Case Summary
| Case ID | 24F-H034-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2024-05-30 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Amy M. Haley |
| Outcome | no |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | R.L. Whitmer | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners | Counsel | Emily H. Mann |
Alleged Violations
Section 23.9
Outcome Summary
The ALJ granted the Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition, finding that the Petitioner's claim regarding the August 2016 adoption of rules was a breach of contract claim barred by the six-year statute of limitations.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to file the petition within the six-year statute of limitations applicable to breach of contract claims in Arizona.
Key Issues & Findings
Unauthorized Rule Adoption
Petitioner alleged the HOA board breached Section 23.9 of the CC&Rs by adopting rules and regulations on August 19, 2016 without proper authority.
Orders: Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied and Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was granted. The complaint was dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- A.R.S. 12-548(A)
- Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553
Decision Documents
24F-H034-REL Decision – 1169191.pdf
24F-H034-REL Decision – 1170407.pdf
24F-H034-REL Decision – 1179078.pdf
**Case Title:** R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners (No. 24F-H034-REL)
**Hearing Overview**
On May 13, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Amy M. Haley held an oral argument regarding Petitioner R.L. Whitmer's Motion for Summary Judgment. The core dispute centered on whether the respondent's Board of Directors possessed the legal and contractual authority to adopt association rules and regulations on August 19, 2016.
**Key Arguments**
* **Petitioner's Argument:** Petitioner, representing himself, argued that the HOA's Declaration of Horizontal Property Regime is a contract, and Section 23.9 reserves the right to adopt and amend rules exclusively to the "Council" (defined as all unit owners). Petitioner asserted that Article 9, Section 2 of the association's bylaws, which grants rule-making authority to the board, inherently conflicts with the Declaration. Citing A.R.S. § 33-1213, Petitioner argued that when such a conflict exists, the Declaration supersedes the bylaws. Consequently, Petitioner requested the tribunal declare the 2016 rules invalid and sought to impose a civil penalty against the HOA. Petitioner additionally argued that the statute of limitations should be tolled based on a 2023 lower court of appeals decision regarding discovery.
* **Respondent's Argument:** The Respondent moved to dismiss the petition entirely, asserting it was barred by the statute of limitations. Counsel noted that HOA governing documents are considered contracts under Arizona law, which are subject to a six-year statute of limitations. Because the contested rules were adopted on August 19, 2016, Respondent argued the deadline to file a claim was August 19, 2022. Substantively, Respondent argued that the Declaration and the bylaws govern different subject matters and, under established Arizona law, must be read together and harmonized rather than interpreted as conflicting. Furthermore, Respondent argued there was no bad faith or punitive action to justify a civil penalty.
**Final Decision and Outcome**
On May 30, 2024, the Administrative Law Judge issued a final decision resolving the matter entirely on the statute of limitations defense.
* **Legal Findings:** The judge ruled that the HOA's governing documents (CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Rules) constitute contracts under Arizona law, meaning any related claims are subject to a six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract.
* **Ruling:** Because Petitioner alleged the breach occurred when the Board voted to adopt the rules on August 19, 2016, he was legally required to assert his claim on or before August 19, 2022. Having failed to file within this requisite six-year window, Petitioner's claim was time-barred.
* **Outcome:** The ALJ officially denied Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, granted Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- R.L. Whitmer (petitioner)
Representing himself
Respondent Side
- Emily H. Mann (HOA attorney)
Phillips, Maceyko & Battock, PLLC
Neutral Parties
- Amy M. Haley (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings - Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate