Case Summary
| Case ID |
23F-H006-REL |
| Agency |
ADRE |
| Tribunal |
OAH |
| Decision Date |
2022-11-08 |
| Administrative Law Judge |
Kay A. Abramsohn |
| Outcome |
loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded |
$500.00 |
| Civil Penalties |
$0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner |
Keith Jackson |
Counsel |
— |
| Respondent |
Val Vista Lakes Community Association |
Counsel |
Eric Cook |
Alleged Violations
ARS 33-1813
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Association did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1813 by rejecting both the initial recall petition (due to insufficient signatures) and the subsequent amended petition (which was barred by the one-petition-per-term rule for the same members).
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving that the Association violated ARS § 33-1813. The second petition was barred by statute (A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g)).
Key Issues & Findings
Improper rejection of a recall petition to remove four Board members.
Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly rejected his recall petition by misinterpreting ARS 33-1813, specifically arguing that the initial incomplete petition should not have been considered valid, thus allowing the amended petition to proceed. Respondent argued that the statute only permits one petition submission per term for the same board members (A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g)).
Orders: Petitioner's Petition is dismissed. Petitioner bears his $500.00 filing fee.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
- ARS 33-1813
- ARS 33-1813(A)(4)(g)
- ARS 33-1813(A)(4)(b)
- ARS 33-1804
- A.A.C. R2-19-119
Audio Overview
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7wK0YGLzf9x9SxFVr6rtEm
Decision Documents
23F-H006-REL Decision – 1011201.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:43 (113.7 KB)
Briefing Doc – 23F-H006-REL
Briefing: Keith Jackson v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Case No. 23F-H006-REL)
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and subsequent legal decision in Case Number 23F-H006-REL, involving Petitioner Keith Jackson and Respondent Val Vista Lakes Community Association. The central conflict revolved around the proper interpretation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1813, which governs the process for recalling members of a homeowner association’s board of directors.
The dispute was initiated after an initial recall petition, containing an insufficient number of signatures, was submitted to the Association’s board on July 12, 2022. A second, supplemented petition with a sufficient number of signatures was submitted on July 19, 2022. The Petitioner argued that the first submission was incomplete and therefore not a legally valid petition, meaning it should not have triggered the statute’s “one petition per term” limitation. The Respondent contended that the statute is unambiguous: once a petition is submitted, regardless of its numerical sufficiency, a second petition to recall the same board members is barred for the remainder of their terms.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent. The decision concluded that the Association did not violate the statute by rejecting the first petition for having insufficient signatures. Furthermore, the ALJ found that A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g) clearly and unequivocally prohibits submitting more than one recall petition for the same board member during a single term of office. Consequently, the second petition was statutorily barred, and the Petitioner’s case was dismissed.
Case Overview
Parties and Key Individuals
Affiliation
Keith Jackson
Petitioner
Homeowner, Val Vista Lakes
Eric Cook
Attorney for Respondent
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaad & Smith LLP
Kay A. Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Doug Keats
Witness for Respondent; Treasurer
Val Vista Lakes Board of Directors
K. Adams
Witness for Respondent; Secretary
Val Vista Lakes Board of Directors
Andy Ball
Individual who submitted the initial petition
Friend of Petitioner, Association Member
Kirk Kowieski
Vice President of Management Company
First Service Residential (FSR)
Bill Suttell
Board President; target of recall petition
Val Vista Lakes Board of Directors
Sharon Maiden
Board Vice President; target of recall petition
Val Vista Lakes Board of Directors
Steve Nielson
Board Member; target of recall petition
Val Vista Lakes Board of Directors
Core Legal Issue
The case centered on the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1813, specifically the relationship between two subsections:
1. Subsection (A)(4)(b): This section establishes the signature threshold required to compel a board to call a special meeting for a recall vote. For an association with over 1,000 members, this is “at least ten percent of the votes in the association or…at least one thousand votes…whichever is less.”
2. Subsection (A)(4)(g): This section states, “A petition that calls for the removal of the same member of the board of directors shall not be submitted more than once during each term of office for that member.”
The central question before the court was whether an initial petition that fails to meet the signature threshold of (4)(b) still constitutes a formal submission that triggers the “one petition per term” limitation of (4)(g).
Chronology of Events
July 12, 2022
At a board meeting, Andy Ball submits an initial recall petition targeting four board members. The petition contains approximately 211-214 signatures, below the required threshold.
