The High Cost of "Checking In": Lessons from an Arizona HOA Fee Battle
In the world of luxury high-rises, the difference between a "move" and a "check-in" can cost hundreds of dollars. Imagine a tenant arriving at a pre-furnished unit at the Third Avenue Lofts in Scottsdale. They aren't hauling heavy armoires or scratching hallway paint; they are simply walking through the front door carrying a single briefcase.
Yet, for years, the Third Avenue Lofts Unit Owner Association treated this briefcase-toting tenant the same as a full-scale moving crew, imposing a $150 "move-in" fee and a $150 "move-out" fee. This practice sparked a protracted legal battle—Vinmar LLC v. Third Avenue Lofts Unit Owner Association—that serves as a critical case study on the boundaries of HOA power, the definition of "facilities," and the statutory protections afforded to rental property owners under Arizona law.
The Case Profile: Vinmar LLC v. Third Avenue Lofts
| Detail |
Information |
| Parties |
Petitioner: Vinmar LLC (represented by Jonathan Blangiardo) / Respondent: Third Avenue Lofts Unit Owner Association |
| The Venue |
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) |
| The Timeline |
Late 2024 (initial filing) through a series of continuances and status updates to the final decision on February 25, 2026. |
| Core Issue |
Whether $150 move-in/move-out fees are permissible under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01) and the community's CC&Rs. |
The Homeowner’s Challenge: Discrimination or Uniformity?
Jonathan Blangiardo, managing member of Vinmar LLC, brought the challenge after his ledger was hit with thousands of dollars in fees. A real estate broker himself, Blangiardo argued that the Association’s fee structure was specifically designed to exploit owners who utilized their units for rentals.
Key arguments raised during the hearings included:
- The "Briefcase" Argument: For pre-furnished units, tenants do not use service elevators or moving pads. Blangiardo argued that charging these units for "wear and tear" that never occurred was arbitrary and violated A.R.S. § 33-1227, which requires equal treatment of units.
- Statutory Caps: Blangiardo cited A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, which caps tenant registration fees at $25. He argued the $150 charge was an illegal end-run around this limit.
- Retaliatory Impact: The battle was deeply personal. While battling COVID-19 and traveling abroad, Blangiardo saw his amenity access and voting rights suspended for nearly a year due to the unpaid fees. He testified that the loss of pool and gym access for a unit overlooking the pool area created a significant bottleneck for his rental business.
The Association’s Defense: Protecting the Common Elements
The Association’s defense relied on the testimony of General Manager Michelle Collins, who had been on the job for just 11 days when she was cross-examined in September 2025.
Defense Strategy
- Administrative Burden: The Association argued that every new occupant, regardless of luggage size, requires staff time to set up the "Butterfly" entry app, garage stickers, and emergency contact profiles.
- Wear and Tear: The fees were positioned as a way to offset the inevitable damage to elevators and hallways caused by the constant turnover of occupants in a high-density building.
- Uniformity: The Association's primary legal shield was the claim of equality. Because the fees were applied to everyone—owner-occupants and tenants alike—they argued the charge did not "treat rentals differently" under the law.
The "Facilities" Turning Point: CC&R Analysis
The outcome hinged on the specific language of the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Samuel Fox presided over the evidence, but the final verdict was authored and signed by ALJ Nicole Robinson. The court performed a deep dive into two specific sections:
CC&Rs § 3.3.1(a): Grants the Association the right to "adopt reasonable rules and regulations governing the use of the Common Elements." CC&Rs § 7.4: States that the Association "may establish and charge fees for the use of certain recreational or other facilities in the Condominium."
The Judge made a distinction that should serve as a warning to every HOA board in Arizona: Staff time is not a facility. While a moving elevator or a parking app is a "facility" (something built or installed for a purpose), the administrative labor of a manager is not.
Under the Third Avenue Lofts CC&Rs, the board had the power to charge for facilities, but they lacked the specific authorization to charge for administrative labor. Therefore, if a resident moves out without using a tangible facility—like a tenant in a furnished unit simply walking out the front door with a suitcase—the Association has no legal ground to assess a fee.
The Verdict: Who Won?
Verdict Summary
- The $150 Move-Out Fee: Ruled a violation of the CC&Rs. The Judge found it "plausible" that move-outs from furnished units involve zero use of facilities (no service elevator, no loading dock).
- The Move-In Fee: While the Judge noted a violation was plausible here too, the evidence did not sufficiently prove that no facilities (like the entry app) were used during the move-in process.
- The New Fee Regime: During the litigation, the Association updated its fees to a more granular structure: a $25 registration fee, a $25 check-in fee, and a $75 Elevator Fee specifically for moving furniture. The Judge found no violation in this updated structure.
- The Penalty: Because Vinmar LLC was the "prevailing party" on the move-out fee issue, the Association was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee.
Actionable Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards
The Vinmar case provides a clear roadmap for the "High Cost of Checking In" in Arizona:
- Statutory Caps Carry Teeth: Per A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, the cap for "tenant registration" is $25. Crucially, the law states that any attempt to exceed this cap voids the fee entirely. Boards cannot simply "overcharge" and hope to keep the first $25; if they overreach, they may lose the right to collect anything.
- Labor is Not a Facility: Unless your CC&Rs explicitly authorize "Administrative Fees" or "Service Charges," you cannot use "Staff Time" as a proxy for a facility fee. Fees must be tied to the use of tangible improvements (elevators, gyms, apps).
- Equity vs. Equality: The Association’s downfall was trying to treat a briefcase (low impact) the same as a moving truck (high impact). Moving toward an "Elevator Fee" for furniture versus a "Check-in Fee" for furnished units was the key to a legally defensible policy.
- Pay Under Protest: This case dragged on for over a year, during which the petitioner lost pool and gym access because he refused to pay the disputed fees. For homeowners, the lesson is visceral: It is often better to pay "under protest" to preserve your rights of enjoyment while the legal process slowly grinds toward a conclusion.
