Briefing Document: Wolchko v. Victoria Manor Management & Property Owners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key proceedings, arguments, and outcomes of the administrative case George Wolchko v. Victoria Manor Management & Property Owners Association, Case No. 25F-H025-REL, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner, George Wolchko, a homeowner, filed a four-issue petition against the Respondent, his Homeowners Association (HOA), alleging violations of Arizona statutes and the community’s governing documents.

The hearing, held on April 14, 2025, resulted in a mixed but largely favorable outcome for the Petitioner. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the HOA in violation on three of the four claims:

1. Failure to Provide Documents: The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by not making its management contract with Kachina Management available within the legally mandated ten-business-day period.

2. Failure to Repair Common Wall: The HOA violated its own Bylaws and CC&Rs by failing its duty to maintain and repair a common element (an exterior wall and electrical conduit) after its hired contractor performed improper work, leaving a hole that was not weatherproof.

3. Failure to Fill Board Vacancy: The HOA violated its Bylaws, which mandate a board of no fewer than three members, by operating with only two directors since October 2024.

The HOA prevailed on one claim, Failure to Hold a Special Meeting, as the ALJ determined the Petitioner’s request, while clear in intent, was technically deficient under the Bylaws. The final order deemed Mr. Wolchko the prevailing party on three issues, ordering the HOA to reimburse him $1,500.00 in filing fees, to comply with community documents going forward, and levying a civil penalty of $150.00 against the Association.

Case Overview

Case Number

25F-H025-REL

Jurisdiction

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox

Hearing Date

April 14, 2025

Petitioner

George Wolchko

Respondent

Victoria Manor Management & Property Owners Association

Respondent’s Counsel

Christopher Duren (of Gottlieb Law, PLC)

Key Parties and Witnesses

• George Wolchko: The Petitioner, owner of a home in the Victoria Manor community since 2018 and a former board member (2018-2023). Testified on his own behalf.

• Victoria Manor Management & Property Owners Association: The Respondent, a planned community in Mesa, Arizona, consisting of eight units and seven owners.

• Joseph Kidd: A current HOA board member, serving since November 2022. Testified for the Respondent.

• Michael Mott: A current HOA board member. Was present at the hearing but did not testify.

• Kachina Management, Inc.: The HOA’s management company, contracted in April 2024.

• Chris Jones: Elected to the board in September 2024 but resigned shortly thereafter, creating the board vacancy at the heart of Claim 4.

Analysis of Claims, Evidence, and Findings

Claim 1: Violation of AZ Law on Delivery of Community Documents

• Petitioner’s Allegation: The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 and its governing documents by failing to provide a copy of the Kachina Management contract despite numerous requests beginning in May 2024.

• Petitioner’s Testimony & Evidence (Wolchko):

◦ Made his first formal email request for the contract on May 6, 2024. He followed up on May 12 and May 26.

◦ The management company, Kachina, responded on May 29, offering an in-person review on June 3 or 4.

◦ Wolchko testified that driving 45 minutes each way was not a “reasonably available” means of access, especially when a digital copy existed and he travels internationally. He noted the CC&Rs explicitly allow for delivery by mail.

◦ After canceling an in-person appointment due to an emergency, his repeated requests for a digital or mailed copy were met with insistence on in-person review.

◦ The contract was finally produced in February 2025, nearly a year after the initial request and only after the petition was filed.

• Respondent’s Position:

◦ Argued that by offering in-person inspection at their office, they fulfilled their statutory obligation to make records “reasonably available for examination.”

◦ Emails from Kachina Management to Wolchko confirmed they had prepared the documents for his review on the dates offered. They stated Wolchko canceled the appointment and never rescheduled.

• ALJ’s Finding: Violation Found. The ALJ concluded that more than ten business days passed between the initial request on May 6, 2024, and the date the documents were made available for examination on June 3, 2024. This delay constituted a failure to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Claim 2: Failure to Hold a Special HOA Meeting

• Petitioner’s Allegation: The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) and its Bylaws by failing to hold a special meeting requested via a valid petition signed by 25% of the members (Wolchko and Terrance Greer).

• Petitioner’s Testimony & Evidence (Wolchko):

◦ Submitted a formal, signed request on June 19, 2024, to hold an “emergency HOA meeting to address repairs on a community common wall.”

◦ He argued this was a valid petition for a special meeting and that the Board ignored it.

◦ The Respondent falsely claimed the meeting was held during the September annual meeting, but the annual meeting notice and minutes contained no mention of the special meeting’s purpose.