July 15, 2022
Board President Bill Suttell notifies Association members via email that the petition has been turned over to the management company, First Service Residential (FSR), for signature vetting.
July 18, 2022
The Association officially notifies its members that the initial recall petition has been rejected “for not meeting the criteria of the law.”
July 19, 2022
Kirk Kowieski of FSR informs an Association member that “a ‘new’ (amended) petition” could be submitted.
July 19, 2022
Keith Jackson submits a second, supplemented petition containing the original signatures plus additional ones, totaling over 250 signatures.
July 25, 2022
The Board of Directors votes to reject the second petition. FSR sends an email to members stating it was rejected based on A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g).
July 30, 2022 (approx.)
Keith Jackson files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Board improperly rejected the recall petition.
October 24, 2022
An administrative hearing is held before ALJ Kay A. Abramsohn.
November 8, 2022
The ALJ issues a final decision, ruling in favor of the Respondent and dismissing the Petitioner’s case.
Petitioner’s Position and Arguments (Keith Jackson)
Grievances Leading to Recall Effort
Mr. Jackson testified that the recall effort was initiated due to significant community dissatisfaction with the Board’s direction. The primary concerns articulated during the hearing included:
• Lack of Transparency and Accountability: A general sentiment among members that the Board was not operating openly.
• Financial Mismanagement: The Association’s financial reserves had allegedly plummeted from $3.4 million to a projected “well under a million dollars” within the year.
• Loss of Revenue: The Board terminated the Association’s largest non-dues revenue source in an executive session without member input. Members reportedly learned of this decision through the media after a wedding was cancelled.
• Toxic Workplace Environment: The community manager and several employees had reportedly quit due to micromanagement and a poor work environment created by the Board.
Legal Argument
The Petitioner’s legal argument was founded on the principle that a petition is not legally cognizable until it meets the statutory requirements for action.
• Concept of a “Valid” Petition: Jackson argued that the initial July 12 submission was an “incomplete petition” and therefore not a “valid petition” under A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(b) because it failed to meet the signature threshold.
• Triggering the Statute: He contended that an invalid, incomplete petition should not be officially “considered” and thus should not trigger the one-petition-per-term limit in subsection (g).
• The “Amended” Petition: The only legally valid petition, in his view, was the completed version submitted on July 19, which contained over 250 signatures. He argued this was the first and only valid submission that the Board was required to act upon.
• Statutory Loophole: Jackson warned that the Association’s interpretation creates a dangerous loophole: “anyone on the board could never get recalled with the way the stat was being interpreted…you could submit any incomplete petition for anyone on the board and they would never get…recalled during their term.”
• Reliance on Management Company: Jackson pointed to Exhibit C, an email from Kirk Kowieski of FSR, stating that an “amended petition” could be submitted. Since the Board had delegated the vetting process to FSR, Jackson argued this communication affirmed the legitimacy of his second submission.
Respondent’s Position and Arguments (Val Vista Lakes Community Association)
Legal Argument
The Respondent’s counsel, Eric Cook, argued for a plain-language reading of the statute, asserting that the law is clear and binding.
• Plain Meaning of the Statute: The core of the argument was that A.R.S. § 33-1813 says what it means. It refers to “a petition,” not a “valid petition” or a “complete petition,” when establishing the one-submission limit.
• Standalone Provision: A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g) was presented as a standalone provision. It is not contingent on whether a petition meets the signature requirements of subsection (b). Its purpose is to prevent repeated recall efforts against the same board member.
• One Chance Rule: “Section G is a standalone provision that says if you file that petition, you get that one chance.”
• Chronology is Key: A petition was submitted on July 12. It was considered and rejected. The second petition, submitted on July 19, sought to remove the same four board members. This second submission was a clear violation of subsection (g).
• Function of Subsection (b): Respondent argued that the signature threshold in subsection (b) only determines whether the Board is obligated to call a special meeting. It does not define whether a document submitted as a petition constitutes “a petition” for the purposes of the one-per-term rule.
Witness Testimony
• Doug Keats (Treasurer) and K. Adams (Secretary) both testified that they were present at the July 12 meeting when Andy Ball submitted the initial petition directly to the Board President, Bill Suttell. They affirmed this petition was the one the Board officially considered and rejected for having an insufficient number of signatures.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
On November 8, 2022, ALJ Kay A. Abramsohn issued a decision dismissing Mr. Jackson’s petition, finding no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1813 by the Association.
