The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 11. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners themselves violated Section 11 by constructing the shed without prior written approval.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated CC&R Section 11; the construction of the shed occurred prior to seeking or obtaining architectural approval, violating Section 11.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged unfair, arbitrary, and capricious rejection of Architectural Change Form based on a non-existent rule (shed must not be higher than patio wall).
Petitioners claimed the HOA violated CC&Rs Section 11 by arbitrarily denying their request to construct a shed based on an unwritten rule regarding shed height (must be 3 inches below the wall). Petitioners acknowledged they constructed the shed prior to obtaining approval.
Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.
These sources document a legal dispute between homeowners Dennis Anderson and Mary Scheller and the Tara Condominiums Association regarding the unauthorized installation of a backyard storage shed. The conflict began when the association denied a retrospective architectural application, citing that the structure was too high and improperly attached to the building. During an evidentiary hearing held in August 2022, the petitioners argued that the board was enforcing non-existent rules, while the association maintained that the homeowners failed to seek the mandatory prior approval required by their governing documents. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the association, determining that the petitioners had violated the community’s CC&Rs by building the shed before obtaining written consent. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and a subsequent attempt by the homeowners to submit further evidence via email was rejected.
How did the lack of written rules influence the case?
Why did the judge ultimately dismiss the petitioners’ claim?
How does CC&R Section 11 impact homeowner architectural changes?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 1:37 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 22F-H2222062-REL
Select all sources
986010.pdf
990077.aac
991586.pdf
991600.pdf
996350.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
22F-H2222062-REL
5 sources
These sources document a legal dispute between homeowners Dennis Anderson and Mary Scheller and the Tara Condominiums Association regarding the unauthorized installation of a backyard storage shed. The conflict began when the association denied a retrospective architectural application, citing that the structure was too high and improperly attached to the building. During an evidentiary hearing held in August 2022, the petitioners argued that the board was enforcing non-existent rules, while the association maintained that the homeowners failed to seek the mandatory prior approval required by their governing documents. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the association, determining that the petitioners had violated the community’s CC&Rs by building the shed before obtaining written consent. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and a subsequent attempt by the homeowners to submit further evidence via email was rejected.
How did the lack of written rules influence the case?
Why did the judge ultimately dismiss the petitioners’ claim?
How does CC&R Section 11 impact homeowner architectural changes?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 1:37 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Dennis Anderson(petitioner)
Mary Scheller(petitioner) Tara Condominiums Association (former board) Former President of the HOA Board; also referred to as Mary Shell
Kiara(Owner) Daughter and co-owner who received violation letter
Respondent Side
Lisa Marks(board member) Tara Condominiums Association Chairperson and Secretary of the Board; testified for Respondent
Renee Snow(board member) Tara Condominiums Association Treasurer and President of the Board; testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official transmission
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official transmission
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official transmission
labril(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official transmission
c. serrano(Clerk/Staff) OAH/ADRE Transmitting staff member
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) OAH/ADRE Transmitting staff member
The Petition alleging that the Stone Canyon Community Association violated its Design Guidelines by granting a variance for secondary improvements within the side-yard setback to Lot 19 owners was dismissed. The ALJ found that the DRC exercised reasonable discretion in granting a deviation (variance) under Guidelines Section 5, Item 12, and the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof.
Why this result: The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Design Review Committee acted reasonably within its authority to grant a deviation (variance) to the Guidelines to allow the proposed secondary improvements (grading, driveway, enclosure) within the 15’ side-yard setback in extenuating circumstances, consistent with the requirements outlined in Guideline Section 5, Item 12.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation by DRC when granting a variance for side-yard setback requirements for secondary improvements.
Petitioners (Lot 20 owners) alleged the DRC violated guidelines by granting a variance to Lot 19 owners for placing secondary improvements (driveway, grading, site walls, enclosure) within the 15-foot side-yard setback. Petitioners sought rescission of the variance, arguing the DRC failed to establish an unreasonable hardship or burden as required by Guideline Section 5, Item 12, thereby acting unreasonably and causing diminution in Lot 20 value.
Orders: Petitioners' Petition is dismissed. Petitioners bear their $500.00 filing fee.
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA's architectural decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated its governing documents.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof. They must demonstrate that it is more probable than not that the Association or its Committee violated specific provisions of the governing documents (such as Design Guidelines).
Alj Quote
Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that, as alleged, Association through actions of Committee had violated Guidelines Section 1, Items 1 and 32 requirements and Section 5, Item 12 requirements when Committee granted a variance…1
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
evidence
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?
Short Answer
It means evidence that is more convincing than the opposing evidence, showing the fact is 'more probable than not.'
Detailed Answer
The ALJ defines this legal standard as evidence that carries greater weight than the evidence offered in opposition. It does not require absolute certainty, but rather that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is “[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”2
Legal Basis
Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990)
Topic Tags
legal definitions
standards of evidence
Question
Can my HOA grant a neighbor a variance for construction setbacks?
Short Answer
Yes, if the governing documents grant the Design Review Committee discretion to deviate from requirements in extenuating circumstances.
Detailed Answer
If the Design Guidelines provide the Committee with discretion to deviate from requirements when following them would create an unreasonable hardship or burden, the HOA can validly grant a variance. The ALJ looks for whether the Committee exercised 'reasonable discretion' under this authority.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the hearing record demonstrates that Committee exercised reasonable discretion under its authority to grant… a Section 5, Item 12 deviation, i.e., a variance… to allow the proposed/approved secondary improvements to be placed within the 15’ side-yard setback.3
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
Topic Tags
variances
setbacks
HOA discretion
architectural review
Question
Can the HOA treat driveways and landscaping differently than main house structures regarding setbacks?
