Author Archives: [email protected]

Wesley T Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221022-REL
Agency —
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2022-06-14
Administrative Law Judge JC
Outcome —
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Wesley T Chadwick Counsel Pro se / Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association Counsel Nick Eicher, Esq., Eadie Rudder, Esq. (Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP)

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 946305.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:41:43 (47.7 KB)

22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 950368.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:41:47 (46.3 KB)

22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 957992.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:41:51 (54.5 KB)

22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 958039.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:41:54 (7.8 KB)

22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 960467.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:41:57 (49.7 KB)

22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 977411.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:42:01 (229.1 KB)

Legal Analysis and Case Briefing: Wesley T. Chadwick vs. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association (No. 22F-H2221022-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and subsequent decision regarding the dispute between homeowner Wesley T. Chadwick (Petitioner) and the Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association (Respondent/Association). The case centered on six violation notices issued between January and June 2021 regarding landscaping maintenance.

The Petitioner alleged that the Association exceeded its authority, issued vague and arbitrary notices, and failed to follow the procedural requirements outlined in the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Association contended it acted within its broad discretion to maintain community aesthetics and that the Petitioner failed to achieve full compliance.

On June 14, 2022, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark issued a decision granting the petition in part. The ALJ found that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9 by failing to provide specific steps to cure violations and by citing incorrect sections of the CC&Rs. Consequently, the Association was ordered to pay a $500 pro-rata portion of the filing fee to the Petitioner.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Specificity and the "Person of Ordinary Prudence"

A central theme of the dispute was the lack of clarity in the Association’s violation notices. The Association frequently used broad directives such as "PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS" or "fix rock area." The ALJ determined that these instructions were "vague, overbroad, and nondescript." The ruling emphasized that a "person of ordinary prudence" would not necessarily understand that "fix rock area" specifically required covering irrigation lines or removing a particular plant that the manager deemed a vine.

2. Misapplication of Governing Documents

The analysis revealed a significant technical error in the Association’s enforcement process. All six violation letters cited Article 4.5, which the ALJ found pertains exclusively to "Construction Activities." The correct section for landscaping maintenance was Article 4.4. The ALJ concluded that issuing notices under the incorrect article failed to provide the Petitioner with proper legal notice of the violations.

3. The "Moving Goalposts" of Compliance

The Petitioner argued that the Association engaged in a pattern of "moving the goalposts." After reaching a settlement in March 2021 to pay a fine and resolve the initial weed issues, the Petitioner received a fourth notice (dated prior to the settlement) introducing the new "fix rock area" requirement. The Petitioner contended that this new issue was treated as a continuation of previous violations (carrying a $100 fine) rather than a new issue requiring a fresh warning, effectively depriving him of the opportunity to cure without penalty.

4. Subjective vs. Objective Enforcement

Testimony from the Community Manager, Danielle Miglio, highlighted the subjective nature of the Association's inspections. Miglio performed unannounced drive-throughs twice monthly from a vehicle. She admitted she did not measure how much irrigation line was exposed, stating only that if she could see a "black line" from the street with no plant attached, it constituted a violation. The Petitioner countered this by providing photographic evidence (Exhibit 15) of exposed irrigation lines at the residence of the Board Vice President, who testified she had never received a violation notice for such an issue.

Chronology of Violation Notices (2021)

Date Notice Level Stated Violation Outcome/Action
Jan 21 Property Inspection Remove Weeds Petitioner hired contractors to remove dead cacti and weeds.
Feb 09 Second Notice Remove Weeds $50 fine assessed.
Feb 25 Third Notice Remove Weeds $100 fine assessed.
Mar 15 Fourth Notice Remove Weeds, "fix rock area" $100 fine; first mention of "rock area."
Mar 30 Fifth Notice Remove Weeds, "fix rock area" $100 fine; OPM later provided circled photos of concern.
Jun 16 Sixth Notice Remove Weeds $100 fine; related to a specific plant the HOA called a "vine."

Important Quotes with Context

On Notice Specificity

ALJ Jenna Clark: "The Association’s directive to 'PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS' or 'fix rock area' would not indicate to a person of ordinary prudence… to cover up exposed irrigation lines, remove a plant believed to be a vine, fill in holes, and/or make the lawn generally tidy and pleasing to the eye." * Context: Found in the Conclusions of Law, this explains why the ALJ ruled the Association violated the notice requirements of the CC&Rs.

On the Nature of Inspections

Danielle Miglio (Manager): "I stay in my vehicle… This is private property. It's trespassing… if I can see it from my vehicle, which is in the middle of the street, and I can see the black line… that is typically when I would say I'm going to give them a violation." * Context: Testimony explaining how OPM determines what constitutes an "unsightly" condition or "debris."

On Compliance Frustrations

Wesley T. Chadwick (Petitioner): "We feel that because of the lack of specificity of the notices, the lack of communication, exceeding the authority and arbitrarily forcing it… the gold posts were constantly being moved." * Context: From the Petitioner's closing argument, summarizing the claim that the HOA made it impossible to achieve full compliance.

On Board Policy

Cynthia Ecker (Board VP): "Typically the first thing [we] do is we'll ask property manager if there's been a waving of fines in the past. Like I said, it's a onetime courtesy." * Context: Explaining the Board's deliberation process for fine waiver requests.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners' Associations (HOAs)
  • Precision in Documentation: Violation notices must include "specific steps" to cure. Using vague terms like "fix rock area" is insufficient. Providing circled photographs at the first notice rather than after several fines can prevent legal challenges.
  • CC&R Fidelity: Ensure enforcement letters cite the exact article and section relevant to the violation. Citing a "Construction" article for a "Landscaping" issue can render the notice moot in an administrative hearing.
  • Consistent Enforcement: Evidence of "arbitrary enforcement"—where board members have similar issues on their property but face no violations—weakens the Association's standing.
  • Settlement Transparency: When reaching a settlement for past fines, the Association should clearly disclose if there are pending notices currently in the mail to avoid "bad faith" allegations.
For Homeowners
  • Utilize Appeal Rights: The Petitioner's failure to appeal the early notices (Letters 1-3) was noted by the ALJ, though it did not ultimately defeat his claim regarding the later letters.
  • Document Remediation: Keeping receipts (e.g., the Petitioner’s $350 cactus removal and $100 weeding receipts) provides essential evidence of "good faith" attempts to comply.
  • Request Specificity: If a notice is vague, homeowners should immediately request written clarification or a meeting before fines escalate.
  • Comparative Evidence: Identifying similar conditions on other properties within the association can support a claim of arbitrary or capricious enforcement.

Final Decision Order

The Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:

  1. Partial Grant: The petition was granted regarding the violation of Article 10.9 (Notice of Violation).
  2. Partial Denial: The petition was denied regarding violations of Article 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10.
  3. Restitution: The Association was ordered to pay $500.00 to the Petitioner within 30 days of the order (June 14, 2022).

Study Guide: Chadwick vs. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing case Wesley T. Chadwick vs. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association (No. 22F-H2221022-REL). It synthesizes the procedural history, core legal arguments, and the final judicial determination regarding the enforcement of community Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

I. Key Concepts and Case Overview

The Parties
  • Petitioner: Wesley T. Chadwick, a homeowner in the Entrada Mountainside subdivision since November 2016.
  • Respondent: Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association (the Association), governed by a Board of Directors and managed by Oasis Community Management (OPM).
Core Legal Framework: The CC&Rs

The dispute centered on the interpretation and application of specific articles within the Association’s recorded CC&Rs:

  • Article 4.4 (Maintenance of Landscaping): Requires owners to keep lots "neatly trimmed, cultivated and free from trash, weeds and unsightly material."
  • Article 4.5 (Nuisances): Prohibits weeds, dead trees, rubbish, or debris that render a property "unsanitary, unsightly, offensive, or detrimental." The judge later determined this article specifically pertained to construction activities.
  • Article 10.1 (Enforcement): Grants the Association the right to enforce project documents.
  • Article 10.9 (Notice of Violation): Requires the Association to provide a brief description of the nature of the violation and a "statement of the specific steps" required to cure it.
  • Article 10.10 (Laws and Regulations): Declares that violations of state or local laws are also violations of the CC&Rs.
The Procedural Timeline (2021-2022)
  1. January – February 2021: Petitioner receives three violation notices for weeds and dead plants. Petitioner pays $450 to remove cacti and weeds.
  2. March 2021: Petitioner reaches a settlement with OPM to waive a $100 fine if compliant for 90 days. However, a fourth notice is issued citing a new issue: "fix rock area."
  3. April – June 2021: Petitioner receives fifth and sixth notices. Issues include exposed irrigation lines and a plant OPM identifies as a "vine/weed."
  4. September 2021: The Association Board denies Petitioner’s appeal in executive session.
  5. October 2021: Petitioner files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).
  6. May 25, 2022: A formal administrative hearing is held.
  7. June 14, 2022: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark issues the final decision.

II. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. What specific phrase did the Association include in the fourth and fifth notices that was not present in the first three?

Answer: "Fix rock area."

2. According to the testimony of Danielle Miglio (OPM Manager), what did "fix rock area" specifically require the Petitioner to do?

Answer: It required the Petitioner to cover exposed irrigation lines with granite and fill in the holes left by the removal of dead cacti.

3. Why did the Petitioner argue that the fourth violation notice was issued in "bad faith"?

Answer: Because the fourth notice (dated March 15) was issued just three days before the Petitioner reached a settlement agreement (March 18) with the Association, which he believed resolved all outstanding issues.

4. What was the "secret third option" proposed by the ALJ regarding the Petitioner's subpoena for documents on the day of the hearing?

Answer: The Petitioner could choose to move forward with the case immediately and then continue the matter to a later date only if the substance of the missing documents became necessary during testimony.

5. On what grounds did the ALJ rule that the Association violated Article 10.9?

Answer: The Association failed to provide "specific steps" to cure the violations. Directives like "PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS" or "fix rock area" were deemed too vague to inform a person of ordinary prudence that they needed to cover irrigation lines or remove a specific plant.

6. What was the judge's finding regarding the Association's use of Article 4.5 in the violation letters?

Answer: The judge found Article 4.5 inapplicable because it pertains solely to construction activities. The Association should have cited Article 4.4.

III. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Requirement of Specificity in Administrative Notice:

Analyze the conflict between the Association’s use of broad "boilerplate" language in violation notices and the requirements of Article 10.9. How does the failure to provide specific curative steps (e.g., "cover irrigation lines" vs. "fix rock area") impact a homeowner's right to due process and their ability to reach compliance?

  1. Arbitrary and Capricious Enforcement:

During the hearing, Board Vice President Cynthia Ecker admitted she had exposed irrigation lines on her property but had never received a violation. Discuss the legal implications of this testimony in the context of the Petitioner’s claim of "arbitrary and capricious" enforcement. Why did the judge ultimately conclude the Petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof for this specific allegation (Article 10.10) despite this testimony?

  1. The Role of Settlement and Good Faith:

The Petitioner believed a "settlement" had been reached on March 18, 2021. Evaluate the Association's actions in issuing a fourth notice dated March 15 without mentioning it during the settlement negotiations. Discuss whether the Association’s behavior aligns with the "maintenance of harmony" typically intended by community governing documents.

IV. Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) A judge who trie cases and makes determinations for administrative agencies (in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings).
CC&Rs Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing legal documents that dictate the rules for a planned community.
Continuance A postponement of a hearing or trial to a later date.
Exigency An urgent need or demand; used in the text to describe the only condition under which further continuances would be granted.
Minute Entry A brief record of the proceedings of a court or the steps taken in a case.
Petitioner The party who presents a petition to a court or tribal (Wesley T. Chadwick).
Prima Facie Based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.
Respondent The party against whom a petition is filed (Entrada Mountainside HOA).
Soft Costs Costs mentioned by the Board (e.g., administrative fees) that the Association often waives as a "one-time courtesy" if a homeowner reaches compliance.
Subpoena Duces Tecum A court order requiring a witness to bring specific documents or evidence to a court or hearing.
Tribunal A court of justice or an administrative body with the authority to adjudicate disputes.
Vacate To cancel or render a previous legal proceeding or hearing void.

HOA Disputes: Lessons in Specificity and Fairness from Chadwick vs. Entrada Mountainside

1. Introduction: The Battle for the Front Yard

For many homeowners, few experiences are as universally frustrating as receiving a vague violation notice from their Homeowners Association (HOA). What begins as a simple directive to "remove weeds" can rapidly deteriorate into a cycle of escalating fines and administrative litigation. In the case of Wesley T. Chadwick vs. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association, a standard landscaping dispute became a crucial legal test: exactly how specific must an HOA be when demanding a homeowner perform repairs?

This conflict, which was ultimately decided by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, offers a masterclass in procedural due process. It examines whether generic commands like "fix rock area" meet the legal and contractual standards required of an association. As a community association advocate, I will break down the ALJ’s findings to show why specificity is not just a courtesy—it is a legal necessity.

2. The Paper Trail: A Timeline of Escalating Notices

The dispute between Mr. Chadwick and the Association spanned the first half of 2021. While the homeowner made significant efforts to comply, the Association continued to issue fines based on increasingly ambiguous requirements.

Date of Notice Alleged Violation/Directive Fine/Action Taken
January 25, 2021 Remove weeds and dead trees/plants (Article 4.5). Initial Warning Notice.
February 9, 2021 "Please remove weeds." $50.00 Fine.
February 25, 2021 "Please remove weeds." $100.00 Fine.
March 15, 2021 Added new directive: "fix rock area." $100.00 Fine.
March 30, 2021 "Remove weeds" and "fix rock area." $100.00 Fine; Legal action threatened.
June 16, 2021 "Please remove weeds" (targeting a specific vine). $100.00 Fine; Legal action threatened.

The turning point occurred in March 2021. As the Association transitioned from the specific issue of "weeds" to the subjective and vague command to "fix rock area," the homeowner was left guessing at the Association’s expectations.

3. The Resident's Defense: "Moving the Goalposts"

Petitioner Chadwick successfully dismantled the Association’s lack of procedural due process by highlighting a pattern of "moving the goalposts." His primary arguments included:

  • Failure of Specificity (Article 10.9): Chadwick argued the Association violated Article 10.9 of the CC&Rs, which mandates a "statement of the specific steps" required to cure a violation. He contended that "fix rock area" failed this contractual standard.
  • Good Faith Compliance and Bad Faith Negotiation: Chadwick spent $450 in February to remove dead cacti and weeds. On March 18, he reached a settlement with the Association to pay a $50 fine to resolve the matter. However, the Association acted in apparent bad faith by negotiating this settlement while already having mailed a new $100 fine on March 15—a fact the Association did not disclose during settlement talks.
  • Arbitrary Enforcement: In a "smoking gun" moment during the hearing, Chadwick pointed to the uneven application of the rules. Most notably, Cynthia Ecker, a Board member of 20 years and current Vice President, admitted under cross-examination that she had uncovered irrigation lines in her own yard but had never received a notice or a fine.

4. The Association’s Stance: Broad Authority and "Unsightly" Conditions

The Association, represented by Community Manager Danielle Miglio and the Board Vice President, justified their enforcement actions through the following arguments:

  • Broad Discretionary Power: They argued that Article 4.5 granted the Association the exclusive right to determine what constitutes an "unsightly" or "offensive" condition.
  • The "Incomplete Job" Theory: The Board contended that when Chadwick removed the dead cacti, he created a new "debris" issue by leaving holes and exposed irrigation lines. They argued this was an extension of the original maintenance failure.
  • Sufficiency of Notice: The Association maintained that "Remove Weeds" was a sufficient directive, asserting that it is the homeowner’s responsibility to cross-reference the CC&Rs or contact the office for further clarity.

5. The ALJ’s Verdict: Why Specificity Matters

The ALJ’s decision (No. 22F-H2221022-REL) provides a sharp critique of the Association's procedural failures. The Judge granted the petition in part, based on two critical legal errors:

The "Prudent Person" Standard The Judge ruled that a person of "ordinary prudence" could not be expected to be a mind-reader. A homeowner should not have to guess that the vague command to "fix rock area" actually meant they needed to "cover irrigation lines, fill holes, and remove a specific plant the Board labeled a vine." The fact that the Association eventually had to send a photo with circled areas to explain the violation proved that the written notices were insufficient.

The Procedural Failure: Article 4.4 vs. 4.5 In a significant blow to the Association’s legal standing, the ALJ found that the HOA cited the wrong Article in every notice. The Association relied on Article 4.5, which pertains solely to construction activities and nuisances. Landscaping issues fall under Article 4.4. Citing the wrong Article isn't a mere typo; it is a fundamental failure to provide proper notice, rendering the enforcement action contractually deficient.

6. Final Outcome and Financial Impact

While the Judge did not find the Association’s actions entirely arbitrary, the petition was granted regarding the violation of Article 10.9. The HOA was held accountable for the financial burden placed on the homeowner to seek justice.

### Final Order The Association was ordered to pay $500.00 to the Petitioner as a pro-rata portion of the filing fee, to be paid within 30 days of the order.

7. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and HOA Boards

For Homeowners
  • Demand Specificity: If a notice is vague, you have a contractual right to request "specific steps to cure." Reference your governing documents (like Article 10.9 in this case) to force the Board to define the violation.
  • Expose Inconsistency: Document other properties with similar "violations." As the Ecker testimony showed, proving that Board members are exempt from the rules they enforce is a powerful defense against arbitrary fines.
  • Appeal Early: Do not let fines accumulate while hoping the issue will disappear. Use the formal appeal process to create a paper trail of your compliance efforts.
For HOA Boards
  • Cite Correctly or Lose: Citing a "Nuisance" clause for a "Landscaping" issue is a procedural error that can void your fines in court. Ensure your management team is citing the exact, applicable section of the CC&Rs.
  • Eliminate Subjectivity: Phrases like "fix area" are legally unenforceable. Your notices must be descriptive (e.g., "Cover 4 inches of exposed black irrigation line near the front walkway with matching granite").
  • Negotiate in Good Faith: Settling past fines while a new notice is already in the mail is a fast track to being labeled a "bad faith" actor by a judge.