Key Findings of Fact
• The Association has more than 1,000 members.
• The initial petition submitted on July 12, 2022, contained an insufficient number of signatures to meet the statutory threshold for compelling a recall vote.
• The second petition submitted on July 19, 2022, petitioned for the removal of the same four board members named in the first petition.
Conclusions of Law
1. Rejection of the First Petition: The ALJ concluded that the Board did not violate the statute when it rejected the July 12 petition. Since the petition did not contain the required number of signatures, the Board was under no obligation to call a special meeting.
2. Rejection of the Second Petition: The central conclusion rested on a direct interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g). The decision states: “a petition which calls for the removal of the same member of the board of directors ‘shall not be submitted more than once during each term of office for that member.’ Therefore, in this case, the July 19, 2022 ‘second’ petition which petitioned for the removal of the same four Board members…was not permitted by statute.”
3. Final Ruling: Because the second petition was statutorily prohibited, the Board did not violate the law by rejecting it. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish any violation by the Association, and the petition was therefore dismissed.
Study Guide – 23F-H006-REL
Study Guide: Johnson v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Case No. 23F-H006-REL)
This study guide is designed to assess and deepen understanding of the administrative hearing held on October 24, 2022, and the subsequent decision regarding the dispute between Keith Jackson and the Val Vista Lakes Community Association. The materials cover the central arguments, key figures, procedural timeline, and legal interpretations at the heart of the case.
——————————————————————————–
Quiz: Short Answer Questions
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing exclusively from the provided source materials.
1. Who are the two primary parties in this case, and what is the nature of their dispute?
2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) is the central point of legal contention, and what is its general purpose?
3. Describe the timeline and key differences between the first and second recall petitions that were submitted to the Association.
4. What was petitioner Keith Jackson’s core argument for why the first petition submitted on July 12th should have been considered invalid by the Board?
5. What was the respondent Association’s legal justification, based on the statute, for rejecting the second, “amended” petition submitted on July 19th?
6. Identify Kirk Kowieski and First Service Residential (FSR). What role did their communications and actions play in Mr. Jackson’s argument?
7. What authority does the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have in this matter, and how does it relate to the Department of Real Estate?
8. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, what was the legal standard Mr. Jackson had to meet, and did he succeed?
9. Identify the four board members targeted for recall and their respective positions within the Association’s board of directors.
10. What was the final order of the Administrative Law Judge in this case?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Keith Jackson (the Petitioner) and the Val Vista Lakes Community Association (the Respondent). The dispute centers on whether the Association’s Board of Directors improperly rejected a recall petition initiated by Mr. Jackson to remove four board members, based on their interpretation of state law.
2. The central statute is A.R.S. § 33-1813. Its purpose is to govern the process for removing a member of a community association’s board of directors, including the requirements for calling a special meeting based on a recall petition.
3. The first petition, containing approximately 211-214 signatures, was submitted by Andy Ball on July 12, 2022. The second, “amended” petition was submitted by Keith Jackson on July 19, 2022; it included the original signatures plus an additional 37, for a total of over 250, and was intended to be a complete version.
4. Mr. Jackson argued that the first petition was mistakenly turned in as an incomplete “first batch” and therefore was not a “valid” petition under the statute. He contended that the Board could only act upon a completed petition that met the statutory signature threshold, making the initial submission legally void.
5. The Association argued that A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g) is clear in its language. This subsection states that a petition to remove the same board member shall not be submitted more than once during that member’s term of office, and therefore the second petition was barred by statute.
6. First Service Residential (FSR) is the property management company for the Association, and Kirk Kowieski is its Vice-President. Mr. Jackson argued that an email from Mr. Kowieski (Exhibit C) confirming that an “amended petition” would be accepted showed that FSR, acting with authority from the Board, had agreed the completed petition submitted on July 19th was the only valid one.
7. The Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) is a separate state agency that conducts hearings and makes decisions on behalf of other agencies. It does not work for the Department of Real Estate but was tasked with conducting the hearing after Mr. Jackson filed his complaint with the Department.
8. The legal standard was the “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning Mr. Jackson had to prove that it was more probable than not that the Association had violated A.R.S. § 33-1813. The Judge concluded that Mr. Jackson did not meet this burden of proof.