Short Answer
Yes, governing documents may allow 'modifications' for secondary improvements even if structures have strict setbacks.
Detailed Answer
Governing documents may distinguish between 'building structures' (which must strictly comply with setbacks) and 'secondary improvements' like driveways, grading, or site walls. The documents may allow modifications to setbacks for these secondary items on a case-by-case basis.
Alj Quote
All building Structures shall comply with the above outlined setback distances. Modifications to the above outlined setback distances will be considered on a case-by-case basis for secondary improvements such as grading, landscaping, driveways, site walls, etc.4
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines Section 1, Item 32
Topic Tags
setbacks
driveways
landscaping
architectural guidelines
Question
What qualifies as an 'unreasonable hardship' that justifies a variance?
Short Answer
Practical necessities, such as needing access to a garage that otherwise complies with setbacks, can be considered an extenuating circumstance.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the Committee determined that needing driveway access to a new garage (which itself was built within the allowable building envelope) constituted an 'extenuating circumstance.' This practical necessity justified granting a variance for the driveway and grading to encroach into the setback area.
Alj Quote
The hearing record demonstrates that… Association supported the Committee’s determination that needing access to the new RV garage which itself was being built within the building envelope… met the criteria of “extenuating” circumstances… for purposes of granting a “variance” for the new driveway to be placed and necessary grading to occur within the 15’ side-yard setback.5
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
Topic Tags
hardship
variances
construction
Question
If I lose my case against the HOA, do I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
No, if the petition is dismissed, the homeowner is typically ordered to bear the cost of the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ has the authority to order who pays the costs. In this decision, after dismissing the petition because the homeowners failed to prove a violation, the ALJ ordered the homeowners to pay their own filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners bears their $500.00 filing fee.6
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
fees
penalties
costs
Case
Docket No
22F-H2221018-REL
Case Title
Terry Marvin & Lori J. Lefferts v. The Stone Canyon Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-08-05
Alj Name
Kay A. Abramsohn
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA's architectural decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated its governing documents.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof. They must demonstrate that it is more probable than not that the Association or its Committee violated specific provisions of the governing documents (such as Design Guidelines).
Alj Quote
Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that, as alleged, Association through actions of Committee had violated Guidelines Section 1, Items 1 and 32 requirements and Section 5, Item 12 requirements when Committee granted a variance…1
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
evidence
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?
Short Answer
It means evidence that is more convincing than the opposing evidence, showing the fact is 'more probable than not.'
Detailed Answer
The ALJ defines this legal standard as evidence that carries greater weight than the evidence offered in opposition. It does not require absolute certainty, but rather that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is “[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”2
Legal Basis
Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990)
Topic Tags
legal definitions
standards of evidence
Question
Can my HOA grant a neighbor a variance for construction setbacks?
Short Answer
Yes, if the governing documents grant the Design Review Committee discretion to deviate from requirements in extenuating circumstances.
Detailed Answer
If the Design Guidelines provide the Committee with discretion to deviate from requirements when following them would create an unreasonable hardship or burden, the HOA can validly grant a variance. The ALJ looks for whether the Committee exercised 'reasonable discretion' under this authority.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the hearing record demonstrates that Committee exercised reasonable discretion under its authority to grant… a Section 5, Item 12 deviation, i.e., a variance… to allow the proposed/approved secondary improvements to be placed within the 15’ side-yard setback.3
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
Topic Tags
variances
setbacks
HOA discretion
architectural review
Question
Can the HOA treat driveways and landscaping differently than main house structures regarding setbacks?
Short Answer
Yes, governing documents may allow 'modifications' for secondary improvements even if structures have strict setbacks.
Detailed Answer
Governing documents may distinguish between 'building structures' (which must strictly comply with setbacks) and 'secondary improvements' like driveways, grading, or site walls. The documents may allow modifications to setbacks for these secondary items on a case-by-case basis.
Alj Quote
All building Structures shall comply with the above outlined setback distances. Modifications to the above outlined setback distances will be considered on a case-by-case basis for secondary improvements such as grading, landscaping, driveways, site walls, etc.4
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines Section 1, Item 32
Topic Tags
setbacks
driveways
landscaping
architectural guidelines
Question
What qualifies as an 'unreasonable hardship' that justifies a variance?
Short Answer
Practical necessities, such as needing access to a garage that otherwise complies with setbacks, can be considered an extenuating circumstance.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the Committee determined that needing driveway access to a new garage (which itself was built within the allowable building envelope) constituted an 'extenuating circumstance.' This practical necessity justified granting a variance for the driveway and grading to encroach into the setback area.
