The ruling established that subject matter jurisdiction is defined by statute and cannot be conferred by estoppel or the parties' errors in prior cases. Under A.R.S. § 33-1802(4), an association must own real estate or hold specific easements/covenants to be a "planned community." Since the Respondent did not meet these criteria, the OAH lacked jurisdiction.

**Rehearing Proceedings (February–March 2018)**
Following the original dismissal, the Petitioner filed a request for rehearing, which the Commissioner granted in September 2017. The rehearing convened for oral arguments on February 20, 2018.

* **Main Issue:** The Respondent filed a Renewal of its Motion to Dismiss, again asserting that the Department of Real Estate and OAH lacked jurisdiction because the Association is not a "planned community".
* **Petitioner’s Argument (Rehearing):** The Petitioner advanced a new interpretation of the statute. He argued that because the developer built walls and a sign at the entrance, and the Respondent maintained the landscaping around them, the Respondent held a "covenant to maintain roadways". The Petitioner contended that the statutory term "roadway" should include "roadway systems," encompassing the land at the community entrance.
* **Respondent’s Argument:** The Respondent countered that landscaping around a sign does not constitute a roadway. Therefore, the requirement of a "covenant to maintain roadways" was not met.
* **Legal Analysis:** The ALJ cited A.R.S. § 33-1802(4), noting that the definition of a planned community requires real estate owned and operated by the association, or an easement/covenant to maintain roadways. The ALJ explicitly declined the Petitioner's invitation to interpret "roadways" to mean "areas adjacent to roadways" or to count the maintenance of entrance walls and signs as maintaining a roadway.

**Final Outcome**
The ALJ affirmed that the Respondent is not a "planned community" as defined by statute. Consequently, the OAH and the Arizona Department of Real Estate lack subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. The petitions were **dismissed with prejudice**.