**Case Summary: Portonova v. Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc.**
**Case No. 12F-H1212013-BFS**

**Hearing Overview**
This matter was heard before Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal on September 19, 2012, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona. The case involved an allegation by Petitioner Carol Portonova that Respondent Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc. violated Arizona law regarding access to association records.

**Key Facts and Background**
The Petitioner resided in a unit within the Tenth Avenue Missions planned community. The dispute arose after the Respondent successfully sued the Petitioner and her husband, obtaining a judgment and subsequent satisfaction of judgment. Portonova sought an accounting of the monies the Association received to satisfy this judgment, including attorney's fees, expressing a belief that the Association lacked proper records for these funds.

On June 4, 2012, Portonova filed a petition alleging the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide the requested records.

**Main Legal Issues and Arguments**
The central legal issue was whether the Respondent failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which requires associations to make financial and other records reasonably available for examination within ten business days of a request.

* **Petitioner’s Position:** Portonova argued she had requested the records but they were not produced. She entered into evidence a letter dated May 3, 2012, addressed to Association officers, and implied during cross-examination that she had also requested records at a November 2011 homeowners meeting.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The Association, represented by counsel, disputed that a request was ever made. Mario Capriotti, Jr. testified that he did not receive the May 3, 2012 letter and that the Petitioner did not request to examine or purchase records at the November 2011 meeting.

**Findings and Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) established that the burden of proof lay with the Petitioner to show a violation by a "preponderance of the evidence".

The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden. Specifically, the Judge concluded that Portonova failed to prove that she or a designated representative actually made a request to the Respondent to examine or provide the records in question. Because the Petitioner could not establish that a request was made, she could not prove that the Respondent failed to provide an opportunity to examine the records.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
1. **ALJ Decision:** On October 2, 2012, the ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that no action was required of the Respondent.
2. **Certification:** The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not reject or modify the decision within the statutory review period. Consequently, on November 13, 2012, the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the ALJ’s ruling as the final administrative decision.