Alj Quote
The hearing record demonstrates that… Association supported the Committee’s determination that needing access to the new RV garage which itself was being built within the building envelope… met the criteria of “extenuating” circumstances… for purposes of granting a “variance” for the new driveway to be placed and necessary grading to occur within the 15’ side-yard setback.5
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
Topic Tags
hardship
variances
construction
Question
If I lose my case against the HOA, do I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
No, if the petition is dismissed, the homeowner is typically ordered to bear the cost of the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ has the authority to order who pays the costs. In this decision, after dismissing the petition because the homeowners failed to prove a violation, the ALJ ordered the homeowners to pay their own filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners bears their $500.00 filing fee.6
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
fees
penalties
costs
Case
Docket No
22F-H2221018-REL
Case Title
Terry Marvin & Lori J. Lefferts v. The Stone Canyon Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-08-05
Alj Name
Kay A. Abramsohn
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Terry Marvin(petitioner)
Lori J. Lefferts(petitioner) Also referred to as Lori Lebert/Leopards
Respondent Side
Nicholas C.S. Nogami(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP
Parker C. Fox(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP
Sami M. Farhat(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP
Mark Saul(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP Partner of Mr. Nogami and counsel to the HOA
Jerry Young(Consulting Architect) Association representative and Consulting Architect for the Design Review Committee
Theodore Riggs(DRC member) Also referred to as Ted Riggs; witness called by Petitioners
Richard Reese(DRC member) Also referred to as Dick Reif/Rice/Reef; former DRC member; witness called by Petitioners
Kevin Given(DRC member) Head of the DRC; voted against Lot 19 approval
Steve Hall(DRC member) Absent from July 27, 2021 Committee meeting
Andrew Deni(Architect) Architect for Lot 19 Owners (also referred to as Andy Deni/Denah/Dencki)
Martin Coe(Lot owner) Lot 19 Owner
Lydia Roos(Lot owner) Lot 19 Owner
Tim Stampson(General Contractor) General Contractor for Lot 19 Project (also referred to as Ken Samson)
Divine Homes(observer) Summer associate observing proceedings with HOA attorneys
Edward GA(observer) Summer associate observing proceedings with HOA attorneys
Neutral Parties
Kay Abramsohn(ALJ)
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
A. Hansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
D. Gardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
d. jones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
v. nunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
c. serrano(OAH staff) Signed transmittal
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) Signed transmittal (also referred to as M Alvarez)
Gina Marcus(Design Review Coordinator) Association staff/minutes taker
Cindy Nichols(unknown) Possible minutes taker
Other Participants
Nicholas Dana(Lot owner) Owner of Lot 24 and resident of Lot 25
Steven Schmidt(observer) Petitioner in a different matter, observing the hearing
The ALJ dismissed the petition. Petitioner withdrew the issue regarding the lack of quorum. Regarding the remaining issue, the ALJ found that the Association did not violate governing documents or statutes by seating board members pursuant to a settlement agreement that certified the results of the 2021 election.
Why this result: Petitioner withdrew one issue and failed to meet the burden of proof on the other, as the ALJ found the settlement agreement valid and the evidence of election irregularities insufficient.
Key Issues & Findings
Board Appointment via Settlement Agreement
Petitioner alleged the Association violated state statutes and governing documents by seating two board members pursuant to a settlement agreement from a prior lawsuit, rather than through a membership election.
Orders: Petition dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1243(B)
Bylaws Article 3 §3.1
Declaration Article 6 §6.2
Quorum at Special Board Meeting
Petitioner alleged it was impermissible for the Board to conduct and transact business at a Special Board Meeting on June 25, 2021, without the required quorum.
22F-H2222030-REL Decision – HO22-22030_Packet_Hearing3of3/HO22-22033_ Expedited Request for Waiver of Conflict to Represent The Villages at Aviano Condominium Association.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:22:04 (197.0 KB)
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Arleen D. Jouxson(petitioner) The Villages at Aviano Condominium Association (Member) Unit owner of Unit 1369
Ellen B. Davis(petitioner attorney) Henze Cook Murphy, PLLC
Conrad Kampp(witness) Listed as witness by Petitioner; present at hearing
Diane Potter(witness) Listed as witness by Petitioner; present at hearing
Carol Lehan(witness) Listed as witness by Petitioner; present at hearing
Barbara Kampp(witness) Listed as witness by Petitioner; present at hearing
Dave Barren(witness) Listed as witness by Petitioner; appeared remotely
Lisa Le(witness) Listed as witness by Petitioner
Carrie Y(witness) Listed as witness by Petitioner; present at hearing
Respondent Side
The Villages at Aviano Condominium Association(respondent) Entity
Diana J. Elston(HOA attorney) Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Eloise Figueroa(board member) The Villages at Aviano Condominium Association Board President; called as witness by Petitioner; Plaintiff in underlying Superior Court case
Linda Bahr(board member) The Villages at Aviano Condominium Association Seated on board via settlement agreement
Tony Basuini(board member) The Villages at Aviano Condominium Association Former Board President; signed settlement agreement
Joseph Orr(board member) The Villages at Aviano Condominium Association Former board member
Tony Cancilla(board member) The Villages at Aviano Condominium Association Former board member
Jonathan A. Dessaules(witness) Dessaules Law Group Attorney for Eloise Figueroa in Superior Court case; testified at OAH hearing
Natasha DeCoto(property manager) PMG Services Current community manager
Michael Sgro(property manager) Brown Community Management Former community manager
Marshall Chess(property manager) Brown Community Management Former community manager
Tim Butterfield(HOA attorney) Carpenter Hazlewood Represented HOA in settlement negotiations
Curtis Ekmark(HOA attorney) Ekmark & Ekmark General Counsel for HOA at time of 2021 election
Neutral Parties
Thomas Shedden(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Pamela Gates(judge) Maricopa County Superior Court Presided over CV2021-006916
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardner(agency staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate HOA Coordinator
The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the Sanalina HOA did not violate its Bylaws when it removed Petitioner John Zumph from the Board of Directors. The tribunal held that a 'regular meeting' can occur even without the presence of a quorum necessary to conduct business, validating the HOA's decision to declare his office vacant after three consecutive absences.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the Bylaws. The ALJ determined that the meetings existed despite lack of quorum, and the Petitioner's intentional absences constituted an abuse of process and were not in the spirit of the bylaws.