9. The four board members targeted were: Bill Suttell (President), Sharon Maiden (Vice-President), Doug Keats (Treasurer), and Steve Nielson (General Board Member).
10. The final order, issued on November 8, 2022, was that the Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed. The Judge found that the Board did not violate the statute when it rejected either the July 12th or the July 19th petition.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis. Formulate a comprehensive response for each, citing specific facts, arguments, and evidence from the hearing and the final decision.
1. Analyze the competing interpretations of A.R.S. § 33-1813 as presented by the petitioner and the respondent. Explain how each party used subsections (A)(4)(b) and (A)(4)(g) to support their respective positions regarding the validity of the two petitions.
2. Discuss the role and actions of First Service Residential (FSR) and its representative, Kirk Kowieski. Evaluate the significance of FSR’s communications as evidence in the petitioner’s case and explain how the final legal decision implicitly addresses the limits of FSR’s authority.
3. Trace the complete procedural history of the recall effort, beginning with Mr. Jackson’s collection of signatures and culminating in the Administrative Law Judge’s final order. Identify key dates, actions taken by each party, and the rationale provided for each decision along the way.
4. Examine the evidence presented during the hearing, specifically Petitioner’s Exhibits A, C, D, and F, and Respondent’s Exhibit 1. Describe the content and purpose of each exhibit and analyze its effectiveness in supporting the arguments made by each side.
5. Explain the final ruling in Case No. 23F-H006-REL. Detail the Administrative Law Judge’s legal conclusions regarding both the July 12th and July 19th petitions and articulate the reasoning that led to the dismissal of Mr. Jackson’s petition.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, and issues legal decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Kay A. Abramsohn.
A.R.S. § 33-1813
The specific Arizona Revised Statute that provides the legal framework for the removal of a board of directors member in a community association, forming the basis of the entire dispute.
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
A separate state agency authorized to conduct administrative hearings and issue decisions for disputes referred by other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Exhibit
A document or item of physical evidence introduced during a hearing to support a party’s claims. Examples include the initial petition (Respondent’s Exhibit 1) and email correspondence (Petitioner’s Exhibit C).
First Service Residential (FSR)
The property management company hired by the Val Vista Lakes Community Association to handle tasks such as maintaining records, sending community notices, and vetting petition signatures.
Homeowners Association. In this case, the Val Vista Lakes Community Association.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition or complaint. In this case, Keith Jackson.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The burden of proof in this administrative hearing. It requires the petitioner to show that the facts they allege are more probable than not.
Recall Petition
A document signed by a required number of association members to call for a special meeting to vote on the removal of one or more members of the board of directors.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed. In this case, the Val Vista Lakes Community Association.
Special Meeting
A meeting of the association members called for a specific purpose outside of regularly scheduled meetings, such as voting on a recall. The statute dictates the conditions under which the Board must call such a meeting.
Statute
A written law passed by a legislative body. The central statute in this case is A.R.S. § 33-1813.
Term of Office
The designated length of time a board member serves in their position. Under A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g), a recall petition for the same member cannot be submitted more than once per term.
Vetting
The process of carefully examining and verifying the information presented, specifically the process FSR was tasked with to validate the signatures on the recall petition.
Blog Post – 23F-H006-REL
Their HOA Recall Had 250+ Signatures. It Was Voided by This One-Sentence Legal Booby Trap.
For many homeowners, a battle with their Homeowners Association (HOA) board is a familiar, frustrating story of feeling unheard. It was a reality that spurred homeowner Keith Jackson to action. Believing his board was failing the community, he channeled the widespread discontent of his neighbors, gathering significant support for a recall. Yet, despite his passionate efforts and clear community backing, the entire campaign was tragically derailed by a single, counter-intuitive rule, triggered by the simple, well-meaning mistake of a trusted friend.
Takeaway 1: The “One-Shot” Rule is Ironclad
The core legal issue that doomed the recall was a procedural trap hidden in plain sight. On July 12, 2022, a friend of Mr. Jackson, Andy Ball, submitted the recall petition to the board. The problem? It was incomplete and lacked the required number of signatures. According to Jackson’s testimony, his friend even tried to qualify the submission, telling the board, “here is the first batch of signatures more for coming.”