8. Administrative Note

Administrative Law proceedings in these matters follow a strict statutory timeline. Following the hearing, the ALJ has 20 days to draft a recommendation for the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, who then has 30 days to finalize the order. Parties should be aware that while a "rehearing" can be requested within 30 days of the final order, it is not a "second bite at the apple." A rehearing is only granted under specific hurdles, such as proving the discovery of new evidence that was not available at the time of the original hearing.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Wesley Todd Chadwick (Petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Nick Eicher (Counsel for Respondent)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Eadie Rudder (Counsel for Respondent)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Danielle Christine Miglo (Witness and Manager)
    Oasis Community Management
  • Cynthia Marie Ecker (Witness and Board Vice President)
    Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association
  • Mara Jolie (Assistant Manager)
    Oasis Property Management

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    Office of Administrative Hearings

Asmaa Kadhum v. Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222028-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-10-11
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Asmaa Kadhum Counsel —
Respondent Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1256

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to prove a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 because the specific issue raised—a complaint about a recorded lien—was moot, as the lien had been released, and no current enforcement action regarding the disputed legal fees was pending.

Why this result: The ALJ determined that absent a recorded lien or pending enforcement action, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction to address the reasonableness or accuracy of the disputed legal fees under the specific statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1256).

Key Issues & Findings

Requesting to Waive/or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.

Petitioner sought to waive or adjust unreasonable collection fees and attorney fees ($2,351.40 or $3,500.00) charged by the HOA related to a lien placed on their unit, which was later released because it was allegedly based on incorrect amounts.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA lien, Collection fees, Attorney fees, Statutory violation, Jurisdiction, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 1005275.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:34 (101.7 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 1009064.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:38 (37.4 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 1_aamg stmt.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:41 (21.1 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 2_email from silvia regarding late fees.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:44 (457.3 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 3_email regarding plumbing repair from laweyer.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:48 (983.8 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 4_ledger dec 2021.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:51 (96.5 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 5_letter from lawyer.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:55 (138.0 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 7_petition response.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:59 (25.0 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 975165.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:04 (104.8 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_ElectronicNotice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:07 (93.3 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_ElectronicNotice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:14 (122.6 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_HearingScheduled.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:19 (129.6 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_MC_Pet.ResponseToRespondentsResponseToPetition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:23 (132.2 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_MC_Response&ADRERequest.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:27 (133.2 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Notice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:30 (1101.1 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Notice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:36 (3755.5 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Payment.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:40 (221.2 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Pet.ResponseTo.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:48 (5499.9 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:57 (5828.4 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Response_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:45:00 (125.4 KB)

Briefing Document: Dispute Between Asmaa Kadhum and Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key facts and legal proceedings concerning a dispute between homeowner Asmaa Kadhum (Petitioner) and the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association (Respondent). The central conflict is the Petitioner’s refusal to pay approximately $3,500 in legal fees that the Respondent incurred during collection efforts for past-due assessments.

The dispute escalated when the Respondent, on June 15, 2020, filed a lien for $2,199.00 against the Petitioner’s property. The Petitioner contested the lien’s validity, citing numerous accounting errors. Subsequently, the Respondent’s own legal counsel advised releasing the lien on November 13, 2020, acknowledging it contained “invalid late fee charges” and was released to protect the association from a “potential false lien claim.”

Despite the release of the lien, the Respondent continued to demand payment for the legal fees. The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) on January 12, 2022, alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 and arguing the collection fees were unreasonable.

Following a hearing and a rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent. The decision was based on a critical jurisdictional issue: because there was no active lien on the property at the time the petition was filed or heard, there was no existing violation of the cited statute for the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to adjudicate. The ALJ concluded that the OAH lacks the authority to issue a declaratory judgment on the reasonableness of the fees in the absence of a pending enforcement action by the association. The underlying liability for the legal fees remains an unresolved issue between the parties.

Parties Involved

Name/Entity

Key Representative(s)

Petitioner

Asmaa Kadhum

Asmaa Kadhum, Mazin Ahmed Al-Salih

Respondent

Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Jerry Latschar (Vice President), Cammy Bowring

Chronology of Key Events

Prior to May 1, 2019

Petitioner accrued unpaid assessments and fees totaling $1,375.00 under previous management (AAMG).

April 21, 2020

Respondent sent a notice to Petitioner demanding payment of $1,435.00 in past-due assessments and fees within 30 days.

April 30, 2020

Petitioner responded via email, stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic and requested late fees be removed.

June 15, 2020

Respondent recorded a Notice of Lien on Petitioner’s unit for an amount of $2,199.00.

August 7, 2020

Respondent’s attorney sent a notice stating the total amount due, including legal fees, was now $2,504.00.

September 10, 2020

Petitioner notified Respondent that the lien amount was incorrect and constituted an “improper lien.”

November 13, 2020

Respondent recorded a Release of Lien against the Petitioner’s unit.

December 10, 2020

Respondent’s attorney explained in a letter that the lien was released because it “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid.”

Post-Release

Respondent maintained that Petitioner still owed approximately $3,500.00 in legal fees from the collection process.

December 2021

An account ledger showed a balance of $2,685.40.

January 12, 2022

Petitioner filed a petition with the ADRE (Case No. HO22-22/028) alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256.

April 4, 2022

An administrative hearing was held before ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer.

October 11, 2022

Following a rehearing, the ALJ issued a final decision, finding no violation of the cited statute and dismissing the petition.

October 27, 2022

Petitioner filed a miscellaneous motion, which the OAH did not consider, stating it could take no further action on the matter.

Analysis of the Core Dispute

The Disputed Legal Fees

The primary point of contention is the legal fees assessed to the Petitioner’s account for the collection of past-due assessments.

• Respondent’s Claim: The Respondent asserts that legal fees of approximately $3,500.00 are owed. However, during testimony, Respondent’s representative, Mr. Latschar, was “uncertain where the $3,500.00 total originated.”

• Conflicting Evidence: The amount claimed is inconsistent with other documents. Invoices from counsel submitted after the initial hearing showed total charges of only 661.50∗∗attributabletothePetitioner′smatterbetweenAugustandNovember2020.AledgerfromDecember2021showedatotaloutstandingbalanceof∗∗2,685.40, which included legal fees.

The Improper Lien

A foundational element of the Petitioner’s argument is the improper nature of the lien filed by the Respondent.

• Filing and Release: A lien for $2,199.00 was recorded on June 15, 2020, and officially released on November 13, 2020.

• Reason for Release: The Respondent’s attorney stated the release was necessary to “protect [Respondent] and our firm from a potential false lien claim” because the original notice “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid.” The Respondent’s response to the petition also states, “the lawyer was forced to release the lien” because of “errors” related to posting late fees.

• Varying Amounts: The Petitioner highlighted the inconsistent amounts demanded throughout the process:

◦ $1,435.00 in the April 2020 notice.

◦ $2,199.00 in the June 2020 lien filing.

◦ $2,504.00 in the August 2020 attorney notice.

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments

The Petitioner contends they should not be held responsible for legal fees stemming from the Respondent’s flawed collection process.

• Fees are Unreasonable: The core argument is that charging legal fees for an “invalid” lien based on “false statements and invoices” is unreasonable and unacceptable.

• Lack of Cooperation: The Petitioner claims to have made multiple attempts to discuss the matter and arrange payments, sending meeting requests in December 2021 that were allegedly ignored or cancelled.

• Principle of Fairness: The Petitioner argued, “if someone files a claim then realized that his filing process was based on wrong documents, and then dropped the claim himself, should the other party be responsible for the legal fees for that.”

Respondent’s Position and Arguments

The Respondent maintains that the legal fees are a legitimate debt resulting from the Petitioner’s failure to pay assessments.

• Legal Action was Necessary: The Respondent initiated legal action because the Petitioner had not paid assessments for “nearly a year” and had stated they would not make back payments until late fees were waived.

• Lien Release vs. Debt: The Respondent argues that the release of the lien “doesn’t release the balance owing, just the lien at the county.” The legal fees incurred to collect the past assessments remain due.

• Petitioner Contributed to Costs: The Respondent claims the Petitioner “proceeded to force the attorney to review the ledger, which caused further legal fees to be charged.”

Administrative Hearing and Legal Rulings

Case Details and Petition

• OAH Docket: 22F-H2222028-REL

• ADRE Case: HO22-22/028

• Alleged Violation: A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs the placement of liens for assessments and requires that they be for “reasonable collection fees and for reasonable attorney fee.”

• Relief Sought: An order to “Waive / or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

Across both the initial hearing and the rehearing, the ALJ’s decision was consistent and based on a narrow interpretation of the OAH’s jurisdiction under the cited statute.

• Primary Finding: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1256.

• Jurisdictional Limitation: The ALJ repeatedly emphasized that her authority was limited to evaluating existing liens. Since the lien was released in November 2020, well before the petition was filed in January 2022, there was no active lien to assess for reasonableness.

• Corrective Action: The ALJ stated that by releasing the improper lien, the Respondent had “fixed” the past error, removing it from the OAH’s purview.

• No Declaratory Judgment: The decision clarified that the OAH has “no jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments.” It could not rule on whether the legal fees themselves were reasonable as a standalone issue, only whether an active lien containing those fees was compliant with statute.

• No Enforcement Action: The decision noted that at the time of the hearing, the Respondent was not pursuing any enforcement action (such as filing a new lien or foreclosure) to collect the disputed fees. The fees existed only as “a number on a ledger.”

Salient Quotes

• Petitioner: “Why why we have to pay for for them mistakes? That’s totally issue.”

• Petitioner: “$3,377 legal fee for placing lean is not reasonable or acceptable.”

• Respondent: “they caused us to obtain legal counsel by not paying their bills for almost a year… It doesn’t release the balance owing, just the lien at the county.”

• Respondent’s Attorney (via letter): “…because the original Notice of Lien ‘included late fee charges that were found to be invalid . . . a Release of Lien was recorded in order to protect [Respondent] and our firm from a potential false lien claim.'”

• Administrative Law Judge: “There is no lean on your property. I can’t say the lean is wrong because there is no lean at this point.”

• Administrative Law Judge: “I can’t I can’t say that what they did in the past was wrong because they have fixed it by releasing the lean.”

• Administrative Law Judge (Decision): “the exact amount of legal fees attributable to Petitioner is not relevant in this matter as there were no pending enforcement actions. This is not to say Petitioner may not be entitled to raise this question in a separate venue.”

Study Guide: Case No. 22F-H2222028-REL

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Based on the provided source materials, answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences.

1. Identify the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case and describe the nature of their dispute.

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did the Petitioner allege the Respondent violated, and what was the core of this allegation?

3. On what date did the Respondent file a Notice of Lien against the Petitioner’s property, what was the amount, and why was this lien later released?

4. According to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), why did the Office of Administrative Hearings lack the jurisdiction to rule on the reasonableness of the legal fees sought by the Respondent?

5. How did the Petitioner respond to the Respondent’s April 21, 2020 notice of past-due assessments?

6. What action did the Respondent’s law firm state it was prohibited from taking until May 21, 2020, and what was the legal basis for this restriction?

7. After the initial hearing, what was the total amount of legal fees supported by the four invoices submitted by Mr. Latschar for the period between August 1 and November 30, 2020?

8. The Petitioner sought to sell their property and requested a statement from the Respondent showing a zero balance. What was the central point of contention preventing this?

9. In December 2021, the Petitioner attempted to schedule a meeting with the board to dispute a fee. What was the outcome of these requests?

10. What was the final outcome of the case as stated in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision on October 11, 2022?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is Asmaa Kadhum, a condominium owner. The Respondent is the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association. Their dispute centers on the reasonableness of approximately $3,500 in legal fees the Association charged to Kadhum for collection efforts related to past-due assessments, particularly after the Association filed and then released an invalid lien on the property.

2. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1256. The core of the allegation was that the Association was charging unreasonable collection and attorney fees, which is a standard addressed by this statute when an HOA places a lien against a unit.

3. The Respondent filed a Notice of Lien for $2,199.00 on June 15, 2020. The lien was later released on November 13, 2020, because, as the Respondent’s attorney noted, the original Notice of Lien “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid,” and the release was recorded to protect the Association and the law firm from a potential false lien claim.

4. The ALJ stated that the court could not rule on the reasonableness of the fees because there was no longer a recorded lien against the property. The petition was filed under A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs liens, and since the lien had been released, there was no active violation or enforcement action for the court to evaluate or remedy. The OAH has no jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments on such matters in the absence of an active enforcement action.

5. In an email dated April 30, 2020, the Petitioner responded to the notice by stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic. The Petitioner disputed the total amount, claiming late fees should be removed, and stated they were planning to pay the whole amount “after this pandemic goes away.”

6. In a May 5, 2020 email, the law firm, Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C., stated that pursuant to state law, it could not proceed with collection efforts until 30 days had passed from the April 21 notice. This meant the file could not be turned over to their office for collection until after May 21, 2020, giving the owner time to pay or arrange a payment agreement.

7. According to the ALJ’s decision from the initial hearing, the four invoices submitted by Mr. Latschar after the hearing showed total charges of $661.50 attributable to the Petitioner’s matter between August 1, 2020, and November 30, 2020.

8. The Petitioner wanted a zero-balance statement to sell the property, arguing all assessments had been paid. The Respondent refused to provide this, contending that while the assessments were paid, there was still an outstanding balance for legal fees incurred during the collection process, which the Petitioner disputed as unreasonable and resulting from the Respondent’s own mistakes.

9. The Petitioner sent multiple meeting requests in December 2021 to dispute a fee of $3,377. The Respondent ultimately canceled the meeting with the homeowner and held one with only the board members, citing COVID-19 and the use of Zoom, even though previous meetings had been held via Zoom.

10. In the final decision dated October 11, 2022, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1256. This was because there was no recorded lien against the property at the time of the petition or hearings, and thus no active enforcement action for the OAH to adjudicate.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

1. Trace the complete timeline of the dispute, starting from the initial delinquency prior to May 2019 through the final OAH decision in October 2022. Detail the key financial figures, legal actions, and communications from both parties at each significant stage.

2. Analyze the central legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Discuss the merits of the Petitioner’s claim regarding A.R.S. § 33-1256 and explain in detail the jurisdictional reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge to dismiss the petition.

3. Examine the various financial discrepancies present throughout the source documents, including the differing amounts cited in notices, the lien filing, attorney letters, and account ledgers. How did these inconsistencies contribute to the escalation of the conflict and the accumulation of legal fees?

4. Discuss the role of the Respondent’s law firm, Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C., in this dispute. Based on the provided emails and legal documents, evaluate their advice to the Association and their actions regarding the lien and collection process.

5. Critically evaluate the communication and resolution attempts between the Petitioner and the Respondent’s board outside of the formal legal proceedings. What do the emails and hearing testimony reveal about their efforts to resolve the dispute directly?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings for government agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer served as the ALJ.

A.R.S. § 33-1256

The specific Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner. This statute pertains to liens for assessments in condominiums, including provisions for reasonable collection and attorney fees associated with such liens.

Assessment

A mandatory fee paid by condominium owners to the homeowners’ association (HOA) for the maintenance of common elements and other association expenses.

Declaratory Judgment

A binding judgment from a court defining the legal relationship between parties and their rights in a matter before any harm has occurred. The OAH stated it had no jurisdiction to issue such a judgment on the legal fees.

Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

The Arizona state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the real estate industry. Its functions include the Homeowners Association Dispute Resolution process.

A legal claim or hold on a property as security for a debt. In this case, the Condominium Association placed a lien on the Petitioner’s unit for unpaid assessments and fees.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent Arizona state agency authorized to conduct hearings in contested matters for other state agencies, ensuring a fair and impartial process.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case or administrative hearing. In this matter, the petitioner is the homeowner, Asmaa Kadhum.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof (the Petitioner in this case) to show that their claim is more likely true than not.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to re-examine the issues and evidence. In this matter, a rehearing was granted after the initial April 4, 2022 hearing.

Release of Lien

A legal document that removes a previously recorded lien on a property. The Respondent recorded a Release of Lien on November 13, 2020, after acknowledging the original lien amount was incorrect.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the respondent is the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association.

5 Shocking Lessons from a Homeowner’s Two-Year War with Her HOA

Introduction: The Notice on the Door

It’s a moment many homeowners dread: finding an official notice from the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) taped to the front door. For most, it’s a minor issue—a reminder about lawn care or trash cans. But for homeowner Asmaa Kadhum, a notice in April 2020 regarding approximately $1,400 in past-due assessments was the first step in a spiraling, multi-year legal war with her Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association.

What began as a manageable debt quickly escalated into a complex battle involving property liens, lawyers, and a dispute over thousands of dollars in legal fees. The case of Kadhum versus her HOA serves as a powerful cautionary tale, revealing several surprising and counter-intuitive truths about the high-stakes world of HOA disputes.

——————————————————————————–

1. You Can Win the Battle Over a Lien, But Still Owe the Fees

One of the central ironies of this case is how a clear victory on one front failed to end the war. After the homeowner fell behind on assessments, the HOA’s collection efforts caused the initial $1,435 dispute to snowball. On June 15, 2020, the HOA placed a lien on her property for $2,199. The homeowner disputed the lien’s accuracy, arguing that it contained errors.

Ultimately, she was proven correct. The HOA was forced to record a Release of Lien on November 13, 2020. This should have been the end of it, but here’s the twist: even with the lien gone, the HOA maintained that the homeowner was still responsible for approximately $3,500 in legal fees that had been incurred during the process of trying to collect the original debt. This reveals a crucial distinction in HOA law: getting an improper lien removed from your property title doesn’t automatically erase the associated collection costs from the HOA’s ledger. The manageable debt had now become a much larger problem.

——————————————————————————–

2. A Legal Technicality Can Get a Valid Complaint Dismissed

The homeowner, now facing a bill for thousands in legal fees related to a lien the HOA admitted was flawed, took her case to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. This move, however, highlights a critical strategic error. She filed her petition on January 12, 2022, alleging a violation of statute A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs HOA liens and the reasonableness of the fees associated with them.

This led to a procedural “Catch-22” that doomed her case. The problem was timing. The HOA had released the improper lien on November 13, 2020—a full 14 months before the homeowner filed her petition. The case hinged on a procedural nuance that many homeowners might overlook: the statute she cited applies exclusively to active liens. Since the target of her complaint no longer existed by the time of the April 2022 hearing, the judge had no jurisdiction.

The Administrative Law Judge explained this jurisdictional trap in plain English:

and if there was a lien on your property right now, I could look at it and say whether or not the collection fees were appropriate, were reasonable. There isn’t one, so there’s nothing for me to evaluate.

The homeowner’s complaint about the fees might have had merit, but because she legally tied it to a violation that was no longer active, the court’s hands were tied. A different legal approach, perhaps focused on disputing the fees in another venue, may have been necessary.