Key Issues & Findings
Wrongful removal from the Board of Directors
Petitioner challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, arguing that his three consecutive absences from regularly scheduled meetings (July 8, 2021, September 9, 2021, and November 11, 2021) did not count because no quorum was met at those meetings, meaning the meetings did not exist.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-1092
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Sanalina Bylaws Article VII Section 1(d)
Sanalina Bylaws Article VI Section 3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Board Removal, Quorum Dispute, Bylaw Interpretation, Director Absence, Regular Meeting Definition
These sources document an Arizona administrative hearing and the subsequent legal ruling regarding a dispute between John Zumph and the Sanalina Homeowners Association. Zumph challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, which the association justified based on his absence from three consecutive meetings. While Zumph argued that these sessions did not legally qualify as meetings due to a lack of quorum, the association contended he intentionally skipped them to obstruct board business and force leadership changes. The provided transcript details the testimony and cross-examination of the parties involved, highlighting the internal conflicts within the board. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that meetings can exist even without a quorum to transact business. The final decision affirmed that Zumph’s intentional absences harmed the community and legally permitted the board to declare his seat vacant.
What was the core disagreement regarding the definition of a quorum?
Explain the impacts of the board’s inability to conduct official business.
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the petitioner’s removal?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 1:35 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 22F-H2222049-REL
Select all sources
986676.aac
988629.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
22F-H2222049-REL
2 sources
These sources document an Arizona administrative hearing and the subsequent legal ruling regarding a dispute between John Zumph and the Sanalina Homeowners Association. Zumph challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, which the association justified based on his absence from three consecutive meetings. While Zumph argued that these sessions did not legally qualify as meetings due to a lack of quorum, the association contended he intentionally skipped them to obstruct board business and force leadership changes. The provided transcript details the testimony and cross-examination of the parties involved, highlighting the internal conflicts within the board. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that meetings can exist even without a quorum to transact business. The final decision affirmed that Zumph’s intentional absences harmed the community and legally permitted the board to declare his seat vacant.
What was the core disagreement regarding the definition of a quorum?
Explain the impacts of the board’s inability to conduct official business.
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the petitioner’s removal?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 1:35 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John Zumph(petitioner) Sanalina Homeowners Association Also referred to as John Zump or John Edward Dump; Former Board member removed from his position
Pete Selei(board member) Sanalina Homeowners Association Aligned with petitioner's refusal to attend meetings; Board member removed/vacated position; Also referred to as Joe Pete or Pete
Joe(board member) Sanalina Homeowners Association Aligned with petitioner's refusal to attend meetings
Respondent Side
Nick Eicher(HOA attorney) Sanalina Homeowners Association Also referred to as Nick Aker
Lisa Jean Terror(board member) Sanalina Homeowners Association Board Secretary; witness for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary)
Other Participants
Thomas Campanella(property manager) Sanalina Homeowners Association Community Manager; Also referred to as Thomas Pampanella
Javier Gimenez(management representative) Sanalina Homeowners Association Handled minutes for March meeting
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), finding that the HOA and its property managers had made records reasonably available for examination.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required by A.A.C. R2-19-119. The evidence showed Respondent responded timely to requests, provided some documents, and offered Petitioner appointments to review other sensitive or older records in the office, which she failed to schedule.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to provide books, records and accounts
Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide required HOA records, including bank statements, invoices, and contracts, following requests made primarily in March 2022, thereby violating statute A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
Orders: Petitioner's petition denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Records Access, Statutory Violation, Burden of Proof, Special Assessment Dispute
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.A.C. R2-19-119
State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes, 216 Ariz. 525, 527, 169 P.3d 115, 117 (App. 2007)
Marsoner v. Pima County, 166 Ariz. 486, 488, 803 P.2d 897, 899 (1991)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 971256.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:58 (46.4 KB)
22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 983785.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:03 (114.6 KB)
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law during a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, it is up to the homeowner filing the complaint to prove that the Association violated the statute. The HOA does not initially have to prove its innocence; the homeowner must present evidence that carries more weight.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?
Short Answer
A preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must provide evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA. It must show that the alleged violation is 'more probable than not' to have occurred.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is '[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.'
Legal Basis
Black's Law Dictionary (cited in decision)
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standard
Question
Does a homeowner have the right to browse through every single document the HOA possesses?
Short Answer
No, the right to inspect records is not absolute or 'at will'.
Detailed Answer
While statutes require records to be reasonably available, this does not grant homeowners the right to peruse every document at will. The ALJ noted that certain documents may properly be withheld.
Alj Quote
Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
privacy
limitations
Question
If I request records, does the HOA have to mail them to me, or can they require me to view them in person?
Short Answer
The HOA complies by making records available for examination, often by appointment.
Detailed Answer
The HOA meets its statutory obligation if it makes records reasonably available for examination. In this case, offering an appointment for the homeowner to visit the office and review the documents was considered sufficient compliance, even if the homeowner refused to attend.
Alj Quote
Further, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
compliance
in-person review
Question
How quickly must the HOA respond to a request to examine records?
Short Answer
Within ten business days.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, an association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination of records or to provide copies if purchased.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
deadlines
statutory requirements
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee for looking at the records?
Short Answer
No fee is allowed for the review process itself.
Detailed Answer
The association is prohibited from charging a member for making material available for review. However, they may charge a fee specifically for making copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
fees
records access
Question
What is the maximum amount an HOA can charge for copies of records?
