Records Inspection | Member Rosters | LC2023-000179
When an HOA refused to disclose its membership roster and an ADRE administrative law judge deemed it an exempt personal record, Judge Joseph P. Mikitish reversed the decision, ruling that owners must have access to member names and addresses to exercise voting, speech, and recall rights.
Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2023-000179 (minute entries use LC2023-000179-001 DT); ADRE / OAH Agency Case Nos. HO22-22050 & HO22-22054; Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish.
Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2023-000179, an appeal under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act from the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE). Homeowner Tom Barrs requested association membership rosters, but the HOA withheld them and the ADRE administrative law judge ruled the lists were exempt personal records. On appeal, Superior Court Judge Joseph P. Mikitish reversed the agency ruling in part, holding that under A.R.S. § 33-1805, membership lists containing owner names and parcel addresses are NOT exempt personal records and must be disclosed to ensure member participation, speech rights under § 33-1804, and recall petitions under § 33-1813, while email addresses and phone numbers may be withheld. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
Reversed in part and remanded. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) & (B)(4), association membership rosters containing member names and property addresses are not exempt personal records and must be made available for examination to enable members to exercise democratic rights of speech, voting, and board recall; however, private contact details including telephone numbers and email addresses may properly be withheld.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Tom Barrs (Petitioner/Appellant)
Homeowner; self-represented pro se; prevailed on statutory interpretation of records disclosure rights under A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Respondent Side
- Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent/Appellee)
Arizona nonprofit corporation
HOA respondent; refused to provide membership roster; administrative decision in its favor reversed on appeal.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Superior Court Judge who authored the 6-page ruling defining statutory records inspection rights under § 33-1805. - Arizona Department of Real Estate (Originating Agency)
State administrative agency (Case Nos. HO22-22050 & HO22-22054) whose ALJ ruling was reversed in part.
What happened
Tom Barrs, an owner in the Desert Ranch community, submitted written requests pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805 to inspect and copy the association’s current membership roster. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association refused to provide the list, asserting that member names and contact details were exempt personal records under § 33-1805(B)(4).
Barrs filed an administrative complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Agency Case Nos. HO22-22050 & HO22-22054). Following an evidentiary hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued a decision determining that the association was not required to produce the membership list.
Barrs timely appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act. Assigned to Judge Joseph P. Mikitish, the parties submitted comprehensive briefs, and the court conducted oral argument on February 5, 2024.
On April 4, 2024, Judge Mikitish issued a formal 6-page ruling reversing the administrative decision in part. The court held that membership rosters containing owner names and property addresses are not exempt under § 33-1805(B)(4) because they are necessary for open meetings and recall elections. Following cost applications, Judge Mikitish entered a final judgment on August 2, 2024 that reaffirmed the reversal, denied Barrs’s request for attorney fees and costs, and remanded to ADRE.
Video overview of the case record
An AI-generated video overview of Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2023-000179). Reversed in part. HOA membership lists with names and addresses are not exempt personal records under § 33-1805. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own records control.
Listen: audio deep dive on the case record
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the case record in Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.
Procedural timeline
Homeowner Tom Barrs sends a written request for the updated 2021 membership list under A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Barrs files a petition with ADRE (HO22-22050 & HO22-22054) alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by withholding the membership directory.
ADRE ALJ issues a ruling denying the petition after the January 9-10, 2023 evidentiary hearing (rehearing denied April 19, 2023).
Barrs files notice of appeal for judicial review in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2023-000179).
Judge Joseph P. Mikitish issues initial briefing schedule on administrative record.
Superior Court hears oral argument and takes administrative review under advisement.
Judge Mikitish issues 6-page ruling reversing ADRE decision and holding rosters must be disclosed.
Court enters final judgment reaffirming the reversal, denying Barrs's request for attorney fees and costs, and remanding to ADRE.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 7 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.
Minute Entry Initial Briefing Schedule
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry setting briefing schedule on the administrative record appeal.
Minute Entry Extending Record Certification
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry granting joint request to extend time for agency record certification.
Minute Entry Transmission Of Record
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry acknowledging filing of certified administrative record by ADRE.
Minute Entry Setting Oral Argument
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry scheduling oral argument on the administrative appeal before Judge Mikitish.
Minute Entry Oral Argument Under Advisement
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry recording oral argument on member records inspection and taking matter under advisement.
Record Appeal Ruling Reversing ADRE Decision
Type: Decision or judgment
Landmark 6-page ruling by Judge Joseph P. Mikitish holding that HOA membership rosters are public under § 33-1805.
Final Judgment And Remand Order
Type: Decision or judgment
Final judgment reaffirming the April 4 reversal, denying Barrs's request for attorney fees and costs, and remanding to ADRE.