——————————————————————————–

3. Correcting an Error Doesn’t Erase the Cost of Making It

The homeowner’s core argument was simple and relatable: why should she be forced to pay for the HOA’s mistakes? This question became even more pointed when documents revealed the HOA’s own attorney admitting the error. The attorney explained that the lien was released because it “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid” and the release was done to protect the association from a “potential false lien claim.”

During the hearing, the homeowner put the fundamental question to the judge: “Why… do we have to pay for their mistakes?”

Despite the HOA’s admission of error, the legal fees incurred during the entire collections process—including the work related to filing and defending the faulty lien—remained on her account. The situation reached a shocking climax during the hearing. When the judge reviewed the case, he noted that the HOA’s own representative, Mr. Latschar, “was uncertain where the $3,500.00 total originated.” The homeowner was being held liable for a debt that even her creditor couldn’t fully explain.

——————————————————————————–

4. A Disputed Debt Can Haunt a Property Sale

Even after the lien was officially released, the homeowner found herself in a financial vise. As she explained in the hearing, she wanted to sell her property and needed a formal statement from the HOA showing a zero balance to provide to potential buyers and title companies.

However, because the HOA’s books still showed she owed thousands in disputed legal fees, they would not provide this statement. This situation highlights the immense leverage an HOA maintains during a property conveyance. The dispute created a “phantom debt”—not an active lien recorded with the county, but a disputed balance on a ledger that can effectively halt a sale. The judge acknowledged this limbo, describing the amount as “just a number on a ledger.”

Yet, that number is a powerful barrier. Title insurance companies, which are essential for nearly all property sales, will not issue a clear policy if there is a known, unresolved financial dispute with an HOA. This gives the association the power to delay or prevent a sale, even without an active lien on the property.

——————————————————————————–

5. Small Communication Failures Lead to Big Legal Bills

This entire conflict escalated because of a pattern of communication failures that eroded trust long before lawyers were involved. Records show the friction began as early as November 2019, with the homeowner claiming disputes over incorrect receipts and the HOA’s alleged failure to waive late fees as promised.

The situation came to a head in April 2020. When the homeowner received the collection notice, she responded via email, stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic and that she planned to pay the full amount “after this pandemic goes away.” Instead of working toward a formal payment agreement, the HOA proceeded with legal action. The homeowner later claimed she tried to schedule meetings with the board to resolve the matter directly but “was never responded to.”

These failures in communication and negotiation were the direct catalyst for involving lawyers. That decision is what caused the debt to balloon from the original $1,435 to a prolonged, stressful, and expensive dispute over thousands in legal fees.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: A Pyrrhic Victory?

The ordeal of Asmaa Kadhum offers critical lessons for any homeowner in an HOA. It demonstrates that in these disputes, legal technicalities matter immensely, clear communication is non-negotiable, and winning a single battle doesn’t mean you’ve won the war. Even when a homeowner is “right” on a key point—like forcing the removal of an improper lien—they can still face significant and lasting financial consequences.

This case leaves every homeowner with a final, thought-provoking question to ponder: When facing a dispute with an HOA, how do you know when to fight for what’s right versus when to avoid a battle that might cost you more than you stand to gain?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Asmaa Kadhum (petitioner)
    Filed the petition and appeared on her own behalf,
  • Mazin Ahmed (co-owner)
    Referenced as part of 'Petitioner' definition; much of the correspondence was from/to him

Respondent Side

  • Jerry Latschar (board member)
    Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
    Vice President of the Board of Directors, appeared on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Also referred to as Tammy Aganeer,,,
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner ADRE)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (legal secretary)
    Transmitted decision
  • c. serrano (administrative staff)
    Transmitted minute entry

Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Green Elephant

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222036-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-04-29
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The petition was denied, and the case was vacated and remanded due to lack of jurisdiction. The OAH determined the Petitioner failed to meet the statutory definition of a 'planned community' required for the Department of Real Estate to have authority over the dispute.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel —
Respondent Green Elephant Development LLC Counsel Ronald E. Huser, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199 et seq., 33-1802(4), 41-1092, ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied, and the case was vacated and remanded due to lack of jurisdiction. The OAH determined the Petitioner failed to meet the statutory definition of a 'planned community' required for the Department of Real Estate to have authority over the dispute.

Why this result: OAH lacked authority to hear the dispute because Petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Association met the definition of a 'planned community' under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4). Specifically, there was no evidence of real estate ownership, roadway easements, mandatory membership, or mandatory assessments.

Key Issues & Findings

OAH jurisdiction over the dispute based on whether the Petitioner is a 'planned community.'

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated setback requirements in the Declaration of Restrictions (Section 5). Respondent moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law, arguing OAH lacked jurisdiction because Petitioner failed to prove it met the statutory definition of a 'planned community' under ARS § 33-1802(4).

Orders: Petitioner’s petition was denied. Respondent’s motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law was granted. The matter was vacated and remanded to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Jurisdiction, Planned Community Definition, Setback Violation, Judgment as a Matter of Law, Voluntary Membership
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-112
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 958968.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:48:38 (45.8 KB)

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 962071.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:48:41 (53.3 KB)

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 966017.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:48:47 (143.0 KB)

This summary details the hearing proceedings and final decision in the matter of *Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. Green Elephant Development LLC* (No. 22F-H2222036-REL), held before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark.

Key Facts and Issues

The hearing, held on April 27, 2022, addressed the Petitioner Association's claim that the Respondent, Green Elephant Development LLC (a property owner), violated Section 5 of the Association's Declaration of Restrictions. The specific allegation was that construction on the Respondent's property (located at 4802 N. 38th St.) failed to meet the required 7-foot side and 20-foot front setback requirements.

Petitioner's representative, Robert Chiffelle, testified that construction plans submitted to the City of Phoenix showed setbacks of approximately 3 feet and 15 feet, respectively, which violated the Declaration.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The primary legal dispute centered on whether the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) possessed the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case.

  1. Petitioner’s Case and Admissions: Petitioner Chiffelle presented evidence (including exhibits 1, 4-5, 7, and 9), but in cross-examination, conceded that the Association does not own any real estate within the subdivision. He further testified that membership in the Association is voluntary, and any collected monies are voluntary contributions, not mandatory assessments or required dues.
  2. Respondent’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law: Respondent’s counsel, Ron Huser, moved for dismissal (Judgment as a Matter of Law) at the close of the Petitioner’s case-in-chief. The core argument was that the Association failed to meet the statutory definition of a "planned community" under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4). The statute requires a planned community to (1) own real estate or hold an easement to maintain roadways, AND (2) have a declaration that expressly states owners are mandatory members and required to pay assessments.
  3. Lack of Substantive Proof: Respondent also argued that even if jurisdiction existed, Petitioner failed to present evidence of actual measurements of the completed construction, relying only on submitted plans, and thus failed to prove a Section 5 violation.

Outcome and Legal Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge granted the Respondent's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.

The OAH concluded that the matter fell outside the Department of Real Estate’s jurisdiction pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq..

The ruling rested on the finding that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association is a "planned community". Specifically, the record was devoid of evidence showing that the Association:

  • Owns or operates real estate.
  • Holds an easement or covenant to maintain roadways.
  • Possesses community documents that expressly require property owners to be mandatory members and pay mandatory assessments.

The final order denied the Petitioner’s petition, granted the Respondent’s motion, and vacated and remanded the matter to the referring agency (Arizona Department of Real Estate) for any further action.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222036-REL”, “case_title”: “Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. Green Elephant Development LLC”, “decision_date”: “2022-04-29”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does the Arizona Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over every type of homeowner association dispute?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Department only has jurisdiction over disputes involving a “planned community” as defined by statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ decision clarifies that the Department’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes between an owner and a “planned community” association. If an association does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, the administrative court cannot hear the case.”, “alj_quote”: “This matter falls outside the Department’s jurisdiction pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq., regarding a dispute between an owner and a planned community association.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “planned community definition”, “administrative authority” ] }, { “question”: “What are the specific requirements for an association to be legally considered a ‘planned community’?”, “short_answer”: “A planned community must own/operate real estate (or maintain roadways) and have a declaration mandating membership and assessments.”, “detailed_answer”: “According to Arizona statute cited in the decision, a planned community requires three elements: 1) The association owns/operates real estate or holds easements to maintain roadways; 2) The declaration explicitly states owners are mandatory members; and 3) The declaration explicitly states owners are required to pay assessments.”, “alj_quote”: “a real estate development that includes real estate owned and operated by or real estate on which an easement to maintain roadways or a covenant to maintain roadways is held by a nonprofit corporation… and in which the declaration expressly states both that the owners of separately owned lots, parcels or units are mandatory members and that the owners are required to pay assessments to the association for these purposes.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “planned community”, “assessments”, “mandatory membership” ] }, { “question”: “If my HOA membership is voluntary, can the HOA take me to an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacks authority over voluntary associations.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the evidence shows that membership is voluntary rather than mandatory, the association does not qualify as a planned community. Consequently, the administrative law judge must dismiss the case for lack of authority.”, “alj_quote”: “Because the evidence failed to establish, at a minimum, that the Association is a planned community, OAH does not have any authority to consider a dispute between the Association and Respondent”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 41-1092”, “topic_tags”: [ “voluntary membership”, “jurisdiction”, “dismissal” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in a hearing regarding an alleged violation?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the party filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The party bringing the action must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. This includes proving that the tribunal has jurisdiction and that the specific violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence first that this matter is properly before the OAH and then that Respondent violated Section 5 of the DECLARATION.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA need to provide actual measurements to prove a setback violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, specific evidence of the actual construction dimensions is required.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the HOA failed to provide evidence that construction had factually taken place that exceeded the specific setback requirements (e.g., 7ft side, 20ft front). Without measurements or factual proof of the construction’s location relative to property lines, the violation cannot be established.”, “alj_quote”: “[N]o evidence was submitted to establish… that any construction has factually taken place… which exceeds the DECLARATION’S 7ft side setback and 20ft front setback property requirements.”, “legal_basis”: “Preponderance of the Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA considered a ‘planned community’ if it does not own any common areas?”, “short_answer”: “No, the association must own real estate or hold easements for maintaining roadways.”, “detailed_answer”: “A critical component of the legal definition of a planned community is that the association must own and operate real estate or hold specific maintenance easements. Failure to prove this ownership prevents the association from being classified as a planned community under the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner failed to present any evidence that it owns and operates any real estate, or that it has an easement or covenant to maintain roadways.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “common areas”, “property ownership”, “planned community definition” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof used in these administrative hearings?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is whether the contention is more probably true than not. This is described as the greater weight of the evidence or superior evidentiary weight.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “preponderance of evidence” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222036-REL”, “case_title”: “Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. Green Elephant Development LLC”, “decision_date”: “2022-04-29”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does the Arizona Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over every type of homeowner association dispute?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Department only has jurisdiction over disputes involving a “planned community” as defined by statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ decision clarifies that the Department’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes between an owner and a “planned community” association. If an association does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, the administrative court cannot hear the case.”, “alj_quote”: “This matter falls outside the Department’s jurisdiction pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq., regarding a dispute between an owner and a planned community association.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “planned community definition”, “administrative authority” ] }, { “question”: “What are the specific requirements for an association to be legally considered a ‘planned community’?”, “short_answer”: “A planned community must own/operate real estate (or maintain roadways) and have a declaration mandating membership and assessments.”, “detailed_answer”: “According to Arizona statute cited in the decision, a planned community requires three elements: 1) The association owns/operates real estate or holds easements to maintain roadways; 2) The declaration explicitly states owners are mandatory members; and 3) The declaration explicitly states owners are required to pay assessments.”, “alj_quote”: “a real estate development that includes real estate owned and operated by or real estate on which an easement to maintain roadways or a covenant to maintain roadways is held by a nonprofit corporation… and in which the declaration expressly states both that the owners of separately owned lots, parcels or units are mandatory members and that the owners are required to pay assessments to the association for these purposes.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “planned community”, “assessments”, “mandatory membership” ] }, { “question”: “If my HOA membership is voluntary, can the HOA take me to an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacks authority over voluntary associations.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the evidence shows that membership is voluntary rather than mandatory, the association does not qualify as a planned community. Consequently, the administrative law judge must dismiss the case for lack of authority.”, “alj_quote”: “Because the evidence failed to establish, at a minimum, that the Association is a planned community, OAH does not have any authority to consider a dispute between the Association and Respondent”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 41-1092”, “topic_tags”: [ “voluntary membership”, “jurisdiction”, “dismissal” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in a hearing regarding an alleged violation?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the party filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The party bringing the action must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. This includes proving that the tribunal has jurisdiction and that the specific violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence first that this matter is properly before the OAH and then that Respondent violated Section 5 of the DECLARATION.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA need to provide actual measurements to prove a setback violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, specific evidence of the actual construction dimensions is required.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the HOA failed to provide evidence that construction had factually taken place that exceeded the specific setback requirements (e.g., 7ft side, 20ft front). Without measurements or factual proof of the construction’s location relative to property lines, the violation cannot be established.”, “alj_quote”: “[N]o evidence was submitted to establish… that any construction has factually taken place… which exceeds the DECLARATION’S 7ft side setback and 20ft front setback property requirements.”, “legal_basis”: “Preponderance of the Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA considered a ‘planned community’ if it does not own any common areas?”, “short_answer”: “No, the association must own real estate or hold easements for maintaining roadways.”, “detailed_answer”: “A critical component of the legal definition of a planned community is that the association must own and operate real estate or hold specific maintenance easements. Failure to prove this ownership prevents the association from being classified as a planned community under the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner failed to present any evidence that it owns and operates any real estate, or that it has an easement or covenant to maintain roadways.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “common areas”, “property ownership”, “planned community definition” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof used in these administrative hearings?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is whether the contention is more probably true than not. This is described as the greater weight of the evidence or superior evidentiary weight.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “preponderance of evidence” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert Chiffelle (HOA President/Petitioner Rep/Witness)
    Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Also referred to as Bob Chappelle.
  • Jeremy Lyons (HOA Treasurer/Observer)
    Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Also referred to as Mr. Lions; submitted the petition on behalf of Petitioner.
  • Missy Lopez (Observer)
    Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.
  • Dr. B. Paul Scott (Architectural Committee member/Observer)
    Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.
  • Mike Goldwater (Previous HOA President)
    Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.

Respondent Side

  • Ronald E. Huser (Respondent Attorney)
    Huser Law Firm
  • Bryant Aplass (Respondent Co-Owner/Director/Witness)
    Green Elephant Development LLC
    Co-owner and member; also referred to as Bryant Alpass/Applas; role listed as Director of Business Development.
  • Cody Sperber (Respondent President/Witness)
    Green Elephant Development LLC
    Also referred to as Cody Fergburgger.
  • Garrett Schmidt (Respondent Rep/Witness)
    Green Elephant Development LLC
  • Reggie Martinez (Witness)
    Green Elephant Development LLC

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (Legal Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transmitted Minute Entries.
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transmitted ALJ Decision.

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

The Association unreasonably withheld approval for Marc Archer's two-story garage addition, thereby violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3). The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the design and refund the $500 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

The Association unreasonably withheld preliminary approval for the Petitioner's January 2020 two-story garage addition request. The ALJ determined that none of the three reasons provided by the Association for the denial were reasonable.

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 980535.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:24 (46.7 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 983516.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:27 (38.4 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 928659.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:30 (39.6 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 943581.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:33 (37.9 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 953334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:37 (45.2 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 958716.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:40 (124.7 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 928659.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:06 (39.6 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 943581.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:10 (37.9 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 953334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:13 (45.2 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 958716.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:16 (124.7 KB)

This summary focuses on the administrative hearing concerning the reasonableness of the Respondent's denial of the Petitioner's architectural request.

Key Facts and Procedural History

The Petitioner, Marc Archer, sought approval from the Respondent, PMPE Community Association, Inc., for a two-story garage addition to his home. This was the third hearing alleging that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3), which mandates that the approval of construction plans shall not unreasonably be withheld.

In December 2020, following a previous Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision which found the Association violated its rules by not providing a written basis for denial, the Association issued a written response outlining its reasons. A key issue during the hearing was the confusion and vagueness of this response, as two of the three reasons for denial were also listed in a subsequent section that the Association testified was merely advisory.

Main Issues and Arguments

The core issue before ALJ Thomas Shedden was whether the Association’s denial of preliminary approval for Archer’s two-story design was unreasonable. The burden of proof lay with the Petitioner.

The Association’s three reasons for denial (based on the December 30, 2020, letter) were:

  1. Lack of Harmony/Incorporation: The addition was deemed a "large two-story 'box'" that did not harmonize with the existing structure or enhance the community (AR § 1.1). The Association argued the proposed roof did not blend into the existing roof.
  • *Legal Point:* The ALJ noted that evidence showed the proposed roof matched the existing pitch, and other houses had multiple roof lines. Therefore, there was no substantial evidence that the addition would "dominate and/or sharply contrast" with the community.
  1. Painted Roof Tiles: The Association deemed painted roof tiles unacceptable (AR § 4.4).
  • *Legal Point:* The ALJ found that the Association acted outside its scope of authority, as the Architectural Rules (ARs) did not explicitly prohibit painting tiles, though they specified required tile types and approved colors. Archer also presented evidence that he had since located sufficient matching tile.
  1. Insufficient Architectural Expression: A need to add more architectural elements (pop-outs, windows, etc.) to break up expanses (AR § 4.2).
  • *Legal Point:* Archer provided credible evidence that his plans already included stucco pop-outs, inset windows, and soffit details that matched the existing structure, thus satisfying the requirement for architectural expression.

Outcome and Legal Decision

The Administrative Law Judge issued a Decision on March 30, 2022, concluding that the Petitioner prevailed.

The ALJ concluded that the Association’s reasons for denial were arguably unclear due to the mixed advisory/required language but found that Mr. Archer presented sufficient evidence to show that none of the three reasons was reasonable.