But that verbal clarification was powerless. The simple act of handing over the documents was legally considered a formal submission. This premature action triggered a critical and unforgiving clause in Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g):
A petition that calls for the removal of the same member of the board of directors shall not be submitted more than once during each term of office for that member.
Because the first petition was officially submitted and rejected for having insufficient signatures, the second, corrected petition—even with more than enough community support—was automatically barred. As the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision confirmed, the board was legally correct to reject the second attempt. The first try, flawed as it was, was the only one the law allowed.
Takeaway 2: Your Property Manager Isn’t Your Lawyer
This case exposes a common and dangerous misconception in community governance: the difference between operational guidance and binding legal counsel. After the first petition was rejected, Mr. Jackson and his supporters were led to believe they could simply submit a corrected version based on advice from Kirk Kowieski, a Vice President at the HOA’s management company, First Service Residential (FSI).
In a July 19, 2022 email, Kowieski seemed to give them a green light:
The group submitting the recall petition can submit a “new” (amended) petition that has the same names, addresses and signatures as the original as well as any additional signees. Because the first/original petition was “officially” submitted and became a record of the Association, the Association had to accept it and consider it as presented.
This advice, while seemingly authoritative, offered false hope and had no legal standing. Tellingly, while the judge noted the manager’s email in the factual summary of the case, it was given zero weight in the legal analysis. The advice wasn’t just wrong; in the final decision, it was legally nonexistent.
Takeaway 3: Passion and Signatures Don’t Beat Procedure
The recall effort was not born from minor disagreements; it was fueled by serious grievances that resonated deeply within the community. In his testimony, Keith Jackson outlined a compelling case against the board:
• A severe lack of transparency and accountability.
• The community’s reserve fund plummeting from $3.4 million to under $1 million in just one year.
• Cutting off the community’s biggest source of revenue without any member input.
• Creating a “toxic workplace” that led to the resignation of the community manager and other key employees.
These concerns prompted over 250 homeowners to sign the petition in just 10 days. Yet, the merits of their case were never heard. From the very first moments of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge made the narrow scope of the proceeding clear, even stopping Mr. Jackson’s opening statement to clarify, “The only authority I have is to determine whether or not the statute was interpreted correctly.” The legal system, in this administrative context, was procedurally deaf to their valid concerns, illustrating a stark reminder that passion and popular support are secondary to the cold, hard rules of procedure.
Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale in Black and White
In the highly regulated world of HOA governance, understanding and adhering to the exact letter of the law is non-negotiable. Keith Jackson’s story is a powerful cautionary tale of how a community movement can be undone by a simple, irreversible mistake. A friend turning in a petition before it was ready wasn’t a minor stumble to be corrected—it was the single action that sealed the fate of the entire campaign.
This case forces us to confront the purpose of such a strict rule. Proponents argue this “one-shot” provision prevents boards from being paralyzed by serial, frivolous recall attempts, ensuring stable governance. Critics, however, contend that its unforgiving nature creates a procedural minefield that disempowers homeowners and shields inept or malicious boards from accountability. This leaves us with a crucial question: Does a strict, one-shot rule for recalls truly protect boards from harassment, or does it create an insurmountable barrier for homeowners seeking accountability?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Keith Jackson (petitioner)
Self-represented
- Andy Ball (member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Submitted the initial incomplete petition
Respondent Side
- Eric Cook (HOA attorney)
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaad & Smith LLP
Represented Val Vista Lakes Community Association
- Doug Keats (board member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Treasurer; Board member being recalled; Witness
- K. Adams (board member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Secretary; Witness; Assigned to work with HOA attorney
- Bill Suttell (board member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
President; Board member being recalled
- Sharon Maiden (board member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Vice President; Board member being recalled
- Steve Nielson (board member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
General Board Member; Board member being recalled
- Kirk Kowieski (property manager)
First Service Residential (FSR)
Vice President/Interim Manager of the HOA management company
- Melissa Scoville (board member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Board member mentioned in context of Rob Act's petition
- Joanie U (board member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
- Lenny KNik (HOA attorney)
Consulted by Kirk regarding the petition process
- Andreas Vas (HOA attorney)
Consulted by Kirk regarding the petition process
Neutral Parties
- Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
OAH
- Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
- Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
Transmitted decision electronically
Other Participants
- Rob Act (member)
Submitted a separate incomplete petition
- Stephanie (intern manager)
FSR
Works with Kirk
