**Case Summary: Kassa v. Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association, Inc.**

**Case Number:** 20F-H2019035-REL
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Presiding Judge:** Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
**Decision Date:** April 28, 2020

**Parties**
* **Petitioner:** Kenneth E. Kassa
* **Respondent:** Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association, Inc.

**Procedural Background**
On December 16, 2019, the Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging the Respondent violated state statutes governing homeowners' associations. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing, which took place on April 8, 2020.

**Key Facts**
* The Respondent is governed by CC&Rs and Bylaws, which constitute a contract between the Association and property owners.
* The Bylaws require the Association to hold an annual meeting of the Members.
* From 2017 through 2019, the Association held exactly one public annual meeting each year. All other meetings were conducted privately by the Board.
* The Association provided notice of meetings by posting flyers in common areas and made minutes available to Members upon written request.

**Main Legal Issue**
The primary issue was whether the Respondent violated **A.R.S. § 33-1804**, which governs open meetings for planned communities. This statute generally requires meetings of the association and board of directors to be open to all members, with specific statutory exceptions for closed sessions (e.g., legal advice, pending litigation, or personal information).

**Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** The Petitioner argued that the Association violated Open Meeting Law because many of the Board’s closed meetings should have been open to the public. He contended that the single annual meeting was unlawful because it served only to report on business already discussed behind closed doors throughout the year.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Respondent denied the allegations, arguing that the Bylaws empowered the Board to hold one annual meeting, a requirement they strictly followed from 2017 to 2019.

**Findings and Conclusions of Law**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition based on the following findings:
1. **Burden of Proof:** The Petitioner bore the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
2. **Lack of Evidence:** While the Petitioner believed the private meetings should have been public, he provided no evidence to show that the subject matter of those meetings failed to qualify for the statutory exceptions allowing for closed sessions.
3. **Undisputed Compliance:** It was undisputed that the Respondent held at least one public annual meeting as required.
4. **Scope of Review:** The ALJ noted that the Tribunal could not address the Petitioner's secondary arguments regarding the general appropriateness or lawfulness of the noticed private meetings, or lack thereof.

**Final Decision**
The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof. No violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 was found, and the petition was **denied**.