Short Answer
Fifteen cents per page.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner requests to purchase copies of the records, the association is limited by statute to charging no more than fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
fees
copies
Question
Can I dispute an HOA violation if I simply refuse to cooperate with their attempts to provide records?
Short Answer
Likely not; failure to utilize offered opportunities undermines the claim.
Detailed Answer
If the HOA offers opportunities to review records (such as setting an appointment) and the homeowner fails to do so, the homeowner may fail to prove that they were denied access.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records. … Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.
Legal Basis
Determined by ALJ Findings
Topic Tags
dispute resolution
homeowner responsibility
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222046-REL
Case Title
Katherine Belinsky vs Del Cerro Condos
Decision Date
2022-07-14
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law during a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, it is up to the homeowner filing the complaint to prove that the Association violated the statute. The HOA does not initially have to prove its innocence; the homeowner must present evidence that carries more weight.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?
Short Answer
A preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must provide evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA. It must show that the alleged violation is 'more probable than not' to have occurred.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is '[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.'
Legal Basis
Black's Law Dictionary (cited in decision)
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standard
Question
Does a homeowner have the right to browse through every single document the HOA possesses?
Short Answer
No, the right to inspect records is not absolute or 'at will'.
Detailed Answer
While statutes require records to be reasonably available, this does not grant homeowners the right to peruse every document at will. The ALJ noted that certain documents may properly be withheld.
Alj Quote
Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
privacy
limitations
Question
If I request records, does the HOA have to mail them to me, or can they require me to view them in person?
Short Answer
The HOA complies by making records available for examination, often by appointment.
Detailed Answer
The HOA meets its statutory obligation if it makes records reasonably available for examination. In this case, offering an appointment for the homeowner to visit the office and review the documents was considered sufficient compliance, even if the homeowner refused to attend.
Alj Quote
Further, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
compliance
in-person review
Question
How quickly must the HOA respond to a request to examine records?
Short Answer
Within ten business days.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, an association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination of records or to provide copies if purchased.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
deadlines
statutory requirements
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee for looking at the records?
Short Answer
No fee is allowed for the review process itself.
Detailed Answer
The association is prohibited from charging a member for making material available for review. However, they may charge a fee specifically for making copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
fees
records access
Question
What is the maximum amount an HOA can charge for copies of records?
Short Answer
Fifteen cents per page.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner requests to purchase copies of the records, the association is limited by statute to charging no more than fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
fees
copies
Question
Can I dispute an HOA violation if I simply refuse to cooperate with their attempts to provide records?
Short Answer
Likely not; failure to utilize offered opportunities undermines the claim.
Detailed Answer
If the HOA offers opportunities to review records (such as setting an appointment) and the homeowner fails to do so, the homeowner may fail to prove that they were denied access.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records. … Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.
Legal Basis
Determined by ALJ Findings
Topic Tags
dispute resolution
homeowner responsibility
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222046-REL
Case Title
Katherine Belinsky vs Del Cerro Condos
Decision Date
2022-07-14
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Katherine Belinsky(petitioner) Also referred to as Catherine Valinski, Bolinsky, or Katya/Katcha; unit owner.
Respondent Side
Alessandra Wisniewski(VP) Del Cerro Condos Board Also referred to as Alexandra; testified on behalf of Respondent.
Amanda Butcher(President) Del Cerro Condos Board Testified on behalf of Respondent.
Eddie B(property manager) PMI Lake Havasu President of PMI Lake Havasu; also referred to as Eddie Being.
Lisa Modler(property manager assistant) PMI Lake Havasu Also referred to as Lisa Miam; secretary assistance for PMI.
Brady Bowen(property manager) PMI Lake Havasu Business partner of Eddie B.
Fiser(maintenance supervisor) PMI Lake Havasu No first name provided.
Kathy Ein(property manager) Community Financials Manager for new management company.
Moses(board member) Del Cerro Condos Board Former Treasurer/Secretary on the board.
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) OAH Transmitted Decision electronically.
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official documents.
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official documents.
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official documents.
labril(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official documents.
Other Participants
Eric Needles(former property manager) London Dairy Former property management/statutory agent.
Elizabeth(statutory agent) Former statutory agent; last name not provided.
Betty Sergeant(former property manager) Petitioner took her to court.
Todd Sullivan(association manager) Viking New Association New association manager effective June 1st.
c. serrano(unknown) Transmittal initial on Del Cerro Condo contact document.
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the term 'main Dwelling Unit' in CC&Rs Article 7.7 must be calculated using only the livable square footage (2,853 sq ft), excluding attached garages and porches, resulting in a maximum allowable accessory structure size of 1,141.2 sq ft. Since the proposed structure was 1,441 sq ft, the HOA's denial was upheld.
Why this result: The ALJ determined that the calculation of the relevant square footage of a main Dwelling Unit under CC&Rs 7.7 excludes any non-livable portion of a building, structure, or improvement (attached or otherwise), meaning the Petitioner's proposed structure exceeded the calculated maximum limit.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Association violated CC&Rs Article 7.7 by incorrectly applying the method for determining the allowable square footage of an accessory structure.
Petitioner alleged the HOA/ARC incorrectly calculated the maximum allowable square footage for his proposed 1,441 sq ft detached garage, arguing that the 'main Dwelling Unit' calculation under CC&Rs 7.7 should include the attached garage and porches. The HOA maintained that the 'main Dwelling Unit' only consists of the livable portions of the home (2,853 sq ft), resulting in a maximum allowable accessory structure of 1,141.2 square feet.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. The ALJ concluded that the 'main Dwelling Unit' under CC&Rs 7.7 excludes non-livable portions of the building (attached garage, porch, patio).