The Order required that:

  1. The Association should approve Marc Archer's preliminary design.
  2. The Association must pay Archer his $500 filing fee within thirty days.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “21F-H2121040-REL”, “case_title”: “Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2022-03-30”, “alj_name”: “Thomas Shedden”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA unreasonably refuse to approve my architectural plans?”, “short_answer”: “No, state law prohibits the unreasonable withholding of approval for construction projects.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law explicitly states that an HOA cannot unreasonably withhold approval for architectural designs, plans, or amendments. If an HOA denies a request, the denial must be based on reasonable grounds supported by the community documents.”, “alj_quote”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3) provides that “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.””, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural review”, “homeowner rights”, “statutory compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to give me a written reason if they deny my project?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, failing to provide a written reason for denial can be considered a violation of the statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this dispute, a prior decision established that the HOA violated the law by failing to provide the homeowner with a written explanation for denying preliminary approval. The homeowner must be informed of the specific basis for the decision.”, “alj_quote”: “In a Decision dated December 3, 2020, the ALJ in that matter determined that the Association had violated its CC&Rs and section 33-1817(B)(3) because it did not provide Mr. Archer with a written reason for denying preliminary approval.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)”, “topic_tags”: [ “procedural requirements”, “due process”, “denial notices” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA deny my request based on a rule that isn’t written down?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no. If the architectural rules do not explicitly prohibit a specific material or method, the HOA may be acting outside its authority to deny it.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA acted outside its authority by denying a request to paint roof tiles because the architectural rules (ARs) did not explicitly prohibit painting tiles, whereas other sections of the rules explicitly prohibited other specific materials (like vinyl siding).”, “alj_quote”: “Regarding the second basis for denial, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”, “legal_basis”: “Scope of Authority”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement authority”, “architectural rules”, “unwritten rules” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove the case if I file a petition against my HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner alleging the violation is responsible for providing evidence that supports their claim by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “Mr. Archer bears the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA deny my project because they think it doesn’t ‘harmonize’ with the neighborhood?”, “short_answer”: “Only if they can prove it will ‘dominate or sharply contrast’ with the community.”, “detailed_answer”: “While rules often require harmony, this is interpreted to mean the project should not dominate or contrast sharply. If the evidence shows the project shares features (like roof pitch) with other homes, a denial based on lack of harmony may be unreasonable.”, “alj_quote”: “AR section 1.1 shows that improvements are to harmonize with the community, “rather than to dominate and/or contrast sharply with it.” … There was no substantial evidence adduced showing that Mr. Archer’s proposed addition will dominate or sharply contrast with the community.”, “legal_basis”: “Community Documents (AR Section 1.1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “aesthetics”, “harmony”, “architectural standards” ] }, { “question”: “Can I get my filing fee back if I win against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the homeowner prevails, the HOA can be ordered to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “State law allows the prevailing party in an HOA dispute to recover the filing fee. In this case, because the ALJ ordered the HOA to approve the design, the HOA was also ordered to pay the petitioner’s $500 fee.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association also must pay to Mr. Archer his $500 filing fee. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “penalties”, “reimbursement”, “filing fees” ] }, { “question”: “Does hiring an architect to review my plans help my case?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, professional opinions stating your plans comply with the rules can be strong evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner presented an affidavit from a registered architect who reviewed the plans and rules, concluding the design was compliant. This evidence helped refute the HOA’s claims that the design lacked architectural elements.”, “alj_quote”: “Mr. Bragg concluded that the proposal was in compliance with the ARs. He noted that the proposed second floor matched the existing architecture and that the “lowered roof height is stepped below the existing second floor roof line….””, “legal_basis”: “Evidence Weight”, “topic_tags”: [ “expert testimony”, “evidence”, “architectural review” ] }, { “question”: “What if the HOA’s denial letter is confusing or lists reasons as just ‘advisory’?”, “short_answer”: “The judge will look at the actual reasons for denial, even if the HOA categorizes them poorly.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA listed some reasons for denial under a section labeled ‘advisory.’ The ALJ noted this was confusing but still analyzed whether those reasons were valid grounds for denial. The confusion did not prevent the judge from ruling the denial was unreasonable.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association’s reasons for denial are arguably not clear because it included two of its three reasons in a portion of the denial notice that was advisory only. Nevertheless, Mr. Archer presented sufficient evidence to show that none of the three reasons is reasonable.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness Standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “denial notices”, “administrative review”, “confusion” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “21F-H2121040-REL”, “case_title”: “Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2022-03-30”, “alj_name”: “Thomas Shedden”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA unreasonably refuse to approve my architectural plans?”, “short_answer”: “No, state law prohibits the unreasonable withholding of approval for construction projects.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law explicitly states that an HOA cannot unreasonably withhold approval for architectural designs, plans, or amendments. If an HOA denies a request, the denial must be based on reasonable grounds supported by the community documents.”, “alj_quote”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3) provides that “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.””, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural review”, “homeowner rights”, “statutory compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to give me a written reason if they deny my project?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, failing to provide a written reason for denial can be considered a violation of the statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this dispute, a prior decision established that the HOA violated the law by failing to provide the homeowner with a written explanation for denying preliminary approval. The homeowner must be informed of the specific basis for the decision.”, “alj_quote”: “In a Decision dated December 3, 2020, the ALJ in that matter determined that the Association had violated its CC&Rs and section 33-1817(B)(3) because it did not provide Mr. Archer with a written reason for denying preliminary approval.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)”, “topic_tags”: [ “procedural requirements”, “due process”, “denial notices” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA deny my request based on a rule that isn’t written down?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no. If the architectural rules do not explicitly prohibit a specific material or method, the HOA may be acting outside its authority to deny it.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA acted outside its authority by denying a request to paint roof tiles because the architectural rules (ARs) did not explicitly prohibit painting tiles, whereas other sections of the rules explicitly prohibited other specific materials (like vinyl siding).”, “alj_quote”: “Regarding the second basis for denial, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”, “legal_basis”: “Scope of Authority”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement authority”, “architectural rules”, “unwritten rules” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove the case if I file a petition against my HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner alleging the violation is responsible for providing evidence that supports their claim by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “Mr. Archer bears the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA deny my project because they think it doesn’t ‘harmonize’ with the neighborhood?”, “short_answer”: “Only if they can prove it will ‘dominate or sharply contrast’ with the community.”, “detailed_answer”: “While rules often require harmony, this is interpreted to mean the project should not dominate or contrast sharply. If the evidence shows the project shares features (like roof pitch) with other homes, a denial based on lack of harmony may be unreasonable.”, “alj_quote”: “AR section 1.1 shows that improvements are to harmonize with the community, “rather than to dominate and/or contrast sharply with it.” … There was no substantial evidence adduced showing that Mr. Archer’s proposed addition will dominate or sharply contrast with the community.”, “legal_basis”: “Community Documents (AR Section 1.1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “aesthetics”, “harmony”, “architectural standards” ] }, { “question”: “Can I get my filing fee back if I win against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the homeowner prevails, the HOA can be ordered to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “State law allows the prevailing party in an HOA dispute to recover the filing fee. In this case, because the ALJ ordered the HOA to approve the design, the HOA was also ordered to pay the petitioner’s $500 fee.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association also must pay to Mr. Archer his $500 filing fee. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “penalties”, “reimbursement”, “filing fees” ] }, { “question”: “Does hiring an architect to review my plans help my case?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, professional opinions stating your plans comply with the rules can be strong evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner presented an affidavit from a registered architect who reviewed the plans and rules, concluding the design was compliant. This evidence helped refute the HOA’s claims that the design lacked architectural elements.”, “alj_quote”: “Mr. Bragg concluded that the proposal was in compliance with the ARs. He noted that the proposed second floor matched the existing architecture and that the “lowered roof height is stepped below the existing second floor roof line….””, “legal_basis”: “Evidence Weight”, “topic_tags”: [ “expert testimony”, “evidence”, “architectural review” ] }, { “question”: “What if the HOA’s denial letter is confusing or lists reasons as just ‘advisory’?”, “short_answer”: “The judge will look at the actual reasons for denial, even if the HOA categorizes them poorly.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA listed some reasons for denial under a section labeled ‘advisory.’ The ALJ noted this was confusing but still analyzed whether those reasons were valid grounds for denial. The confusion did not prevent the judge from ruling the denial was unreasonable.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association’s reasons for denial are arguably not clear because it included two of its three reasons in a portion of the denial notice that was advisory only. Nevertheless, Mr. Archer presented sufficient evidence to show that none of the three reasons is reasonable.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness Standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “denial notices”, “administrative review”, “confusion” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Marc Archer (petitioner)
  • Greg Hancock (witness)
    Witness for Petitioner, works in building industry
  • Dr. Victor Zach (witness)
    Witness for Petitioner, lives across the street from Petitioner
  • Dan Earlie (witness)
    Witness for Petitioner, experienced in homebuilding and HOA boards
  • Thomas Bragg (architect/witness)
    Registered architect hired by Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas C. S. Nogami (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Keith Kauffman (board member/witness)
    PMPE Community Association, Inc.
    President and long-time board member of the Association
  • Gail Zigler (property manager/witness)
    Community manager for the Association
  • Mr. Sasser (committee member/neighbor)
    Mentioned as an opponent to the addition
  • Carlotta L. Turman (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Tammy L. Ikenberg (ALJ/Hearing Officer)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    ALJ in prior related proceedings (19F-H1919063-REL, 20F-H2020063-REL)
  • Claire Miller (Preserve Park Supervisor)
    City Parks and Recreation

Other Participants

  • AHansen (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • tandert (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (unknown)
    Clerical staff noted on transmission records (also Miranda A)
  • c. serrano (unknown)
    Clerical staff noted on transmission records
  • Dr. Smith (unknown)
    House used for a meeting location

Judy Clapp v. Forest Trails Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221026-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-29
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Forest Trails Homeowners Association violated its governing documents when it approved landscaping that obstructed parking in a common area.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Judy Clapp Counsel Kevin Harper
Respondent Forest Trails Homeowners Association Counsel Edward D. O'Brien; Edith I. Rudder

Alleged Violations

Declaration § 2.2; Declaration § 2.21; Architectural Guidelines

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Forest Trails Homeowners Association violated its governing documents when it approved landscaping that obstructed parking in a common area.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary burden that the HOA violated the Declaration or related statutes. The ALJ found that the Declaration permits landscaping in the common area (Section 2.2) and the petitioner presented no legal authority mandating the disputed area remain solely available for parking.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation concerning landscaping in common area preventing parking.

Petitioner Judy Clapp alleged the HOA improperly approved the adjacent homeowner's (Normans) landscaping project in the common area next to Lot 1473 Trailhead. She claimed this blocked a historical parking area used by multiple homeowners, violating Declaration Section 2.2 (common area use for benefit of all members, including parking as a permitted use) and Architectural Guidelines (prohibiting exclusive use of common area).

Orders: The petition was dismissed. The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the Declaration or any statute.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Declaration § 2.2
  • Declaration § 2.21
  • Architectural Guidelines
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Declaration § 3.4
  • Declaration § 4.1

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Common Area, Landscaping, Parking, Architectural Control Committee, Exclusive Use, HOA Governance
Additional Citations:

  • Declaration § 2.2
  • Declaration § 2.21
  • Architectural Guidelines
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Declaration § 3.4
  • Declaration § 4.1

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 958497.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:42:22 (122.6 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_ElectronicNotice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:42:26 (92.4 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_ElectronicNotice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:42:32 (125.2 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Hearing_Scheduled.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:42:38 (194.1 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Notice_AppearanceRespondent.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:42:43 (218.4 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Notice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:42:47 (1111.9 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Notice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:42:54 (1303.7 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Payment.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:00 (223.9 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:09 (1183.8 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Response_Petition_Form.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:21 (72.2 KB)

Case Briefing: Judy Clapp v. Forest Trails Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings of the administrative hearing held on March 9, 2022, regarding Docket Number 22F-H2221026-l. The dispute involves a challenge by petitioner Judy Clapp against the Forest Trails Homeowners Association (HOA) concerning the landscaping of an eight-foot unpaved common area adjacent to 1473 Trail Head (the “Norman lot”).

The central conflict involves the Board’s decision to allow a homeowner to install a rock berm on association-owned land that had historically functioned as a parking lane for residents accessing a nearby trail head. The petitioner alleges this action violates the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by granting exclusive use of common area to one homeowner and eliminating a long-standing community benefit. The association contends that the Board acted within its authority to approve architectural requests, maintained consistency with community-wide landscaping standards, and addressed legitimate nuisance and erosion concerns.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview and Hearing Details

• Date of Hearing: March 9, 2022

• Administrative Law Judge: Alvin Moses Thompson

• Petitioner: Judy Clapp (Represented by Kevin Harper)

• Respondent: Forest Trails Homeowners Association (Represented by Ed O’Brien)

• Key Witnesses: Judy Clapp (Petitioner); Dean Meyers (Board Member/Witness for Respondent)

• Subject Property: Common area adjacent to 1473 Trail Head, Prescott, Arizona.

——————————————————————————–

Primary Legal and Regulatory Framework

The dispute centers on the interpretation of specific governing documents produced as evidence:

Amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

• Section 2.2 (Common Areas and Open Space): States that common areas “shall be for the use and benefit of all members” and should be left in their natural state unless used for specific purposes, including “trails, walkways, driveways, parking areas, appropriate signs, recreational amenities, [and] landscaping.”

• Section 3.4: Grants the association the authority to “own, repair, manage, operate, and maintain” common areas according to the plat.

• Section 3.4.9: Designates the Architectural Control Committee (ACC) as the “judge of all aesthetic matters” on the common area.

• Section 4.1: Provides the Board with flexibility in its decision-making regarding association property.

Architectural Guidelines

• Landscaping Provisions: Permitted on the unpaved association-owned area (approx. 8 feet) between the lot line and the street only with ACC approval.

• Exclusive Use Restriction: Mandates that any such approval “will not give the property owner exclusive use of this association property.”

——————————————————————————–

Main Themes and Arguments

1. Historical Use vs. New Architectural Approval

The petitioner argues that the area in question served as a de facto parking lane for approximately 15–20 years, accommodating up to three vehicles.

• Petitioner Position: The removal of this parking area harms residents who now must walk an additional mile or more to access trail heads. Clapp asserts the association consistently denied similar requests in the past to protect common area access.

• Respondent Position: The HOA argues that parking was never a “guaranteed right” or a “written amenity” in the declaration. They contend the Board could not “say no” to the Normans’ request because hundreds of other homeowners have similar roadside landscaping.

2. Allegations of “Exclusive Use”

A major point of contention is whether the rock berm constitutes a violation of the rule against “exclusive use.”

• Petitioner’s Argument: The installation of large boulders and a rock berm makes it impossible for vehicles to park and “unsafe” or “risky” for pedestrians to walk over, effectively gifting the land to the adjacent homeowner.

• Respondent’s Argument: The area is not fenced or walled. Members of the public or homeowners can still theoretically walk on it, meaning use is not exclusive. Dean Meyers testified that the area is “less accessible” but still accessible at the ends.

3. Nuisance Mitigation and Safety

The HOA justifies the landscaping as a solution to long-standing issues.

• Respondent’s Evidence: Dean Meyers testified that the parking area created nuisances including noise (dogs, yelling), trash, and public intrusion 40 feet from the Normans’ kitchen. Furthermore, Meyers cited an erosion issue where water was undermining the cement curb, a problem he claims the landscaping resolved.

• Petitioner’s Rebuttal: Clapp, a former board member of 10 years, testified she never heard of safety, noise, or trash complaints regarding this site until February 2021, four months after the rocks were installed. She suggested the “safety” argument was an after-the-fact justification.

4. Conflict of Interest and Procedure

The petitioner raised concerns regarding the motivations behind the approval.

• Self-Serving Motivation: Witness Dean Meyers is a permanent board member and also the owner of the landscaping company hired by the Normans to perform the work.

• Lack of Formal Vote: Clapp testified that the work appeared to be allowed without a formal board vote, though respondent minutes from October 27, 2020, show the board requested gravel samples for the project.

——————————————————————————–

Critical Evidence and Testimony

Photographic Evidence (Exhibit 6)

The hearing reviewed nine photographs showing the evolution of the site:

• Before: A dirt “parking lane” capable of holding cars.

• After: A “rock berm” consisting of large boulders and smaller rocks that completely prohibit vehicle access.

Comparison to Other Amenities

Clapp pointed to the community tennis courts as evidence of unfair treatment.

• Tennis Court Parking: The HOA recently expanded and paved parking for tennis players (Exhibits 17, 18).

• Trail Head Parking: Conversely, the HOA eliminated parking for hikers at the trail head, which Clapp described as the community’s only other amenity.

Legal Opinion of Jim Atkinson

An email exchange (Exhibit 7) involving former Board President and attorney Jim Atkinson was introduced. Atkinson’s noted opinion stated:

• The 8-foot area is common area property, “no different than its ownership of the paved areas.”

• Parking is a permitted use under Section 2.2.

• The Board “never agreed to allow a lot owner to block access to the shoulder area.”

——————————————————————————–

Conclusions and Sought Relief

The Petitioner seeks an order confirming that the CC&Rs prohibit these specific landscaping changes and requiring the association to restore the common area to its original condition.

The Respondent maintains that the Board acted within its discretionary authority to manage common areas and treat all members fairly by approving a standard landscaping request. They argue the Petitioner is seeking a “prescriptive easement” to park in a specific spot, a right they claim does not exist under the governing documents or Arizona law.

Summary Table of Arguments

Petitioner’s View

Respondent’s View

Land Use

Reserved for the benefit of all members (parking/trails).

Subject to Board management and aesthetic discretion.

Accessibility

Rock berm creates “exclusive use” by blocking access.

No fence exists; property remains technically accessible.

Safety/Nuisance

No evidence of prior complaints; “punitive” decision.

Resolved erosion, trash, and noise nuisances.

Consistency

Association has historically denied such requests.

Hundreds of other lots have identical landscaping.

Board Ethics

Decision was self-serving (witness was the contractor).

Business was private between the contractor and homeowner.

Study Guide: Judy Clapp v. Forest Trails Homeowners Association (Docket No. 22F-H2221026-I)

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing held on March 9, 2022, regarding a dispute over common area usage, landscaping rights, and parking access within the Forest Trails community.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2–3 sentences based on the provided hearing transcript and documents.

1. What is the central issue of the dispute between Judy Clapp and the Forest Trails Homeowners Association?

2. How does Section 2.2 of the Forest Trails Declaration define the purpose and permitted uses of “common areas”?

3. What physical modification to the area near 1473 Trail Head triggered this legal action, and who performed the work?

4. What is the Petitioner’s primary argument regarding the “exclusive use” of the landscaped common area?

5. How does the Association justify its decision to approve the Normans’ landscaping request despite member objections?

6. What did the 2002–2003 review of the plat and CC&Rs reveal to the Association board regarding the 8-foot strips alongside the roadways?

7. What “nuisances” did the Respondent cite as reasons for prohibiting parking at the trail head location?

8. How does the Petitioner use the example of the community tennis courts to argue that the Association’s parking policy is inconsistent?

