**Case Summary: R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas HOA (No. 22F-H2222043-REL)**

**Overview and Main Issue**
This case was decided by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings upon the Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The core dispute was a matter of contract interpretation regarding the HOA's governing documents. Specifically, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had to determine whether the word "Council" in Section 8.2 of the HOA's Declaration grants the Board of Directors the authority to set annual budget assessments, or if it requires a direct vote by the homeowners.

**Key Facts**
The Hilton Casitas HOA consists of 29 condominium owners governed by a Declaration recorded in 1972. Section 8.2 of the Declaration states that annual assessments are "to be determined by the Council". Section 1.4 explicitly defines the "Council" as consisting of "all of the Owners of the Casitas". According to the HOA's Bylaws, acts of the Council require the approval of a majority of members at a meeting where a quorum is present. Because there are 29 owners, a quorum requires 15 members.

In early 2022, the HOA Board attempted to finalize the annual budget and assessment. At a special meeting on February 9, 2022, only 14 owners participated either in person or by absentee ballot. Although 11 of those 14 owners voted to approve the budget, the participation fell short of the required quorum.

**Key Arguments**
* **Petitioner (R.L. Whitmer):** Argued that the 2022 annual assessment was invalid because the HOA violated Section 8.2 of the Declaration by failing to secure an affirmative vote from a majority of a quorum of the homeowners.
* **Respondent (Hilton Casitas HOA):** Argued that "Council" referred to the Board of Directors. The HOA asserted that under the modern Arizona Condominium Act, the historical term "Council" equates to the "Association," and state law authorizes the Board of Directors to act on behalf of the Association to set budgets without direct membership approval.

**Legal Analysis and Proceedings**
The ALJ found no genuine issues of material fact and resolved the matter strictly as a question of law. Relying on fundamental principles of contract interpretation, the ALJ evaluated the plain and unambiguous language of the Declaration. The ALJ determined that when the Declaration was written under the now-repealed Horizontal Property Regime Act, "Council" strictly meant all the co-owners.

The ALJ rejected the HOA's statutory argument, noting that the HOA had over 36 years since the repeal of the original Act to formally amend its Declaration or Bylaws if it wished to transfer this authority solely to the Board, but it had never done so. Therefore, the plain language of the contract controlled, meaning an affirmative vote by