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
CC&Rs Article 7.7
CC&Rs Article 7.6
CC&Rs Article I, Section 15
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA dispute, accessory structure, dwelling unit definition, CC&Rs interpretation, square footage calculation
22F-H2222040-REL Decision – Notice of Hearing .pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:52 (1792.3 KB)
22F-H2222040-REL Decision – Response to Petition – 4.22.22.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:56 (127.2 KB)
Briefing Doc – 22F-H2222040-REL
Briefing Document: Schmidt v. Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the key facts, arguments, and legal proceedings in the dispute between homeowner Steven Schmidt (Petitioner) and the Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc. (Respondent), case number 22F-H2222040-REL. The central conflict revolves around the interpretation of the term “Dwelling Unit” within the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the purpose of calculating the maximum allowable size of an accessory structure.
The Petitioner contended that “Dwelling Unit” encompasses the total square footage of his home, including livable space, attached garage, and covered porches, which would permit his proposed 1,441-square-foot detached garage. The Respondent argued that the CC&Rs define “Dwelling Unit” as only the livable square footage, explicitly excluding garages and porches from the calculation, making the proposed structure too large.
Following an evidentiary hearing on June 23, 2022, Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark issued a decision on July 13, 2022, denying the petition. The ruling sided with the Respondent, concluding that a holistic reading of the CC&Rs, particularly its definition section, establishes that a “Dwelling Unit” is distinct from garages and patios. The decision affirmed the Association’s methodology, rendering the Petitioner’s project non-compliant with the community’s governing documents.
Case Overview
Parties Involved
Name / Entity
Representation
Petitioner
Steven Schmidt
Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent
Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.
Michael S. Shupe, Esq., Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC
Case Details
Detail
Case Numbers
ADRE: HO22-22/040 OAH: 22F-H2222040-REL
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark
Hearing Location
Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
Hearing Date
June 23, 2022
Final Decision Date
July 13, 2022
Timeline of Key Events
• May 15, 2019: Petitioner submits his initial Architectural Review Committee (ARC) application for a detached garage.
• July 25, 2019: The Association issues its first denial letter, stating, “The Committee believes that the square footage of a home does not include garage area or patio.”
• January 10, 2020: Following a request for reconsideration, the Association issues a second denial letter.
• February 7, 2020: After Petitioner attends an ARC meeting to appeal, the Association issues a third and final denial letter.
• March 21, 2022: The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) receives the Petitioner’s formal petition.
• April 22, 2022: Respondent, through counsel, files a response denying all complaint items and requesting a hearing.
• June 8, 2022: A telephonic pre-hearing conference is held to clarify issues and set deadlines.
• June 23, 2022: An evidentiary hearing is conducted before ALJ Jenna Clark.
• July 13, 2022: The ALJ issues a final decision and order denying the Petitioner’s petition.
The Central Dispute: Interpretation of “Dwelling Unit”
The core of the dispute is a question of contract interpretation regarding the CC&Rs. The parties agreed that the facts were not in dispute, only the legal meaning of key terms used to calculate the maximum size of an accessory structure.
Governing Documents and Key Clauses
The disagreement centered on the following provisions from the Association’s CC&Rs and Design Guidelines:
• CC&Rs Article VII, Section 7.7 (Accessory Structures): “Accessory structures shall include, but are not limited to, detached garages and guest homes… Accessory structures shall be limited to 5% of the lot area or forty percent (40%) of the main Dwelling Unit, whichever is less.”
• CC&Rs Article VII, Section 7.6 (Minimum Dwelling Unit Size): “Any Dwelling unit erected, permitted or maintained on any Lot shall have a minimum livable square footage, excluding garage, porches or guest house, and patios, of two thousand five hundred (2500) square feet.”
• Design Guidelines Section 3.2.2 (Building Size): “The minimum livable square footage of any Dwelling Unit on a Lot shall be 2,500 square feet. This minimum requirement shall be exclusive of garages, porches, Guest Houses, and patios.”
• CC&Rs Article I, Section 1.15 (Definition of “Dwelling Unit”): “‘Dwelling Unit’ means any building or portion of a building situated upon a Lot designed and intended for use and occupancy as a Residence by a Single Family.”
• CC&Rs Article I, Section 1.29 (Definition of “Residence”): “‘Residence’ means any subdivided Lot shown on the Plat, together with the residential Dwelling Unit, garage, patio and other Improvements thereon…”
Competing Square Footage Calculations
The two parties applied these clauses to the Petitioner’s property dimensions, resulting in conflicting maximums for the proposed 1,441 sq. ft. garage.
Calculation Metric
Petitioner’s Interpretation (Total Structure)
Respondent’s Interpretation (Livable Space Only)
Livable Square Footage
2,820 sq. ft.
2,820 sq. ft.
Covered Front Porch
289 sq. ft.
0 sq. ft. (excluded)
Covered Rear Porch
327 sq. ft.
0 sq. ft. (excluded)
Attached Garage
1,002 sq. ft.
0 sq. ft. (excluded)
Total “Dwelling Unit” Base
4,438 sq. ft.
2,820 sq. ft.
Max Accessory Structure (40%)
1,775 sq. ft.
1,128 sq. ft.
Compliance of Proposed Garage
Compliant (1,441 < 1,775)
Non-Compliant (1,441 > 1,128)
Petitioner’s Position (Steven Schmidt)
The Petitioner’s case was built on a direct, plain-language reading of the rules governing accessory structures, asserting his interpretation was that of a reasonable homeowner.