9. According to the testimony of Dean Myers, what is the Association’s policy regarding damage to homeowner-installed landscaping caused by snowplows?

10. What specific legal relief is the Petitioner seeking from the Administrative Law Judge?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The dispute centers on the Association’s decision to allow a specific homeowner (the Normans) to landscape a common area in a way that prohibits long-standing member parking. The Petitioner argues this violates the Declaration’s provision that common areas benefit all members, while the Association claims the right to manage aesthetics and address nuisances.

2. Section 2.2 states that common areas are for the “use and benefit of all members” and should generally be left in their natural state. However, it explicitly allows these areas to be used for specific purposes, including trails, walkways, driveways, parking areas, landscaping, and utility easements.

3. The Normans installed large boulders and a rock berm on the association-owned unpaved roadway shoulder to prevent vehicles from parking there. This work was executed by Dean Myers, who is a permanent member of the Association’s Board of Directors and the owner of a landscaping company.

4. The Petitioner argues that the installation of the rock berm effectively grants the Normans “exclusive use” of the common area by making it physically inaccessible to others. She contends this violates the Architectural Guidelines, which state that landscaping approval shall not give a property owner exclusive use of association property.

5. The Association argues it must treat all members fairly, noting that hundreds of other residents have been allowed to landscape the common area up to the roadside. They assert that denying the Normans’ request would have unfairly “singled them out” when similar requests are universally approved.

6. The board realized that the 8-foot unpaved areas on each side of the paved roads were not private property but were actually “common areas” owned and managed by the Association. Following this discovery, the Association took over maintenance responsibilities, such as weed control and erosion management, for these strips.

7. The Respondent claimed that parking at the trail head created nuisances including trash, noise, and “public intrusion” from non-residents. Additionally, Dean Myers testified that parking was exacerbating erosion issues that were beginning to undermine the concrete street curb.

8. The Petitioner points out that the Association recently expanded and paved parking at the community tennis courts to benefit members who play tennis. She argues it is discriminatory to improve amenities for one group of members while removing a traditional parking benefit for those who use the hiking trails.

9. The Association generally holds the homeowner responsible for the costs of repairing any landscaping that extends into the common area if it is damaged by a snowplow. This serves as a condition of allowing private landscaping on association-owned land; the board only pays if the plow operator acted “stupidly.”

10. The Petitioner is seeking an order confirming that the Declaration prohibits these specific landscaping changes. Furthermore, she is requesting that the Association be ordered to restore the common area to its original condition to allow for continued member parking.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts. (Answers not provided).

1. Aesthetics vs. Utility: Analyze the tension between the Board’s authority to judge “aesthetic matters” (Section 3.4.9) and the “permitted uses” of common areas (Section 2.2). Which authority should take precedence when a visual improvement eliminates a functional use?

2. The Definition of Exclusive Use: Evaluate the Respondent’s argument that the rock berm does not constitute “exclusive use” because there is no fence. Contrast this with the Petitioner’s testimony regarding the physical safety and accessibility of the area for members.

3. Conflicts of Interest in Governance: Discuss the implications of Dean Myers serving as both the board member approving (or allowing) the project and the contractor performing the work. How does this dual role affect the Association’s “fairness” argument?

4. Safety and Nuisance as Justification: Examine the evidence provided for safety concerns and nuisances at the trail head. Was the Association’s response (permitting boulders) a proportionate and evidenced-based solution to the problems described?

5. Historical Practice vs. Written Code: Explore the legal weight of “decades of practice” versus the literal interpretation of the Plat and Declaration. Should sixteen years of uninterrupted use by members create a protected right to park, even if not explicitly marked on a plat map?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Architectural Control Committee (ACC)

The body (often the Board of Directors in this case) responsible for reviewing and approving or denying changes to property and common areas.

Common Area

Land owned by the Homeowners Association for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of all members, such as the 8-foot strips adjacent to roadways.

Declaration (CC&Rs)

The “Amended Declaration of Covenant Conditions and Restrictions,” which serves as the primary governing document for the Forest Trails community.

Developer Position

A permanent seat on the Board of Directors reserved for the original developer or their representative (currently held by Dean Myers).

Easement

A legal right to use another’s land for a specific limited purpose; in this case, the trail head access is described as an easement between two lots.

Exclusive Use

The sole right to use a portion of property to the exclusion of others; prohibited for private owners on association common areas.

GIS (Geographic Information System)

Digital mapping technology used in the hearing to show property lines and the relationship between lots and association-owned streets.

Natural State

The original, undeveloped condition of land; Section 2.2 mandates common areas be kept this way unless used for specific permitted purposes like trails or parking.

Petitioner

The party initiating the legal grievance or “petition” (Judy Clapp).

Plat / Plat Map

An official map drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land, including lots, streets, and common areas.

Respondent

The party responding to the legal grievance (Forest Trails Homeowners Association).

Rock Berm

A man-made barrier or mound constructed of rocks and boulders used in this case to physically block vehicle access to a shoulder.

Study Guide: Judy Clapp v. Forest Trails Homeowners Association (Docket No. 22F-H2221026-I)

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing held on March 9, 2022, regarding a dispute over common area usage, landscaping rights, and parking access within the Forest Trails community.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2–3 sentences based on the provided hearing transcript and documents.

1. What is the central issue of the dispute between Judy Clapp and the Forest Trails Homeowners Association?

2. How does Section 2.2 of the Forest Trails Declaration define the purpose and permitted uses of “common areas”?

3. What physical modification to the area near 1473 Trail Head triggered this legal action, and who performed the work?

4. What is the Petitioner’s primary argument regarding the “exclusive use” of the landscaped common area?

5. How does the Association justify its decision to approve the Normans’ landscaping request despite member objections?

6. What did the 2002–2003 review of the plat and CC&Rs reveal to the Association board regarding the 8-foot strips alongside the roadways?

7. What “nuisances” did the Respondent cite as reasons for prohibiting parking at the trail head location?

8. How does the Petitioner use the example of the community tennis courts to argue that the Association’s parking policy is inconsistent?

9. According to the testimony of Dean Myers, what is the Association’s policy regarding damage to homeowner-installed landscaping caused by snowplows?

10. What specific legal relief is the Petitioner seeking from the Administrative Law Judge?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The dispute centers on the Association’s decision to allow a specific homeowner (the Normans) to landscape a common area in a way that prohibits long-standing member parking. The Petitioner argues this violates the Declaration’s provision that common areas benefit all members, while the Association claims the right to manage aesthetics and address nuisances.

2. Section 2.2 states that common areas are for the “use and benefit of all members” and should generally be left in their natural state. However, it explicitly allows these areas to be used for specific purposes, including trails, walkways, driveways, parking areas, landscaping, and utility easements.

3. The Normans installed large boulders and a rock berm on the association-owned unpaved roadway shoulder to prevent vehicles from parking there. This work was executed by Dean Myers, who is a permanent member of the Association’s Board of Directors and the owner of a landscaping company.

4. The Petitioner argues that the installation of the rock berm effectively grants the Normans “exclusive use” of the common area by making it physically inaccessible to others. She contends this violates the Architectural Guidelines, which state that landscaping approval shall not give a property owner exclusive use of association property.

5. The Association argues it must treat all members fairly, noting that hundreds of other residents have been allowed to landscape the common area up to the roadside. They assert that denying the Normans’ request would have unfairly “singled them out” when similar requests are universally approved.

6. The board realized that the 8-foot unpaved areas on each side of the paved roads were not private property but were actually “common areas” owned and managed by the Association. Following this discovery, the Association took over maintenance responsibilities, such as weed control and erosion management, for these strips.

7. The Respondent claimed that parking at the trail head created nuisances including trash, noise, and “public intrusion” from non-residents. Additionally, Dean Myers testified that parking was exacerbating erosion issues that were beginning to undermine the concrete street curb.

8. The Petitioner points out that the Association recently expanded and paved parking at the community tennis courts to benefit members who play tennis. She argues it is discriminatory to improve amenities for one group of members while removing a traditional parking benefit for those who use the hiking trails.

9. The Association generally holds the homeowner responsible for the costs of repairing any landscaping that extends into the common area if it is damaged by a snowplow. This serves as a condition of allowing private landscaping on association-owned land; the board only pays if the plow operator acted “stupidly.”

10. The Petitioner is seeking an order confirming that the Declaration prohibits these specific landscaping changes. Furthermore, she is requesting that the Association be ordered to restore the common area to its original condition to allow for continued member parking.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts. (Answers not provided).

1. Aesthetics vs. Utility: Analyze the tension between the Board’s authority to judge “aesthetic matters” (Section 3.4.9) and the “permitted uses” of common areas (Section 2.2). Which authority should take precedence when a visual improvement eliminates a functional use?

2. The Definition of Exclusive Use: Evaluate the Respondent’s argument that the rock berm does not constitute “exclusive use” because there is no fence. Contrast this with the Petitioner’s testimony regarding the physical safety and accessibility of the area for members.

3. Conflicts of Interest in Governance: Discuss the implications of Dean Myers serving as both the board member approving (or allowing) the project and the contractor performing the work. How does this dual role affect the Association’s “fairness” argument?

4. Safety and Nuisance as Justification: Examine the evidence provided for safety concerns and nuisances at the trail head. Was the Association’s response (permitting boulders) a proportionate and evidenced-based solution to the problems described?

5. Historical Practice vs. Written Code: Explore the legal weight of “decades of practice” versus the literal interpretation of the Plat and Declaration. Should sixteen years of uninterrupted use by members create a protected right to park, even if not explicitly marked on a plat map?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Architectural Control Committee (ACC)

The body (often the Board of Directors in this case) responsible for reviewing and approving or denying changes to property and common areas.

Common Area

Land owned by the Homeowners Association for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of all members, such as the 8-foot strips adjacent to roadways.

Declaration (CC&Rs)

The “Amended Declaration of Covenant Conditions and Restrictions,” which serves as the primary governing document for the Forest Trails community.

Developer Position

A permanent seat on the Board of Directors reserved for the original developer or their representative (currently held by Dean Myers).

Easement

A legal right to use another’s land for a specific limited purpose; in this case, the trail head access is described as an easement between two lots.

Exclusive Use

The sole right to use a portion of property to the exclusion of others; prohibited for private owners on association common areas.

GIS (Geographic Information System)

Digital mapping technology used in the hearing to show property lines and the relationship between lots and association-owned streets.

Natural State

The original, undeveloped condition of land; Section 2.2 mandates common areas be kept this way unless used for specific permitted purposes like trails or parking.

Petitioner

The party initiating the legal grievance or “petition” (Judy Clapp).

Plat / Plat Map

An official map drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land, including lots, streets, and common areas.

Respondent

The party responding to the legal grievance (Forest Trails Homeowners Association).

Rock Berm

A man-made barrier or mound constructed of rocks and boulders used in this case to physically block vehicle access to a shoulder.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Judy Clapp (Petitioner)
    Homeowner
    Also referred to as Judith Ellen Black
  • Kevin Harper (Petitioner Attorney)
    Harper Law PLC
  • Rick Ohanesian (Petitioner)
    Homeowner
    Listed in Respondent's Amended Notice of Appearance
  • Lucy McMillan (Former Board Member)
    Forest Trails HOA
    Listed as witness but not present

Respondent Side

  • Edward D. O'Brien (Respondent Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Edith I. Rudder (Respondent Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Dean Meyers (Board Member)
    Forest Trails HOA Board
    Developer position on board; Professional landscaper hired by the Normans; Witness
  • James Norman (Homeowner)
    Forest Trails HOA
    Owner of lot 30; requested landscaping
  • Cynthia Norman (Homeowner)
    Forest Trails HOA
    Owner of lot 30
  • Jim Atkinson (HOA Attorney)
    Former Board President; identified as Association attorney in testimony
  • Nancy Char (Board President)
    Forest Trails HOA
    Current president mentioned in testimony
  • Marissa (Property Manager)
    Community Asset Management LLC
    Mentioned in meeting minutes regarding sample handling

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transcribed as 'Alvin Moses Thompson' in audio transcript
  • Dan Gardner (HOA Coordinator)
    ADRE
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE

Other Participants

  • Lenor Hemphill (Former Board Member)
    Forest Trails HOA
    Sent email regarding landscaping issue

John J Balaco v. Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221011-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-21
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Petitioner's claim was denied because the ALJ concluded that the alleged violation of the 5th Amended Master Declaration Article 6.7 was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; the argument was premature as the action (substantial change in use) had not yet come to fruition.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John J Balaco Counsel —
Respondent Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq. & Sami Farhat, Esq.

Alleged Violations

5th Amended Master Declaration Article 6.7

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's claim was denied because the ALJ concluded that the alleged violation of the 5th Amended Master Declaration Article 6.7 was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; the argument was premature as the action (substantial change in use) had not yet come to fruition.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the argument was not ripe and predicated on actions that have yet to occur.

Key Issues & Findings

Change in Use of Common Area

Petitioner alleged that the Association violated Article 6.7 by modifying renovation plans for the Activity Center's coffee bar to include the sale of alcoholic beverages (cafe wine bar) without the requisite 60% membership vote, arguing this converted common area into a restricted commercial bar.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • 5th Amended Master Declaration Article 6.7

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Master Declaration, Change of Use, Common Area, Liquor License, Renovation, Ripeness, Cafe Wine Bar
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221011-REL Decision – 935334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:39:39 (49.3 KB)

22F-H2221011-REL Decision – 956246.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:39:42 (138.2 KB)

The legal case involved Petitioner John J Balaco challenging the Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc. (Respondent). The hearing took place over two sessions, on December 29, 2021, and a further hearing on March 1, 2022, presided over by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The central legal issue was whether the Association violated Article 6.7 of the 5th Amended Master Declaration for substantially changing the use of a portion of the Common Area without approval of at least 60% of Members voting on the matter.

The specific action challenged was the modification of plans to renovate the 34-year-old Activity Center's coffee bar (approximately 1,400 square feet) to include the sale of alcoholic beverages, creating a café wine bar component.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

  1. Association's (Respondent's) Position:
  • The Association argued that offering wine sales was a minor component of the overall renovation of the approximately 22,000 square foot Activity Center and did not constitute a substantial change in use.
  • Association witnesses (including General Manager Mark Wade and Controller/Liquor License Agent Randy Trenary) testified that information regarding the renovation, including the wine bar component, was presented to members via multiple forums, presentations, and weekly newsletters.
  • Crucially, the membership voted on the renovation project, including the wine bar, on March 23, 2021. The vote passed with 1,121 votes (65%) in favor (only 859 votes were required to pass), thereby satisfying and exceeding the 60% requirement stipulated in Article 6.7.
  1. Petitioner's Position:
  • Petitioner Balaco argued that adding an Arizona liquor license to any portion of the common area significantly changes the character and nature of its use.
  • He contended that the license imposes restrictions, such as prohibiting the consumption of personal alcohol (BYOB) in the designated area and restricting access for minors unless accompanied by an adult 21 or older, thus restricting use residents had previously enjoyed.
  • Petitioner also argued that the board made a mistake, asserting that the area was covered by an existing license when, in fact, the Department of Liquor License and Control later confirmed no part of the activity center was currently covered. Petitioner requested an order requiring a specific resident vote prior to the board applying for any liquor license extension.

Final Decision and Legal Points

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Petitioner did not sustain his burden of proving a violation of Article 6.7 by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ emphasized the following legal points:

  • The Petitioner’s argument was not ripe.
  • As of the hearing date, no construction or structural modification of the coffee bar had taken place, and the Association had not submitted a new application to the DLLC to extend its liquor service area.
  • The ALJ found that the crux of the Petitioner’s grievance was "theoretical and predicated on action(s) that have yet to occur".
  • Therefore, the ALJ could not reasonably conclude that the Association had "substantially changed the use of a portion of a common area".

Outcome: The Petitioner’s petition was denied. The matter was taken under advisement on March 1, 2022, and the decision was issued on March 21, 2022.

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner filing the petition to prove that a violation occurred. The HOA does not have to disprove the claim; the petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

How much evidence is required to win a case against an HOA?

Short Answer

A preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The standard of proof is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means the evidence must show that the homeowner's claim is more likely true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than the quantity of witnesses.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standards

Question

Can I file a petition against my HOA for a violation that hasn't happened yet but is planned?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The dispute must be 'ripe' and not theoretical.

Detailed Answer

Administrative Law Judges generally cannot rule on grievances that are theoretical or based on actions that have not yet occurred. If a construction project or change has not physically started, a claim that it 'will' cause a violation may be dismissed as not ripe.

Alj Quote

The crux of Petitioner’s is theoretical and predicated on action(s) that have yet to occur… Therefore, it cannot reasonably be concluded that the Association substantially changed the use of a portion of a common area.

Legal Basis

Ripeness Doctrine

Topic Tags

  • ripeness
  • future violations
  • construction

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge order an injunction to stop the HOA from doing something?

Short Answer

No, injunctive relief is unavailable in this administrative process.

Detailed Answer

The administrative hearing process in Arizona for HOA disputes does not grant the ALJ the authority to issue injunctions (orders to stop an action) or declaratory relief. The ALJ determines if a violation occurred based on past or present facts.

Alj Quote

Based on Petitioner’s arguments in closing, it is apparent that he is seeking injunctive and/or declaratory relief that is unavailable for litigants in the administrative hearing process in the State of Arizona.

Legal Basis

Administrative Hearing Limits

Topic Tags

  • injunctions
  • remedies
  • legal relief

Question

Does a renovation of a common area facility automatically count as a 'substantial change in use'?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if the change hasn't occurred yet or doesn't alter the character of the area.

Detailed Answer

Whether a renovation is a 'substantial change in use' (which often requires a member vote) depends on if it changes the character and nature of the area. However, if the project is not yet built, an ALJ may be unable to determine if the change is substantial.

Alj Quote

Notably, the undersigned cannot make any determinations about whether the Association’s proposed voter-approved construction would alter the character and nature of the common area to such an extent that it would create a “substantial change of use” to the area.

Legal Basis

Master Declaration Article 6.7 (cited in decision)

Topic Tags

  • common areas
  • renovations
  • change of use

Question

Is the decision made by the Administrative Law Judge final and binding?

Short Answer

Yes, unless a rehearing is granted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ's order is binding on both the homeowner and the HOA unless one party successfully files for a rehearing within 30 days of service of the order.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)

Topic Tags

  • appeals
  • binding order
  • procedure

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221011-REL
Case Title
John J Balaco vs. Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-03-21
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner filing the petition to prove that a violation occurred. The HOA does not have to disprove the claim; the petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

How much evidence is required to win a case against an HOA?