FAQ
Are HOA membership rosters considered exempt personal records under Arizona law?
No. Under Judge Joseph P. Mikitish’s ruling in LC2023-000179, membership rosters containing owner names and property addresses do not fall within the A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) exemption for personal records because that information is not private in nature and is necessary for association governance.
Why is access to membership lists essential for HOA members?
Judge Mikitish emphasized that in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, members must be able to know who is in the association and what property they own. Roster access is required to communicate about community issues, speak before votes at open meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1804, and circulate recall petitions under A.R.S. § 33-1813.
Can an association withhold member email addresses and phone numbers?
Yes. The court distinguished between names and physical property addresses versus email addresses and phone numbers. Emails and phone numbers are more personal, less public, and subject to misuse such as marketing or harassment, so an association may properly withhold them under § 33-1805(B)(4).
What was the procedural posture of Barrs v. Desert Ranch HOA?
The homeowner filed an administrative dispute with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE Agency Nos. HO22-22050 & HO22-22054). When the Administrative Law Judge ruled against disclosure, the homeowner appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act (A.R.S. § 12-901 et seq.).
What was the final judgment entered by the Superior Court?
On April 4, 2024, Judge Mikitish reversed the ADRE decision in part. On August 2, 2024, the court entered a final judgment reaffirming the reversal and denying Barrs’s request for attorney fees and costs. It denied fees because the statute he invoked (A.R.S. § 10-11604) did not apply — he brought his claim to ADRE rather than to the superior court in the county of the association’s known place of business — and denied costs because he cited no legal authority for an award; the court then remanded to ADRE.
Case Dossier
This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2023-000179 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | April 4, 2024 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish |
| Parties | Tom Barrs (Appellant) v. Desert Ranch HOA (Appellee) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | Meetings & RecordsBoard GovernanceVoting And ElectionsDisclosure |
| Outcome / holding | Reversed in part and remanded. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) & (B)(4), association membership rosters containing member names and property addresses are not exempt personal records and must be made available for examination to enable members to exercise democratic rights of speech, voting, and board recall; however, private contact details including telephone numbers and email addresses may properly be withheld. |
| Primary public source | View hosted source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 7 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 8 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Featured download links | 2 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Homeowner Tom Barrs requested copies of the membership roster from Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. The association refused, claiming that member contact information constitutes exempt personal records under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4). An ADRE Administrative Law Judge upheld the association's refusal. Barrs appealed pro se to Maricopa County Superior Court. Judge Joseph P. Mikitish reversed the administrative ruling in part. Judge Mikitish held that membership lists containing member names and property addresses are not exempt personal records because members must be able to identify other owners to participate in association affairs, exercise open-meeting speech rights under § 33-1804, and circulate board removal petitions under § 33-1813. The court held that associations must disclose names and parcel addresses upon request, although personal emails and telephone numbers may be redacted. On August 2, 2024, Judge Mikitish entered a final judgment reaffirming the reversal and denying Barrs's request for attorney fees and costs.
Under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act (A.R.S. § 12-901 et seq.), the Superior Court reviewed whether the agency decision was contrary to law. Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1805(A) establishes the foundational rule that all financial and other records of an association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member. Section 33-1805(B)(4) provides an exception allowing associations to withhold personal, health, or financial records.
Judge Mikitish analyzed the statutory context and legislative intent. Interpreting statutory terms according to their common understanding and purpose (State ex rel. Flournoy v. Mangum, 113 Ariz. 151), the court observed that personal records in the statute are grouped alongside health and financial records, which traditionally carry high privacy protections. In contrast, member names and property addresses in a planned community are not information that individuals typically keep secret. To actively participate in community affairs, owners must know who comprises the membership. Without roster access, members cannot effectively exercise their right to speak before board votes under § 33-1804(A) & (F) or gather signatures to recall directors under § 33-1813.
However, the court drew a clear line regarding electronic and telephonic information. Unlike physical property addresses, email addresses and phone numbers are more personal and less public, carrying risks of marketing misuse or harassment. Judge Mikitish held that disclosure of names and parcel addresses is essential and mandatory, whereas disclosure of email addresses and telephone numbers is not required. On August 2, 2024, the court entered final judgment reaffirming the reversal and denying Barrs's request for attorney fees and costs.
This decision resolves a long-running battle in Arizona HOA governance. HOA boards and property managers routinely cite A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) to withhold membership lists from homeowners, effectively preventing reform candidates and concerned owners from communicating with their neighbors or gathering signatures for board recalls. Judge Mikitish's ruling establishes that membership rosters with names and property addresses are public records within the association that must be disclosed within the statutory 10-day period. It provides Arizona homeowners with a vital legal tool to overcome board gatekeeping while respecting legitimate owner privacy regarding phone numbers and email addresses.