• Core Argument: The term “Dwelling Unit” in Section 7.7, which governs accessory structures, refers to the entire physical structure of the main home. He argued, “Somehow the ARC has wrongly concluded that the entire area of a dwelling unit is… only the livable square footage. This is simply not correct.”
• Supporting Points:
◦ The provision establishing a minimum of 2,500 sq. ft. (Section 7.6) explicitly excludes garages and porches, but its purpose is only to ensure a minimum standard of living space, not to define the total size of the dwelling for all other purposes.
◦ He contended that Section 7.7, the most relevant clause, “does not say 40% of the livable square footage, but rather 40% of the dwelling unit.”
◦ He pointed to other CC&R sections regarding architectural design (7.5), solar panels (7.10), and antennas (7.40) to argue that for those rules to be logical, “Dwelling Unit” must include the garage and porches, as they are part of the building’s exterior.
◦ During his closing argument, he stated, “The clear intent of the CCNR is to treat a dwelling unit as an entire structure, including the garage and porches.”
• Requested Relief: Petitioner requested an order directing the Association “to correctly apply section 7.7 of the H&Rs by including the square footage of the entire dwelling unit in the computation of the allowable size of an accessory structure.” He did not request a civil penalty.
Respondent’s Position (Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.)
The Respondent’s position relied on principles of contract law, arguing that the CC&Rs must be interpreted as a whole, with special attention given to the explicit definitions provided within the document.
• Core Argument: The CC&Rs’ own definitions create a clear distinction between the “Dwelling Unit” (the livable portion) and other improvements like “garage” and “patio.” The ARC’s denial was a correct application of these defined terms.
• Supporting Points:
◦ Counsel Michael Shupe argued that Section 1.29, by listing “residential Dwelling Unit, garage, patio” as separate items, unambiguously proves they are not the same thing. He stated, “there is no ambiguity that dwelling unit is listed separately from garages, patios, and other improvements thereon.”
◦ He emphasized that legal principles require that “the entire contract be looked at and that the court takes steps to ensure that the contract can be read as a whole as to render no provision meaningless or contrary.”
◦ The Respondent argued this interpretation ensures community continuity and prevents situations where accessory structures could be disproportionately large compared to the actual living area of a home.
• Requested Relief: The Association requested that the court uphold the ARC’s decision.
The hearing focused entirely on the legal arguments, as the underlying facts were agreed upon in advance.
• Stipulated Evidence: The parties submitted 17 stipulated facts (one of which was later struck due to a date discrepancy) and 9 stipulated exhibits, which streamlined the hearing.
• Demonstrative Evidence: The Petitioner appeared in person and utilized two easels displaying large-format plans of his home to illustrate his square footage calculations. The ALJ noted these were demonstrative aids and not formally admitted into the evidentiary record.
• Evidentiary Rulings:
◦ The Petitioner requested that his marked-up floor plan (Petitioner’s Exhibit A) be admitted as evidence. The Respondent objected on the grounds that its labeling of a “total dwelling unit” figure constituted a legal conclusion, which is the central issue of the case. The ALJ sustained the objection.
◦ The Respondent’s Pre-Hearing Memorandum was admitted into the record without objection from the Petitioner.
Final Decision and Order (July 13, 2022)
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision provided a definitive legal interpretation of the disputed terms, finding in favor of the Respondent.
• Outcome: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.”
• Legal Rationale:
◦ The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
◦ The decision states: “It is clear from the record that a ‘Dwelling Unit’ can only consist of a portion of a building that is distinct from other structures and improvements like garages and patios.”
◦ It further clarifies: “Hence, the calculation of the relevant square footage of a main Dwelling Unit under CC&Rs 7.7 excludes any non-livable portion of a building, structure, or improvement (attached or otherwise).”
◦ The order affirmed the Association’s calculation, noting that the maximum allowable square footage for an accessory structure on the Petitioner’s property is capped at 1,141.2 square feet, making the proposed 1,441-square-foot garage non-compliant.
• Binding Nature: The order is binding on the parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the ADRE within 30 days of the order’s service.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Steven Schmidt(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Michael Shupe(HOA attorney) Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Daniel Y. Jones(Division Manager) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Abby Hansen(HOA Coordinator) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) Office of Administrative Hearings
c. serrano(administrative staff) Transmitted documents
Douglas A. Ducey(Governor) Arizona
vnunez(administrative staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed on electronic transmission
labril(administrative staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed on electronic transmission
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition after finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to show that the Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning an emergency board meeting. The evidence established that no such meeting took place, and the statute does not require the Board to hold one.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, as he conceded he did not know if an emergency meeting was held and could not provide legal authority showing that one was required.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation regarding an emergency meeting of the board members.
Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning the procedures for an emergency board meeting, specifically regarding a message sent out by the HOA's managing agent. The case proceeded on this single issue after Petitioner failed to pay the required additional filing fees for four total issues claimed.
Orders: The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA did not hold an emergency board meeting and was not required by A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) to hold one.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: emergency meeting, board of directors, failure to pay filing fee, burden of proof, dismissal, A.R.S. 33-1804
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964714.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:36 (48.2 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964973.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:39 (18.9 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965150.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:42 (44.4 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965339.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:46 (40.0 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967084.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:50 (55.7 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967089.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:54 (45.1 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967102.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:59 (7.1 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 973304.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:02 (47.0 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 977404.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:06 (50.3 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 982867.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:09 (106.4 KB)
Questions
Question
Is my HOA board legally required to hold an emergency meeting for urgent matters?