Short Answer

A preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The standard of proof is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means the evidence must show that the homeowner's claim is more likely true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than the quantity of witnesses.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standards

Question

Can I file a petition against my HOA for a violation that hasn't happened yet but is planned?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The dispute must be 'ripe' and not theoretical.

Detailed Answer

Administrative Law Judges generally cannot rule on grievances that are theoretical or based on actions that have not yet occurred. If a construction project or change has not physically started, a claim that it 'will' cause a violation may be dismissed as not ripe.

Alj Quote

The crux of Petitioner’s is theoretical and predicated on action(s) that have yet to occur… Therefore, it cannot reasonably be concluded that the Association substantially changed the use of a portion of a common area.

Legal Basis

Ripeness Doctrine

Topic Tags

  • ripeness
  • future violations
  • construction

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge order an injunction to stop the HOA from doing something?

Short Answer

No, injunctive relief is unavailable in this administrative process.

Detailed Answer

The administrative hearing process in Arizona for HOA disputes does not grant the ALJ the authority to issue injunctions (orders to stop an action) or declaratory relief. The ALJ determines if a violation occurred based on past or present facts.

Alj Quote

Based on Petitioner’s arguments in closing, it is apparent that he is seeking injunctive and/or declaratory relief that is unavailable for litigants in the administrative hearing process in the State of Arizona.

Legal Basis

Administrative Hearing Limits

Topic Tags

  • injunctions
  • remedies
  • legal relief

Question

Does a renovation of a common area facility automatically count as a 'substantial change in use'?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if the change hasn't occurred yet or doesn't alter the character of the area.

Detailed Answer

Whether a renovation is a 'substantial change in use' (which often requires a member vote) depends on if it changes the character and nature of the area. However, if the project is not yet built, an ALJ may be unable to determine if the change is substantial.

Alj Quote

Notably, the undersigned cannot make any determinations about whether the Association’s proposed voter-approved construction would alter the character and nature of the common area to such an extent that it would create a “substantial change of use” to the area.

Legal Basis

Master Declaration Article 6.7 (cited in decision)

Topic Tags

  • common areas
  • renovations
  • change of use

Question

Is the decision made by the Administrative Law Judge final and binding?

Short Answer

Yes, unless a rehearing is granted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ's order is binding on both the homeowner and the HOA unless one party successfully files for a rehearing within 30 days of service of the order.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)

Topic Tags

  • appeals
  • binding order
  • procedure

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221011-REL
Case Title
John J Balaco vs. Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-03-21
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John J Balaco (petitioner)
  • Diane Paton (witness)
  • James Gearhart (helper / observer)
    Assisted Petitioner with documents; observed hearing

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Sami Farhat (attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Mark Wade (general manager / witness)
  • Randall Jean Trenary (controller / witness)
    Liquor license agent
  • James Henry Mitchell (witness)
    Also referred to as Jim Mitchell or Randall James Mitchell

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Contact for appeal procedure
  • c. serrano (OAH staff)
    OAH
    Transmitter of Minute Entry
  • Miranda Alvarez (OAH staff)
    OAH
    Transmitter of ALJ Decision

Other Participants

  • Marla Balaco (observer)
  • Janet Ambrosio (observer)
  • Sheila Helmuth (observer)
  • Sherokee Ilse (observer)
  • Edward Zwerling (observer)
  • Robin Coulter (observer)
  • Rocky Gedrose (observer)
  • Thelma LaFleur (observer)
  • Tim Kelley (observer)
  • Vicki McFadden (observer)
  • Allan Mashburn (observer)
  • Cathy Winje (observer)
  • Chris Ludwig (observer)
  • Dan Edward (observer)
  • Dibri Ruiz (observer)
  • Donna Harting (observer)
  • Eric Meyers (observer)
  • Anthony Denaro (observer)
  • Melanie Stenson (observer)
  • Bertha Medina (observer)
  • Carol Johnson (observer)
  • Rita Petterson (observer)
  • David Sullivan (observer)
  • Gary Lurch (observer)
  • Janet Keller (observer)
  • Joanne Keck (observer)
  • Kaaren Brent (observer)
  • Karen Roche (observer)
  • Ken Sandrick (observer)
  • Kristi Halverson (observer)
  • Lindsay Welbers (observer)
  • Marie Scarpulla (observer)
  • Maxine Yunker (observer)
  • Pamela Sarpalius (observer)
  • Phyliss Austin (observer)
  • Robert Watson (observer)
  • Sandra Fischer (observer)
  • Sharon Kennedy (observer)
  • Vicki McFadin (observer)
  • William Whitney (observer)

Nancy L Pope v. La Vida Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221013-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-02
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge granted Petitioner's request, finding that the HOA violated its community documents regarding common area maintenance because a bottle tree in the common area caused damage to Petitioner's property. The ALJ ordered the HOA to comply with the relevant community document provisions and refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. The ALJ noted she lacked statutory authority to award the approximately $28,486.00 in monetary damages requested by Petitioner.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nancy L Pope Counsel —
Respondent La Vida Homeowners Association Counsel Erik J. Stone

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article V Section 1, CC&Rs Article VI Section 1a, and Bylaws Article IV Section 2c

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted Petitioner's request, finding that the HOA violated its community documents regarding common area maintenance because a bottle tree in the common area caused damage to Petitioner's property. The ALJ ordered the HOA to comply with the relevant community document provisions and refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. The ALJ noted she lacked statutory authority to award the approximately $28,486.00 in monetary damages requested by Petitioner.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA failure to maintain common area landscaping resulting in root damage to homeowner property.

The Respondent HOA violated its community document obligations for common area maintenance (including landscaping) because a bottle tree located in the common area caused substantial root intrusion damage (lifting and heaving) to the Petitioner's patio and concrete slab.

Orders: Petition granted. Respondent ordered to abide by CC&Rs Article V Section 1, CC&Rs Article VI Section 1a, and Bylaws Article IV Section 2c. Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. No civil penalty imposed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220

Analytics Highlights

Topics: homeowner rights, maintenance violation, root damage, planned community, bottle tree, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221013-REL Decision – 932121.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T09:52:28 (43.6 KB)

22F-H2221013-REL Decision – 932140.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T09:52:34 (5.8 KB)

22F-H2221013-REL Decision – 951381.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T09:52:42 (122.2 KB)

22F-H2221013-REL Decision – 954163.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T09:52:48 (46.1 KB)

This summary details the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the case of Nancy L. Pope v. La Vida Homeowners Association (No. 22F-H2221013-REL).

Key Facts and Issues

Petitioner Nancy L. Pope, a homeowner in the La Vida subdivision, filed a petition against the La Vida Homeowners Association (HOA), alleging violations of the HOA's Bylaws (Article IV, Section 2c) and CC&Rs (Article V, Section 1; Article VI, Section 1a). The central dispute stemmed from the HOA’s alleged failure to maintain or remove a bottle tree located on the Common Area adjacent to Petitioner’s property, resulting in root intrusion that caused heaving and cracking of Petitioner’s concrete slab and patio.

The damage was discovered in June 2021 during a home remodel, when Petitioner’s contractor tore up the concrete slab and found a substantial web of roots from the bottle tree. Petitioner sought total damages of $28,487, covering floor repair, patio replacement, grinding, and the $550.00 cost Petitioner incurred to remove the bottle tree.

Key Arguments

  1. Petitioner's Argument (Negligence and Maintenance Duty): Petitioner argued the HOA was negligent in its maintenance duty. Testimony established that bottle trees are known for their aggressive root systems, which can spread up to 100 feet, and should generally be planted at least 25 to 30 feet from structures. Petitioner argued that the HOA, responsible for common area maintenance, should have been aware of the risks posed by the bottle tree planted close to her home. Petitioner also cited the delay of several months in authorizing the removal of the tree as contributing to increased damages.
  2. Respondent's Argument (Lack of Knowledge and Origin): The HOA denied negligence, arguing they had fulfilled their duty by trimming the trees. Respondent asserted that the trees were planted by a predecessor homeowner, not the HOA or developer, and that Petitioner's own irrigation system had watered them. Crucially, the HOA argued that it was not negligent because it "did not know or have reason to know" of the subterranean root intrusion prior to the damage discovery in June 2021, and proactive root maintenance was not an industry standard.

Outcome and Legal Decision

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Petitioner sustained her burden of proving a community document violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ granted Petitioner’s petition, concluding that the Respondent violated CC&Rs Article V section 1, Article VI section 1a, and Bylaws Article IV, Section 2c. The ALJ held that the HOA's duty to maintain the Common Area did not end at the boundary line. The core legal finding was that "But for the bottle tree being situated where it was and in the state it was in, there would not be roots coming onto Petitioner’s property to such an extent that caused any amount of damage or harm".

However, in a subsequent order clarifying the scope of authority, the ALJ noted that the statutes governing these disputes (A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.) do not grant the Administrative Law Judge authority to award compensatory damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory judgments.

The final *Order* required the Respondent to abide by the community documents and statutes specified. Specifically, the Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00.

Questions

Question

If a tree in the HOA common area damages my home, is the HOA responsible even if the tree was planted by a previous homeowner?

Short Answer

Yes. The HOA's duty to maintain the common area applies regardless of who originally planted the tree.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that even though the parties presumed the trees were planted by an original homeowner decades ago, the HOA still had an obligation to maintain the common area. The HOA was found in violation of the CC&Rs because the tree located in the common area caused damage to the homeowner's property.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s duty to maintain the Common Area did not end at the boundary line of the Common Area. A tree in Respondent’s Common Area caused damage to Petitioner’s property.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article V Section 1; Article VI Section 1a

Topic Tags

  • common area maintenance
  • property damage
  • landscaping
  • liability

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge award me money (damages) to cover the cost of repairs to my home?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ does not have the statutory authority to award monetary damages or injunctive relief.

Detailed Answer

While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and order the HOA to abide by the community documents, they cannot order the HOA to pay for the repairs (damages). The homeowner may need to pursue a separate civil action for monetary compensation beyond the filing fee.

Alj Quote

Nothing in the statutes applicable to these disputes provides the Administrative Law Judge with any additional authority to award damages, injunction relief, or declaratory judgments.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • damages
  • remedies
  • jurisdiction
  • repairs

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the ALJ is required to order the respondent to pay the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly ordered the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the $500 filing fee because the petition was granted. This is a statutory requirement when the petitioner wins.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

Does the HOA's duty to 'maintain' landscaping include preventing root damage, or just trimming trees?

Short Answer

The duty to maintain includes preventing damage. Regular trimming is not sufficient if the roots are causing damage.

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued that they fulfilled their duty by having a landscaper trim the trees. However, the ALJ found that despite this regular maintenance, the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the tree's existence and condition caused damage to the adjacent property.

Alj Quote

Despite Respondent’s contract with CityScape for regular arbor maintenance, the bottle tree’s roots caused lifting and heaving of Petitioner’s patio and concrete slab.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article V Section 1

Topic Tags

  • maintenance definition
  • landscaping
  • negligence defense

Question

What is the standard of proof I need to meet to win a hearing against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner bears the burden of proof. This standard means you must show that your claim is 'more probably true than not' or carries the greater weight of the evidence.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

Is the HOA liable if they claim they didn't know the roots were causing problems?

Short Answer

Yes. Lack of knowledge or 'negligence' is not necessarily the standard for a CC&R violation in this context.

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued they were not negligent because they did not know about the root intrusion. The ALJ ruled against them anyway, basing the decision on the strict violation of the duty to maintain the common area which resulted in damage, effectively setting aside the 'we didn't know' defense.

Alj Quote

Respondent further argued that because it did not know or have reason to know of the root intrusion, Respondent was not negligent… [However,] the undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that… Petitioner established a violation… her petition must be granted.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article V Section 1

Topic Tags

  • negligence
  • liability
  • defense arguments

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221013-REL
Case Title
Nancy L. Pope vs. La Vida Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-03-02
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If a tree in the HOA common area damages my home, is the HOA responsible even if the tree was planted by a previous homeowner?

Short Answer

Yes. The HOA's duty to maintain the common area applies regardless of who originally planted the tree.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that even though the parties presumed the trees were planted by an original homeowner decades ago, the HOA still had an obligation to maintain the common area. The HOA was found in violation of the CC&Rs because the tree located in the common area caused damage to the homeowner's property.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s duty to maintain the Common Area did not end at the boundary line of the Common Area. A tree in Respondent’s Common Area caused damage to Petitioner’s property.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article V Section 1; Article VI Section 1a

Topic Tags

  • common area maintenance
  • property damage
  • landscaping
  • liability

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge award me money (damages) to cover the cost of repairs to my home?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ does not have the statutory authority to award monetary damages or injunctive relief.

Detailed Answer

While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and order the HOA to abide by the community documents, they cannot order the HOA to pay for the repairs (damages). The homeowner may need to pursue a separate civil action for monetary compensation beyond the filing fee.

Alj Quote

Nothing in the statutes applicable to these disputes provides the Administrative Law Judge with any additional authority to award damages, injunction relief, or declaratory judgments.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • damages
  • remedies
  • jurisdiction
  • repairs

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the ALJ is required to order the respondent to pay the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly ordered the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the $500 filing fee because the petition was granted. This is a statutory requirement when the petitioner wins.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

Does the HOA's duty to 'maintain' landscaping include preventing root damage, or just trimming trees?

Short Answer

The duty to maintain includes preventing damage. Regular trimming is not sufficient if the roots are causing damage.

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued that they fulfilled their duty by having a landscaper trim the trees. However, the ALJ found that despite this regular maintenance, the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the tree's existence and condition caused damage to the adjacent property.

Alj Quote

Despite Respondent’s contract with CityScape for regular arbor maintenance, the bottle tree’s roots caused lifting and heaving of Petitioner’s patio and concrete slab.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article V Section 1

Topic Tags

  • maintenance definition
  • landscaping
  • negligence defense

Question

What is the standard of proof I need to meet to win a hearing against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner bears the burden of proof. This standard means you must show that your claim is 'more probably true than not' or carries the greater weight of the evidence.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

Is the HOA liable if they claim they didn't know the roots were causing problems?

Short Answer

Yes. Lack of knowledge or 'negligence' is not necessarily the standard for a CC&R violation in this context.

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued they were not negligent because they did not know about the root intrusion. The ALJ ruled against them anyway, basing the decision on the strict violation of the duty to maintain the common area which resulted in damage, effectively setting aside the 'we didn't know' defense.

Alj Quote

Respondent further argued that because it did not know or have reason to know of the root intrusion, Respondent was not negligent… [However,] the undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that… Petitioner established a violation… her petition must be granted.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article V Section 1

Topic Tags

  • negligence
  • liability
  • defense arguments

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221013-REL
Case Title
Nancy L. Pope vs. La Vida Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-03-02
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nancy L Pope (petitioner)
  • Ed Humston (witness)
    H&H Enterprises of Arizona
    Petitioner's Contractor

Respondent Side

  • Erik J. Stone (HOA attorney)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
  • Gabrielle Sherwood (property manager)
    City Property Management
    Community Manager for La Vida HOA
  • Debbie Duffy (board member)
    La Vida Homeowners Association
    Board Secretary
  • Lawrence Oliva (board member)
    La Vida Homeowners Association
    Board President
  • Barbara (board member)
    La Vida Homeowners Association
    Mentioned in email correspondence

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Santos Diaz (witness)
    CareScape
    Area Manager for CareScape, Respondent's landscaper
  • c. serrano (unknown)
    Transmitted documents
  • Miranda Alvarez (unknown)
    Transmitted documents
  • AHansen (unknown)
    ADRE staff
    Recipient of transmission
  • djones (unknown)
    ADRE staff
    Recipient of transmission
  • DGardner (unknown)
    ADRE staff
    Recipient of transmission
  • vnunez (unknown)
    ADRE staff
    Recipient of transmission
  • tandert (unknown)
    ADRE staff
    Recipient of transmission

Dean A Yelenik v. Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-02-18
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The ALJ found the Board acted within its lawful authority because the governing documents and statute cited did not explicitly prohibit a Board Member from resigning and immediately being appointed to fill an unexpired term to elongate their service, and Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Dean A Yelenik Counsel —
Respondent Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association Counsel Nick Eicher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1243(B) and Community Bylaws 3.1 and 3.6

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found the Board acted within its lawful authority because the governing documents and statute cited did not explicitly prohibit a Board Member from resigning and immediately being appointed to fill an unexpired term to elongate their service, and Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated ARS § 33-1243(B) and Bylaws 3.1 and 3.6. The Tribunal found the Board’s action, though potentially questionable, was not unlawful.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the Association violated ARS § 33-1243(B) and Bylaws 3.1 and 3.6 by appointing an existing board member to fill a vacancy, effectively extending her term.

The Board appointed existing Board member Joan Robley to fill the unexpired term of Board Member Gallu (expiring Jan 2023) immediately after she resigned her own seat (expiring Jan 2021), which Petitioner alleged violated governing documents by extending her term and not genuinely filling a vacancy.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(B)
  • Community Bylaws 3.1
  • Community Bylaws 3.6
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Board Vacancy, Term Extension, Bylaw Interpretation, Resignation and Reappointment, ARS 33-1243(B)
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(B)
  • Community Bylaws 3.1
  • Community Bylaws 3.6
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221021-REL Decision – 948752.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:41:34 (130.2 KB)

This matter was an administrative hearing held on February 1, 2022, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark, regarding a dispute between Petitioner Arthur Dean Yelenik and Respondent Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association (the Association). Petitioner alleged the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) § 33-1243(B) and Community Bylaws Sections 3.1 and 3.6.

Key Facts

The dispute centered on the Board of Directors' actions following the resignation of Board Member Chris Gallu in September 2020, whose term had approximately two years and three months remaining. At an October 2020 Board meeting, the Board filled this vacancy by appointing existing Board Member Joan Robley. To facilitate this, Ms. Robley resigned from her existing seat (which had only three months remaining before the January 2021 election) and was immediately appointed to Mr. Gallu’s unexpired term, effectively extending her service by two years and avoiding scheduled re-election by the homeowners. The Board operated with four members for approximately three months until the subsequent annual meeting.

Main Issues and Legal Arguments

The crux of the inquiry was whether a Board Member may resign and be immediately appointed to fill a Board vacancy on the same day, thereby elongating their term of service.

