Case Summary
| Case ID | 21F-H2121032-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2021-04-07 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Sondra J. Vanella |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Carla J. Snyder | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Las Hadas Villas Association | Counsel | David Potts |
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs 14.2
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish the HOA violated CC&R 14.2. The evidence demonstrated that the damages occurred in an exclusive use area that the homeowner is responsible for maintaining, and that the HOA had adequately maintained the roof.
Why this result: The damage was located on a patio/pergola which under CC&R 14.1 is an exclusive use area for which the homeowner holds maintenance responsibility, not the HOA.
Key Issues & Findings
Association's Responsibility
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R 14.2 by failing to repair and take responsibility for $11,476.00 in damages resulting from an improperly constructed roof without flashing.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
- A.R.S. § 32-2199
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Decision Documents
21F-H2121032-REL Decision – 870534.pdf
Here is a concise summary of the requested legal hearing:
**Case Title**: *Carla J. Snyder v. Las Hadas Villas Association* (No. 21F-H2121032-REL)
**Key Facts & Main Issue**
Petitioner Carla J. Snyder filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate against the Las Hadas Villas Association (Respondent), alleging a violation of Section 14.2 of the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The dispute centered on $11,476 in water damage and mold remediation costs incurred by the Petitioner. The Petitioner argued that the damage was caused by a construction flaw—specifically, a lack of flashing on the roof—and asserted that the roof was the Homeowners Association's (HOA) responsibility to maintain and repair.
**Hearing Proceedings & Key Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Arguments:** The Petitioner presented testimony from a general contractor who stated that the absence of roof flashing allowed water to permeate the garage and patio, classifying it as a design flaw. The Petitioner explicitly sought a "finding of negligence" against the HOA regarding the roof's construction to aid in a future civil lawsuit.
* **Respondent’s Arguments:** The HOA argued that a finding of negligence was outside the statutory purview of the administrative hearing. Relying on Section 14.1 of the CC&Rs, the Respondent noted that while the HOA is responsible for the roof, the homeowner is strictly responsible for "exclusive use" areas, which include patios and pergolas. The HOA provided maintenance logs showing the roof was repaired and fitted with proper flashing in 2015, as well as an independent 2019 inspection confirming the roof underlayment was in good condition and that the leak was an "old issue". Furthermore, the Respondent presented evidence that the unit's previous owner had experienced pergola damage but refused to replace the rotted wood, instead hiring a contractor to simply cover the rot with stucco.
**Most Important Legal Points**
* **Burden of Proof:** Under Arizona law, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the alleged CC&R violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
* **Interpretation of CC&Rs:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) utilized a plain reading of the CC&Rs, confirming that the patio and pergola are subject to the homeowner
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Carla J. Snyder (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf - Ray Odom (witness)
General contractor who performed mold remediation and drywall repairs - Dr. John Gilderbloom (witness)
University of Louisville
Professor and Petitioner's fiancé
Respondent Side
- David Potts (HOA attorney)
Las Hadas Villas Association - Tonia Reynolds (property manager)
Las Hadas Villas Association
Testified as a witness for Respondent
Neutral Parties
- Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
OAH - Tom Reynolds (witness)
99 Home Improvements
Lead for 99 Home Improvements; provided an affidavit - Judy Lowe (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