• Respondent’s Position:

◦ Argued the request was for an “emergency meeting,” which, under statute, can only be called by the Board of Directors, not by member petition.

◦ Contended there is no provision in the governing documents for 25% of members to call an emergency meeting.

◦ Noted that at the annual meeting in September, Wolchko was explicitly asked if he had any issues to discuss and he declined.

• ALJ’s Finding: No Violation. The ALJ found that although the intent was clearly to request a special meeting, the petition was technically deficient. It used the term “emergency meeting,” did not include a place for the meeting, and did not use the phrase “special meeting.” While a “mere technicality,” this was sufficient to deem the petition ineffective. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party on this issue.

Claim 3: Failure to Uphold CCRs Regarding Common Wall Repairs

• Petitioner’s Allegation: The HOA failed its duty to repair a common wall damaged by its own electrician in February 2024.

• Petitioner’s Testimony & Evidence (Wolchko):

◦ In February 2024, an HOA-hired contractor, Blue State Electric, performed work on an electrical conduit on his building’s exterior wall, which the board had previously designated a “true common area” with shared 50/50 maintenance costs.

◦ The work left a hole filled with foam that was not watertight. His immediate notification on March 15, 2024, was dismissed by board member Joseph Kidd, who claimed the hole was a pre-existing condition exposed by the work and therefore not the HOA’s responsibility.

◦ After months of the board refusing to act, he investigated the box himself, discovering an HOA wire running through his wall. He stated he only touched the box to prove it was an HOA issue after being told to “deal with it myself.”

◦ He disputed the validity of an $1,867 invoice from a second contractor (Canyon State), stating it was solicited by the board to blame him for damage he did not cause.

• Respondent’s Testimony & Evidence (Kidd):

◦ The electrical box and conduit are common elements that serve four buildings.

◦ Wolchko is not a licensed Arizona electrician and had no authorization to touch the common element.

◦ Kidd testified that after Wolchko sent a video of himself pulling the box out, the board hired Canyon State to inspect it.

◦ He acknowledged offering to help Wolchko patch the stucco but denied authorizing any electrical work.

• ALJ’s Finding: Violation Found. The ALJ determined that the preponderance of evidence supported that the “Board-hired electrician installed the wrong kind of box and left a section of the wall exposed without proper weather proofing.” Because the wall and electrical conduit were common elements, the board had a duty to maintain them in good repair. The board “declined to correct the problem its contractor caused,” thus violating the Bylaws and CC&Rs.

Claim 4: Failure to Maintain Required Number of Board Members

• Petitioner’s Allegation: The HOA violated its Bylaws (Article IV, Section 1), which require a board of “no less than three (3) persons,” by operating with only two members.

• Petitioner’s Testimony & Evidence (Wolchko):

◦ Following the September 19, 2024 election, three members were elected: Joseph Kidd, Michael Mott, and Chris Jones.

◦ Chris Jones resigned almost immediately, leaving the board with two members.

◦ He argued that while the bylaws state a vacancy “may be filled” by the remaining directors, this grants authority, it does not waive the fundamental requirement of having at least three members.

◦ He noted that two other owners (himself and Terrance Greer), representing 25% of the HOA, were willing to serve, so the vacancy could be filled.

• Respondent’s Testimony & Evidence (Kidd):

◦ Confirmed Jones resigned by early October 2024.

◦ Stated the board reached out to other members who expressed no interest in serving.

◦ Testified that Kachina Management advised them that filling the seat was at their discretion.

◦ The Respondent’s legal argument was that the Bylaw’s use of the word “may” (“may be filled”) makes filling the vacancy optional, not mandatory.

• ALJ’s Finding: Violation Found. The ALJ was “not persuasive” by the Respondent’s argument. The decision states: “This provision allows for the appointment, rather than the election, of a Director to a vacant seat. It does not absolve the Board from having the minimum number of Directors.” The preponderance of evidence established that the HOA violated its Bylaws by not having enough Board members.

Final Decision and Order

• Prevailing Party: George Wolchko was deemed the prevailing party on Petition Issues 1, 3, and 4. Victoria Manor was deemed the prevailing party on Issue 2.

• Reimbursement: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner $1,500.00 for filing fees within thirty days.

• Compliance: The Respondent was directed to “comply with the requirements of its Community Documents going forward.”

• Civil Penalty: A civil penalty of $150.00 was levied against the Respondent.

• Decision Date: May 5, 2025.