Petitioner's Argument:

The Petitioner argued that the Board's action was an illegitimate "board term swap," not a valid process for filling a vacancy.

  1. Bylaw 3.1 Violation: Bylaw 3.1 requires the Board to be an odd number (historically five members). Petitioner argued that since Ms. Robley was already a member, her reappointment did not increase the total number of board members, thus failing to “fill a vacancy in the board” and rendering Bylaw 3.1 meaningless.
  2. ARS § 33-1243(B) Violation: This statute prohibits the Board from electing members or "determin[ing] the terms of office of the board of director members". Petitioner argued the Board violated this by determining Ms. Robley's term of office (changing it from 3 months to over 2 years).

Respondent's Argument:

The Association argued it acted within its lawful authority, prioritizing the Association's best interest by retaining Ms. Robley's 15 years of continuous experience, particularly since three members were "freshmen".

  1. Bylaw 3.6 Authority: Bylaw 3.6 grants the board the authority to fill vacancies. Neither the Bylaws nor the statute explicitly prohibit appointing a former or existing board member to fill a vacancy. The sole requisite for service is unit ownership, which Ms. Robley met.
  2. Quorum Maintained: The Board maintained a quorum (three members out of five positions) at all relevant times.
  3. Statute Compliance: The Board did not violate ARS § 33-1243(B) because the terms of office (three-year staggered terms) were set by the membership in 2005, not by the Board as a matter of general policy. The statute allows the board to "fill vacancies in its membership for the unexpired portion of any term".

Outcome and Final Decision

The ALJ found that the Petitioner did not sustain his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the Board acted within its lawful authority. The decision stated that neither Bylaw Section 3.6 nor ARS § 33-1243(B) implicitly or explicitly prohibit the occurrence. The ALJ also rejected the argument that there is a presumption of "new blood" required for appointments. Petitioner's petition was therefore denied.

Questions

Question

Can a board member resign and immediately be appointed to a different vacancy to get a longer term?

Short Answer

Yes, unless the governing documents specifically prohibit it.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that a board member can resign their current seat and be appointed to a vacancy with a longer unexpired term. As long as the member is eligible (e.g., a unit owner) and the bylaws or statutes do not explicitly forbid this practice, it is considered a lawful exercise of the board's authority to fill vacancies.

Alj Quote

Neither Bylaws Section 3.6 nor ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1243(B) implicitly or explicitly prohibit what occurred.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(B); Bylaws Section 3.6

Topic Tags

  • Board Vacancies
  • Term Limits
  • Board Appointments

Question

Does the HOA board have to choose a new person ('new blood') when filling a vacancy?

Short Answer

No, the board is not required to select a new person.

Detailed Answer

There is no legal requirement for a board to seek out new candidates or 'new blood' when filling a vacancy. The board may appoint a former or resigning director to a vacant seat as long as they meet the basic qualifications, such as being a unit owner.

Alj Quote

There is no presumption of 'new blood' as Petitioner argued. The sole requisite to fill the vacancy was that the choice be limited to unit owners, which Ms. Robley is.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Board Qualifications
  • Vacancies

Question

Does the board have the authority to fill vacancies without holding a general membership election?

Short Answer

Yes, the board generally has the statutory authority to appoint members to fill vacancies.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute allows the board of directors to fill vacancies in its membership for the remainder of an unexpired term without holding a full election, provided the bylaws align with this authority.

Alj Quote

The statute does note, however, that the board of directors may 'fill vacancies in its membership for the unexpired portion of any term.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(B)

Topic Tags

  • Elections
  • Board Authority

Question

Is a board decision illegal just because it is 'questionable' or unpopular?

Short Answer

No, a questionable choice is not necessarily unlawful.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ clarified that even if a board makes a decision that is questionable or if they could have made a different determination, the decision is not unlawful unless it specifically violates the statutes or governing documents.

Alj Quote

Just because the Association could have made any number of different determinations after Mr. Gallu resigned, does not mean that its questionable choice to appoint Ms. Robley to his seat was unlawful.

Legal Basis

Board Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Board Conduct
  • Decision Making

Question

What burden of proof does a homeowner have when challenging an HOA in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for providing enough evidence to convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this standard, the petition will be denied.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Hearings

Question

Does the Administrative Law Judge have the power to interpret the HOA's CC&Rs and Bylaws?

Short Answer

Yes, the OAH tribunal can interpret the contract between the parties.

Detailed Answer

The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the specific authority to hear contested cases and interpret the contract (the CC&Rs and Bylaws) that exists between the homeowner and the association.

Alj Quote

OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Contract Interpretation

Question

If I pay for a single-issue petition, can the judge rule on other related issues?

Short Answer

No, the tribunal is limited to the specific issue paid for.

Detailed Answer

The tribunal's scope is limited to the specific issue(s) for which the filing fee was paid. They cannot adjudicate outside that scope even if related violations are alleged.

Alj Quote

Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may only determine whether Respondent committed a violation… based on the same event or series of alleged conduct.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.05

Topic Tags

  • Procedure
  • Fees

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221021-REL
Case Title
Dean A Yelenik vs. Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-02-18
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can a board member resign and immediately be appointed to a different vacancy to get a longer term?

Short Answer

Yes, unless the governing documents specifically prohibit it.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that a board member can resign their current seat and be appointed to a vacancy with a longer unexpired term. As long as the member is eligible (e.g., a unit owner) and the bylaws or statutes do not explicitly forbid this practice, it is considered a lawful exercise of the board's authority to fill vacancies.

Alj Quote

Neither Bylaws Section 3.6 nor ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1243(B) implicitly or explicitly prohibit what occurred.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(B); Bylaws Section 3.6

Topic Tags

  • Board Vacancies
  • Term Limits
  • Board Appointments

Question

Does the HOA board have to choose a new person ('new blood') when filling a vacancy?

Short Answer

No, the board is not required to select a new person.

Detailed Answer

There is no legal requirement for a board to seek out new candidates or 'new blood' when filling a vacancy. The board may appoint a former or resigning director to a vacant seat as long as they meet the basic qualifications, such as being a unit owner.

Alj Quote

There is no presumption of 'new blood' as Petitioner argued. The sole requisite to fill the vacancy was that the choice be limited to unit owners, which Ms. Robley is.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Board Qualifications
  • Vacancies

Question

Does the board have the authority to fill vacancies without holding a general membership election?

Short Answer

Yes, the board generally has the statutory authority to appoint members to fill vacancies.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute allows the board of directors to fill vacancies in its membership for the remainder of an unexpired term without holding a full election, provided the bylaws align with this authority.

Alj Quote

The statute does note, however, that the board of directors may 'fill vacancies in its membership for the unexpired portion of any term.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(B)

Topic Tags

  • Elections
  • Board Authority

Question

Is a board decision illegal just because it is 'questionable' or unpopular?

Short Answer

No, a questionable choice is not necessarily unlawful.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ clarified that even if a board makes a decision that is questionable or if they could have made a different determination, the decision is not unlawful unless it specifically violates the statutes or governing documents.

Alj Quote

Just because the Association could have made any number of different determinations after Mr. Gallu resigned, does not mean that its questionable choice to appoint Ms. Robley to his seat was unlawful.

Legal Basis

Board Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Board Conduct
  • Decision Making

Question

What burden of proof does a homeowner have when challenging an HOA in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for providing enough evidence to convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this standard, the petition will be denied.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Hearings

Question

Does the Administrative Law Judge have the power to interpret the HOA's CC&Rs and Bylaws?

Short Answer

Yes, the OAH tribunal can interpret the contract between the parties.

Detailed Answer

The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the specific authority to hear contested cases and interpret the contract (the CC&Rs and Bylaws) that exists between the homeowner and the association.

Alj Quote

OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Contract Interpretation

Question

If I pay for a single-issue petition, can the judge rule on other related issues?

Short Answer

No, the tribunal is limited to the specific issue paid for.

Detailed Answer

The tribunal's scope is limited to the specific issue(s) for which the filing fee was paid. They cannot adjudicate outside that scope even if related violations are alleged.

Alj Quote

Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may only determine whether Respondent committed a violation… based on the same event or series of alleged conduct.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.05

Topic Tags

  • Procedure
  • Fees

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221021-REL
Case Title
Dean A Yelenik vs. Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-02-18
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Arthur Dean Yelenik (petitioner)
    Also goes by Dean Yelenik
  • Kristen Terry Beloo (homeowner/past board president)
    Part of petitioner's working group; Past president (6 years)
  • Kathleen Moles (homeowner/past board president)
    Part of petitioner's working group; Past president (3 years)
  • David Moles (homeowner)
    Part of petitioner's working group

Respondent Side

  • Eadie Rudder (respondent attorney)
  • Nick Eicher (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Margo McInnis (board president/witness)
    Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association
    Testified for Respondent
  • Joan Robley (board member)
    Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association
    Appointment subject of dispute
  • Annette (property manager)
    Century Management
    Referred to as Community Manager
  • Quinton Phillips (HOA attorney)
    Attorney for the Association

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Dan Gardner (HOA Coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Chris Gallu (former board member)
    Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association
    Resignation created the contested vacancy; referred to as Mr. Beloo/Blue in transcript
  • Fran McGovern (board member)
    Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association
    Elected to Robley's former seat in Jan 2021

Anthony T Horn v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221017-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-22
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anthony T Horn Counsel —
Respondent Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. Counsel Emily H. Mann, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's single-issue petition, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) regarding the July 6, 2021 board meeting, and alternatively, any potential violation was cured by the proper notice and vote taken at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.

Why this result: The ALJ concluded that the HOA properly notified members of the matter to be discussed at the July 6, 2021 meeting (tennis court upgrade/repair). Furthermore, any potential violation was cured by the explicit notice and second unanimous vote taken at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meetings/Notice/Ability to Speak (July 6, 2021 Board Meeting)

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated ARS 33-1804(F) because the July 6, 2021 agenda item 'Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair' did not adequately disclose the conversion of one tennis court into four pickleball courts. The ALJ found the initial notice was sufficient, and alternatively, any violation was cured by a subsequent November 9, 2021 meeting with explicit notice and a second vote.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021 board meeting. Petitioner's petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARS 33-1804(F)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meeting Violation, Notice and Agenda Requirement, Cure Doctrine, Tennis Court Conversion, Pickleball
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • 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. § 33-1803

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 964044.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:40:20 (50.6 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 970320.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:40:24 (58.5 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 974011.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:40:27 (58.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 982006.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:40:30 (54.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 982097.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:40:33 (7.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 994010.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:40:36 (108.6 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 948254.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:40:41 (68.7 KB)

Briefing Document: Horn v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal dispute, procedural history, and final judgment in the case of Anthony T. Horn (Petitioner) versus Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. (Respondent), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute centers on the petitioner’s allegation that the respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(F) by failing to provide adequate notice for its July 6, 2021, Board of Directors meeting.

The petitioner claimed that the agenda item “Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair” was insufficient to inform members of the board’s plan to convert a tennis court into four pickleball courts, a decision that “blindsided” affected homeowners. In response, the HOA maintained a two-pronged defense: first, that the notice was legally sufficient, and second, that any potential procedural error was “unequivocally cured” by a subsequent board meeting on November 9, 2021, which featured an explicit agenda item detailing the conversion and at which the petitioner was present.

Following an initial dismissal and a subsequent rehearing, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson strictly limited the scope of the proceedings to the single alleged statutory violation. Ultimately, the judge dismissed the petition, issuing a definitive two-part ruling: 1) the notice for the July 6, 2021, meeting did comply with state law, and 2) even if it had not, the violation was cured by the actions taken for the November 9, 2021, meeting.

Case Overview

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Petitioner

Anthony T. Horn

Respondent

Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

Respondent Counsel

Emily H. Mann, Esq.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson

Case Chronology

• July 6, 2021: The HOA Board of Directors holds an open meeting and unanimously approves “Motion 3: Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair,” which includes the conversion of one tennis court to four pickleball courts.

• August 2021: Petitioner Anthony T. Horn files a dispute regarding the meeting.

• October 13, 2021: The Arizona Department of Real Estate receives Horn’s formal petition alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F).

• November 9, 2021: The HOA holds a second board meeting to vote again on the conversion. The agenda explicitly details the plan, and the board unanimously re-approves it. Horn attends this meeting.

• February 15, 2022: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) grants the HOA’s motion for summary judgment and dismisses the petition due to a lack of response from the petitioner.

• Post-February 15, 2022: Horn files a timely request for a rehearing.

• May 26, 2022: A telephonic pre-hearing conference is held to clarify issues and the scope of the rehearing.

• July 6, 2022: The ALJ issues an order limiting the rehearing to the single alleged violation concerning the July 6, 2021, meeting, while allowing the HOA’s “cure” defense related to the November 9 meeting.

• August 1, 2022: The evidentiary rehearing is conducted.

• August 22, 2022: The ALJ issues a final decision dismissing the petitioner’s petition.

Core Legal Dispute: A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)

The central legal question revolved around compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1804(F), which establishes the state’s policy on open meetings for planned communities. The statute requires that:

“…notices and agendas be provided for those meetings that contain the information that is reasonably necessary to inform the members of the matters to be discussed or decided and to ensure that members have the ability to speak after discussion of agenda items, but before a vote of the board of directors or members is taken.”

The statute further mandates that its provisions be construed “in favor of open meetings.”

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments (Anthony T. Horn)

Primary Allegation: Insufficient Notice

The petitioner’s case was predicated on the argument that the agenda for the July 6, 2021, meeting was misleading. The motion was described as: Motion 3: Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair – Fiscal Impact $76,439 from the Reserve Fund. Horn contended that this language failed to inform homeowners of the board’s intent to make a “major change” by converting a tennis court to pickleball courts.

• Key Quote: During the rehearing, Horn described his reaction at the July 6 meeting: “We were shocked. Just a complete uh something coming from the left field. We had no idea that anything like this was planned.”

Argument Against the “Cure” Defense

Horn argued that the November 9, 2021, meeting should not be considered a valid cure because it only occurred as a direct result of his formal dispute. He framed this as an unfair “catch 22.”

• Key Quote: In his closing argument, Horn stated: “The only reason that November 9th meeting and that motion ever showed up there was because of my dispute. So, it’s kind of a catch 22. Uh you in other words, I file a dispute and then they just change the language and then my dispute is nullified and I just lose my $500 and go away. That ain’t fair.”

Ancillary Issues Ruled Out of Scope

Throughout the proceedings, Horn attempted to introduce several related grievances, which the ALJ consistently ruled were outside the narrow scope of his single-issue petition. These included:

• Allegations of discrimination, claiming pickleball members were included in vendor discussions while tennis club members were excluded.

• Concerns about the HOA’s method of communication, arguing that “eblasts” are inappropriate for a senior community and that mail or hand delivery should be used.

• Disagreement with the soundness of the board’s decision itself.

Respondent’s Position and Defense (Sun Lakes HOA)

Defense of the July 6 Meeting

The HOA, through its counsel Emily Mann and witness Kelly Haynes, argued that the notice for the July 6 meeting was fully compliant with the statute. The term “upgrade and repair” was deemed sufficient to encompass the conversion. They presented the petitioner’s own attendance at the meeting as prime evidence that the notice was effective in informing members that tennis courts would be a topic of discussion.

Affirmative Defense of “Cure”

The HOA’s primary defense was that, even assuming a procedural flaw in the first meeting’s notice, the error was “unequivocally cured” by the November 9, 2021, meeting. The notice for that meeting was explicit: Motion #3 – Clarification of Motion 3 of the July 6, 2021 Board Meeting – Conversion of Court 1 to four Permanent Pickleball Courts. The petitioner attended, members were given the opportunity to speak, and the board voted again, removing any ambiguity.

Characterization of Petitioner’s Motive

Respondent’s counsel portrayed the petition as being driven by dissatisfaction with the board’s decision rather than a genuine concern for procedural integrity. It was noted that the association had spent thousands of dollars defending the petition and had twice offered to pay Horn $500—the maximum penalty available—to resolve the matter, both of which he rejected.

• Key Quote: In her opening statement, counsel stated: “This hearing today is about Mr. Horn seeking revenge against the association for the tennis court conversion. He couldn’t stop the conversion from taking place. So punishing the association by filing a meritless petition was the next best thing.”

Final Decision and Rationale

In the final decision dated August 22, 2022, ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson dismissed the petition. The ruling was based on a two-part conclusion that fully supported the respondent’s position.

1. The July 6 Notice Was Sufficient: The ALJ concluded that the “preponderance of the evidence” showed the notice provided the “information that was reasonably necessary.” The decision explicitly states: “Sun Lakes was not required to specify the method of upgrade: a conversion to pickleball courts.”

2. The Violation, If Any, Was Cured: The decision further established that, even if the first notice had been deficient, the HOA rectified the situation. “Even if Sun Lakes had violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021, Sun Lakes cured the violation when it provided timely notice that the tennis court conversion would be discussed and voted on at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.”

Based on these findings, the order was issued: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Anthony T. Horn’s petition against Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc., is dismissed.”

Study Guide: Horn v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case between Petitioner Anthony T. Horn and Respondent Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. It includes a quiz to test comprehension, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the case documents.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based solely on the provided source documents.

1. What was the specific statute and section that Petitioner Anthony T. Horn alleged the Sun Lakes HOA violated?

2. Describe the central disagreement over the agenda for the July 6, 2021, board meeting.

3. What was the Respondent’s primary legal defense, arguing that even if a violation occurred, it was later corrected?

4. Why was Mr. Horn’s initial petition dismissed in February 2022, leading to a request for a rehearing?

5. What ruling did the Administrative Law Judge make during the pre-hearing conference regarding Mr. Horn’s desire to introduce evidence of discrimination?

6. According to testimony, what methods did the Sun Lakes HOA use to provide notice of its board meetings to the membership?

7. What key difference existed between the agenda for the July 6, 2021 meeting and the agenda for the November 9, 2021 meeting?

8. During the August 1, 2022 rehearing, what was the fate of subpoenas that had been issued for the original, vacated hearing?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion in the August 22, 2022 decision regarding the alleged violation?

10. What did the Respondent’s counsel, Emily Mann, suggest was Mr. Horn’s true motivation for pursuing the petition?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner, Anthony T. Horn, alleged that the Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. had violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(F). This statute pertains to the policy of open meetings and the requirement that notices and agendas contain information reasonably necessary to inform members of matters to be discussed.

2. The central disagreement was whether the agenda item “Motion 3: Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair” provided sufficient notice that the board would be discussing and voting on the conversion of a tennis court into four pickleball courts. Mr. Horn argued this description was misleading and withheld critical information, while the HOA contended it was adequate.

3. The Respondent’s primary defense was that any potential procedural error or lack of clarity in the July 6, 2021 meeting notice was “unequivocally cured.” They argued this cure was accomplished through a subsequent board meeting on November 9, 2021, which had a more explicit agenda item about the court conversion.

4. The initial petition was dismissed because the Petitioner, Anthony T. Horn, did not file a response to the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss, and Motion for Summary Disposition. The Administrative Law Judge granted these motions, leading Mr. Horn to file for a rehearing.

5. The judge ruled that the issue of alleged discrimination was a separate legal matter from the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F). To include the discrimination claim, Mr. Horn would have to file a separate petition and pay an additional $500 filing fee.

6. General Manager Kelly Haynes testified that the HOA provided notice via e-blasts to members who signed up for them, posting on monitors in the clubhouse, inclusion in the monthly newsletter (“The Laker”), and posting on the association’s website.

7. The agenda for the July 6 meeting listed “Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair.” In contrast, the agenda for the November 9 meeting provided a much more specific item: “Clarification of Motion 3 of the July 6, 2021 Board Meeting – Conversion of Court 1 to four Permanent Pickleball Courts.”

8. The Administrative Law Judge informed Mr. Horn that the subpoenas issued for the original hearing would not apply to the new rehearing. To compel witness testimony, Mr. Horn was required to request and serve new subpoenas, which would be a significant additional expense.

9. The ALJ concluded that the Sun Lakes HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021 board meeting. The decision further stated that even if a violation had occurred, it was cured by the proper notice and subsequent vote at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.

10. The Respondent’s counsel stated that Mr. Horn’s petition was not about seeking justice or ensuring compliance with statutes, but was an act of “revenge against the association for the tennis court conversion.” She argued that since he could not stop the conversion, he filed a “meritless petition” to punish the association.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate your answers based on a comprehensive review of the case details and legal arguments presented in the source documents.

1. Analyze the legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F). Discuss how each party applied the statute’s requirement for “information that is reasonably necessary to inform the members” to the facts of the case.

2. Trace the procedural history of the case from the initial petition filing in 2021 to the final decision in August 2022. Identify at least three key procedural moments or rulings and explain their significance to the case’s progression and ultimate outcome.

3. Discuss the legal concept of a “cure” as it applied in this administrative hearing. Evaluate the strength of the Respondent’s argument that the November 9, 2021 meeting cured any potential defects from the July 6, 2021 meeting, and explain how the Petitioner attempted to rebut this defense.

4. The scope of the hearing was a contentious issue. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge limited the scope of the case and excluded certain topics, such as alleged discrimination and the soundness of the board’s business decision. Why are such limitations important in legal proceedings?

5. Based on the testimony and arguments presented in the August 1, 2022 rehearing, compare and contrast the remedies sought by the Petitioner with the relief available in the administrative hearing venue. What does this reveal about the limitations of this specific legal process for a homeowner’s grievances?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions in disputes involving government agencies. In this case, Judge Velva Moses-Thompson from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The collection of laws passed by the Arizona state legislature. The specific statute at issue was A.R.S. § 33-1804, which governs open meetings for planned communities.

A legal concept where a party corrects a prior procedural error or violation. In this case, the Respondent argued that any deficiency in the July 6 meeting notice was corrected, or “cured,” by holding the November 9 meeting with a more explicit agenda.

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request made by a party to a court or tribunal to dismiss a case. The Respondent filed this motion, which was initially granted.

Motion for Summary Judgment

A request made by a party for a decision on the merits of a case before a full hearing, arguing that there are no genuine disputes as to material facts and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Motion for Summary Disposition

A request, similar to a motion for summary judgment, asking the tribunal to rule in a party’s favor without a full hearing.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this matter, Anthony T. Horn was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof to convince the trier of fact that their contention is more probably true than not.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case, granted after an initial decision has been made. Mr. Horn was granted a rehearing after his petition was initially dismissed.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. was the Respondent.

Sua Sponte Order

An order made by a judge on their own initiative, without a request from either party. The order to continue the rehearing to August 1, 2022, was a sua sponte order due to the judge’s jury duty.

Subpoena

A legal order compelling a person to attend a hearing to give testimony. The Petitioner had to request new subpoenas for the rehearing as the original ones were no longer valid.

Your HOA Did What? 4 Shocking Lessons from One Homeowner’s Fight Over a Tennis Court

Introduction: The Notice on the Bulletin Board

Anyone who lives in a planned community is familiar with the official notices from their Homeowners Association (HOA). Often tacked onto a bulletin board or sent in a mass email, these communications can be models of bureaucratic brevity, full of formal language that is both vague and oddly specific. It’s easy to glance at an agenda item and assume you know what it means. But what happens when you’re wrong?

This was the situation faced by Anthony T. Horn, a homeowner in Sun Lakes, Arizona. In 2021, he filed a formal dispute against his HOA over a meeting notice he believed was deceptive, kicking off a year-long legal battle. His story provides a rare look “under the hood” of HOA procedures and power dynamics. Here are four surprising and impactful takeaways from his fight that every homeowner should understand.

1. A Notice for “Repairs” Can Mean a Total Transformation

The dispute began simply enough. The HOA posted a notice for a July 6, 2021 board meeting with a specific agenda item: “Motion 3: Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair – Fiscal Impact $76,439 from the Reserve Fund.”

Mr. Horn, an active tennis player, attended the meeting expecting a discussion about much-needed repairs to the community’s dangerous and unplayable courts. Instead, he testified that he was “shocked” when the board announced that the “upgrade” included permanently converting one tennis court into four pickleball courts.

His core legal argument was that this notice failed to provide information “reasonably necessary to inform the members” of the true matter being decided, a requirement under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1804(F). The final ruling from the Administrative Law Judge, however, was counter-intuitive.

Sun Lakes was not required to specify the method of upgrade: a conversion to pickleball courts.

This decision reveals a critical gap between a homeowner’s plain-language understanding and the law’s procedural interpretation. The ruling effectively places the burden on homeowners to be deeply skeptical of vague agenda items and to anticipate the broadest possible definition of terms like “upgrade.” As this case demonstrates, the law may not protect a resident’s more intuitive and narrow reading of a notice.

2. An HOA Can Get a “Mulligan” on Procedural Errors

After Mr. Horn filed his petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the HOA board pursued a powerful defense strategy: a do-over. The board scheduled a second meeting for November 9, 2021.

The notice for this second meeting was far more specific. Its purpose was explicitly stated as a “Clarification of Motion 3 of the July 6, 2021 Board Meeting – Conversion of Court 1 to four Permanent Pickleball Courts.” At this meeting, the board held the vote again, and it passed again.

Legally, this is known as “curing” a potential violation. The HOA argued that even if their first notice was flawed (which they did not concede), this second, properly-noticed meeting made the original issue moot. The judge agreed.

Even if Sun Lakes had violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021, Sun Lakes cured the violation when it provided timely notice that the tennis court conversion would be discussed and voted on at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.

This reveals that “curing” is not just a simple correction; it is a powerful strategic tool for an HOA board. It creates a nearly risk-free path to test the limits of procedural compliance. A board can issue a vague notice, and only if a homeowner is willing to invest the time and money to file a formal complaint does the board need to “cure” the potential error with a more specific follow-up. This dynamic shifts the entire risk and cost of ensuring compliance onto the individual homeowner.

3. Fighting on Multiple Fronts Can Be Cost-Prohibitive

During the legal process, Mr. Horn wanted to introduce other arguments. He alleged discrimination against tennis players and claimed the board had ignored other viable locations for new pickleball courts.

The judge, however, repeatedly shut down these lines of argument. The hearing was strictly limited to the single issue identified in the original petition: the alleged violation of the open meeting notice statute. The reason for this limitation was procedural and financial. In the Arizona Department of Real Estate’s dispute system, each separate allegation requires its own petition and, crucially, a separate $500 filing fee.

This creates a significant financial barrier for the homeowner, as Mr. Horn explained during the hearing.

And I probably have five, six or seven of them inaccuracies and misstatements and what so would be $500 each.

This rule exposes a stark asymmetry of resources. The individual homeowner must pay out-of-pocket for each separate alleged violation, forcing them to pick only their single strongest—or most affordable—argument. The HOA, by contrast, defends itself using a legal fund paid for by the entire community, including the very homeowner who is filing the dispute.

4. You Can Win the Argument, Lose the Case, and Still Pay for It

The ultimate outcome presented a paradox, which Mr. Horn articulated in his closing argument. He laid out a sequence of events that created a frustrating “Catch-22” for the homeowner:

1. He identified what he believed was a clear procedural violation at the July 6th meeting.

2. He paid a $500 filing fee to formally dispute it.

3. His dispute directly caused the HOA to hold the second, more specific, and legally “cured” meeting on November 9th.

4. The HOA then used that very “cured” meeting as the legal basis to have his petition dismissed.

He saw it as a no-win situation where his own action to seek accountability provided the HOA with the tool to defeat his claim.

The only reason that November 9th meeting and that motion ever showed up there was because of my dispute. So, it’s kind of a catch 22. …I file a dispute and then they just change the language and then my dispute is nullified and I just lose my $500 and go away. That ain’t fair.

This outcome reveals the ultimate procedural paradox. It is a system where a homeowner’s successful action—forcing the HOA to correct its error—becomes the very instrument of their legal defeat. The legal system, in this context, prioritized the correction of a procedural flaw over the merits of the original grievance or the fairness of the outcome for the individual who forced the correction.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

The story of one homeowner’s fight over a tennis court reveals that the nuances of HOA law are complex and can often favor the established procedures of the board. From the broad interpretation of “reasonable notice” to the board’s ability to “cure” its own mistakes, the system contains mechanisms that can be challenging for an individual resident to overcome.

This case is not about taking sides on the issue of tennis versus pickleball. It is a valuable case study in the realities of community governance. It underscores the importance for homeowners to understand not just the rules, but the procedures that enforce them. This leads to a final, critical question for every member of an HOA to consider:

Given the systems in place, how can an individual homeowner ensure their voice is truly heard when the stakes feel this high?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Anthony T. Horn (petitioner)
    Homeowner and member of Sun Lakes HOA
  • Ralph Howlen (witness / homeowner)
    Spelled Howland in some transcript passages.
  • Felicia Kuba (potential witness / homeowner)
    Potential witness regarding court injury/conditions.
  • Ed Campy (former tennis club president)
    Notified Horn of the November meeting.
  • Robert Miller (homeowner)
    Former tennis club member who asked a question at the July 6 meeting.

Respondent Side

  • Emily H. Mann (HOA attorney)
    Phillips, Maceyko and Battock, PLLC
  • Chris Johnston (HOA representative / Account Manager)
    USI Insurance Services LLC
    Senior Account Manager; listed as point of contact for Respondent
  • Kelly Haynes (general manager / witness)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
  • Janice Cornoyer (HOA president / witness)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
  • Jimmy Burns (facilities maintenance manager / witness)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
  • Emily Jones (HOA employee)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
    Employee who works with computers in the HOA office.
  • Steve Howell (board member)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
    Read in the motion at the July 6 meeting.

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitted documents.
  • c. serrano (Transmitting Agent)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitted documents.
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as email recipient/attn.
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as email recipient/attn.
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as email recipient/attn.
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as email recipient/attn.
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as email recipient/attn.

Other Participants

  • Dennis Anderson (observer)
    Joined hearing via Google Meet.
  • Mark Gotman (observer)
    Joined hearing via Google Meet.

Brenda C Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-01-18
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and RDLCA was ordered to comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and refund the $500.00 filing fee. The specific remedy requested by Petitioner (ordering RDLCA to fine the neighbor or force light removal) was denied as the ALJ lacked statutory authority (A.R.S. § 32-2199.02) to grant that relief.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brenda C Norman Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Lago Community Association Counsel Mackenzie Hill, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Section 3.1(D)(3) of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and RDLCA was ordered to comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and refund the $500.00 filing fee. The specific remedy requested by Petitioner (ordering RDLCA to fine the neighbor or force light removal) was denied as the ALJ lacked statutory authority (A.R.S. § 32-2199.02) to grant that relief.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&R regarding flood illumination direction and ARC approval process.

Petitioner alleged that Respondent (RDLCA) violated CC&R 3.1(D)(3) because a neighbor installed flood lights shining onto Petitioner's property without RDLCA approval (ARC approval). The ALJ found RDLCA in violation because the lights were never approved.

Orders: RDLCA must comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and pay Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was levied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 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.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Lighting, Architectural Review, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • 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)
  • Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221019-REL Decision – 939490.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:57:40 (95.0 KB)

This summary details the administrative hearing proceedings in the matter of *Brenda C Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association* (RDLCA), held on January 14, 2022, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner, Brenda C Norman, filed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition on or about October 23, 2021, alleging that RDLCA violated the community documents. The specific issue was RDLCA's alleged failure to enforce Section 3.1(D)(3) of the CC&Rs, which mandates that flood illumination must be directed at the owner’s property away from neighboring property. The Petitioner testified that her neighbor installed flood lights that shined into her backyard and residence, and she requested RDLCA fine the neighbors or force the removal of the fixture. The Petitioner paid a $500.00 filing fee.

Hearing Proceedings and Arguments

The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

  • Petitioner’s Argument: The neighbor's lights continued to shine onto her property, and RDLCA had not adequately remedied the situation.
  • Respondent’s Argument: RDLCA, through community manager Spencer Brod, testified that upon receiving the complaint, they investigated and sent correspondence (August 17, 2021) to the neighbor requesting light removal. The neighbor subsequently replaced the fixture, and RDLCA later informed the Petitioner that the floodlights were now angled downward and were in compliance (September 2021). RDLCA also argued that the specific CC&R section applied only to lights on the front of the house, meaning neighbor approval was not required for the side/backyard fixture.

Legal Points and Final Decision

The ALJ found RDLCA in violation of the CC&Rs.

  • Legal Rationale: The ALJ could not definitively rule on RDLCA’s defense that the CC&R section applied only to front yards, as neither party submitted the full Section 3.1. However, the ALJ noted that RDLCA’s own correspondence referenced Section 3.1 and indicated the light was installed without ARC approval. Since no evidence demonstrated that ARC approval occurred, RDLCA was found to be in violation of CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3).
  • Outcome and Order: The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in this matter. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, the ALJ ordered RDLCA to comply with Section 3.1(D)(3). The ALJ explicitly stated that he did not have the statutory authority to order RDLCA to fine or force the neighbor to remove the lights, thus denying the Petitioner's requested specific remedies. RDLCA was ordered to pay the Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee within thirty days. No civil penalty was deemed appropriate.

Questions

Question

Can an Administrative Law Judge order my HOA to fine a neighbor for a violation?

Short Answer

No, the ALJ does not have the statutory authority to order fines against neighbors.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is found, the ALJ explicitly stated that the statute does not grant them the power to order the HOA to fine a neighbor or to force a neighbor to remove non-compliant items.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the applicable statute to order that RDLCA fine or order the neighbor remove the lights.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fines
  • Authority

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the dispute must prove the HOA's violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'. It is not the HOA's job to disprove it initially.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence
  • Procedure

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, because the homeowner was the prevailing party, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the homeowner within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Prevailing Party

Question

Can I challenge my HOA for failing to enforce architectural rules on a neighbor?

Short Answer

Yes, if the HOA allows modifications without the required approval.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs because the neighbor installed lights without the required Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval, and the HOA failed to address this specific lack of approval.

Alj Quote

Because this never occurred, Respondent is in violation of CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3).

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3)

Topic Tags

  • Enforcement
  • Architectural Review
  • Lighting

Question

What happens if we don't provide the full text of the CC&Rs during the hearing?

Short Answer

The judge cannot rule on parts of the rules that are not provided.

Detailed Answer

The HOA tried to argue a rule applied only to the front yard, but because neither party submitted the full section of the CC&Rs, the judge could not verify that claim and had to rule based only on the evidence available.

Alj Quote

At the outset, neither party submitted the full Section 3.1 of the CC&R’s and the ALJ therefore cannot determine if the section in question applies to the front yard only.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • CC&Rs
  • Documentation

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The decision defines this legal standard as proof that convinces the judge that a contention is 'more probably true than not,' even if there is still some doubt.

Alj Quote

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Legal Definitions
  • Standards

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221019-REL
Case Title
Brenda C Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Decision Date
2022-01-18
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can an Administrative Law Judge order my HOA to fine a neighbor for a violation?

Short Answer

No, the ALJ does not have the statutory authority to order fines against neighbors.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is found, the ALJ explicitly stated that the statute does not grant them the power to order the HOA to fine a neighbor or to force a neighbor to remove non-compliant items.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the applicable statute to order that RDLCA fine or order the neighbor remove the lights.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fines
  • Authority

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the dispute must prove the HOA's violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'. It is not the HOA's job to disprove it initially.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence
  • Procedure

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, because the homeowner was the prevailing party, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the homeowner within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Prevailing Party

Question

Can I challenge my HOA for failing to enforce architectural rules on a neighbor?

Short Answer

Yes, if the HOA allows modifications without the required approval.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs because the neighbor installed lights without the required Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval, and the HOA failed to address this specific lack of approval.

Alj Quote

Because this never occurred, Respondent is in violation of CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3).

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3)

Topic Tags

  • Enforcement
  • Architectural Review
  • Lighting

Question

What happens if we don't provide the full text of the CC&Rs during the hearing?

Short Answer

The judge cannot rule on parts of the rules that are not provided.

Detailed Answer

The HOA tried to argue a rule applied only to the front yard, but because neither party submitted the full section of the CC&Rs, the judge could not verify that claim and had to rule based only on the evidence available.

Alj Quote

At the outset, neither party submitted the full Section 3.1 of the CC&R’s and the ALJ therefore cannot determine if the section in question applies to the front yard only.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • CC&Rs
  • Documentation

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The decision defines this legal standard as proof that convinces the judge that a contention is 'more probably true than not,' even if there is still some doubt.

Alj Quote

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Legal Definitions
  • Standards

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221019-REL
Case Title
Brenda C Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Decision Date
2022-01-18
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brenda C Norman (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Mackenzie Hill (HOA attorney)
    The Brown Law Group, PLLC
    Represented Rancho Del Lago Community Association
  • Nathan Tennyson (HOA attorney)
    Represented Rancho Del Lago Community Association
  • Spencer Brod (community manager)
    Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of order transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of order transmission
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of order transmission
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of order transmission