Short Answer
No, the statute allows for emergency meetings but does not mandate them.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that while state law permits a board to call an emergency meeting for issues that cannot wait 48 hours, the homeowner failed to prove there is any legal requirement forcing the board to hold one. The board has the discretion to call such meetings but is not obligated to do so.
Alj Quote
Mr. Ehle failed to provide any legal authority in his petition or at hearing to support his contention that the Board was required to hold an emergency board meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
emergency meetings
board obligations
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?
Short Answer
The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the complaint must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the Act or Respondent’s CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
Can I be penalized if I don't pay the full filing fees for all my complaints?
Short Answer
Yes, the tribunal will limit the hearing to only the issues covered by the paid fees.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner alleges multiple violations but only pays the filing fee for one, the tribunal may dismiss the unpaid claims and order the homeowner to choose a single issue to proceed with at the hearing.
Alj Quote
The tribunal ordered Petitioner to pay an additional $1,500 for the four issues claimed. However, Petitioner failed to do so… IT IS ORDERED that the single issue to be addressed at hearing is an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)…
Legal Basis
Procedural Order
Topic Tags
filing fees
procedure
Question
Can I punish my HOA for failing to produce minutes for a meeting they claim never happened?
Short Answer
No, if no meeting was held, there are no minutes to produce.
Detailed Answer
You cannot successfully claim a procedural violation (like missing minutes) for a meeting that did not take place. If the evidence shows no meeting occurred, the claim will be dismissed.
Alj Quote
The weight of the evidence shows that Fulton Ranch did not hold an emergency board meeting… Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Mr. Ehle has failed to establish that Fulton Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) and the petition should be dismissed.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
meeting minutes
evidence
Question
What qualifies as an 'emergency' for an HOA board meeting?
Short Answer
Matters that cannot be delayed for the standard 48-hour notice period.
Detailed Answer
State law defines an emergency meeting as one called to discuss business or take action that is too urgent to wait for the standard 48 hours required for notice of a regular meeting.
Alj Quote
An emergency meeting of the board of directors may be called to discuss business or take action that cannot be delayed for the forty-eight hours required for notice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
emergency meetings
definitions
Question
Can I attend my HOA dispute hearing virtually?
Short Answer
Yes, hearings can be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.
Detailed Answer
The Office of Administrative Hearings allows parties to appear either in person or virtually (e.g., via Google Meet) for the proceedings.
Alj Quote
Either party may appear virtually or in person for the hearing.
Legal Basis
Procedural Order
Topic Tags
hearings
procedure
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
This is the standard of proof used in these hearings. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence that inclines an impartial mind to one side.
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
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222031-REL
Case Title
Gregory Ehle v. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-07-11
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Is my HOA board legally required to hold an emergency meeting for urgent matters?
Short Answer
No, the statute allows for emergency meetings but does not mandate them.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that while state law permits a board to call an emergency meeting for issues that cannot wait 48 hours, the homeowner failed to prove there is any legal requirement forcing the board to hold one. The board has the discretion to call such meetings but is not obligated to do so.
Alj Quote
Mr. Ehle failed to provide any legal authority in his petition or at hearing to support his contention that the Board was required to hold an emergency board meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
emergency meetings
board obligations
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?
Short Answer
The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the complaint must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the Act or Respondent’s CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
Can I be penalized if I don't pay the full filing fees for all my complaints?
Short Answer
Yes, the tribunal will limit the hearing to only the issues covered by the paid fees.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner alleges multiple violations but only pays the filing fee for one, the tribunal may dismiss the unpaid claims and order the homeowner to choose a single issue to proceed with at the hearing.
Alj Quote
The tribunal ordered Petitioner to pay an additional $1,500 for the four issues claimed. However, Petitioner failed to do so… IT IS ORDERED that the single issue to be addressed at hearing is an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)…
Legal Basis
Procedural Order
Topic Tags
filing fees
procedure
Question
Can I punish my HOA for failing to produce minutes for a meeting they claim never happened?
Short Answer
No, if no meeting was held, there are no minutes to produce.
Detailed Answer
You cannot successfully claim a procedural violation (like missing minutes) for a meeting that did not take place. If the evidence shows no meeting occurred, the claim will be dismissed.
Alj Quote
The weight of the evidence shows that Fulton Ranch did not hold an emergency board meeting… Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Mr. Ehle has failed to establish that Fulton Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) and the petition should be dismissed.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
meeting minutes
evidence
Question
What qualifies as an 'emergency' for an HOA board meeting?
Short Answer
Matters that cannot be delayed for the standard 48-hour notice period.
Detailed Answer
State law defines an emergency meeting as one called to discuss business or take action that is too urgent to wait for the standard 48 hours required for notice of a regular meeting.
Alj Quote
An emergency meeting of the board of directors may be called to discuss business or take action that cannot be delayed for the forty-eight hours required for notice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
emergency meetings
definitions
Question
Can I attend my HOA dispute hearing virtually?
Short Answer
Yes, hearings can be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.
Detailed Answer
The Office of Administrative Hearings allows parties to appear either in person or virtually (e.g., via Google Meet) for the proceedings.
Alj Quote
Either party may appear virtually or in person for the hearing.
Legal Basis
Procedural Order
Topic Tags
hearings
procedure
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
This is the standard of proof used in these hearings. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence that inclines an impartial mind to one side.
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
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222031-REL
Case Title
Gregory Ehle v. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-07-11
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Gregory Ehle(petitioner) Appeared on behalf of himself.
Respondent Side
Emily H. Mann(HOA attorney) Phillips, Maceyko & Battock, PLLC Appeared on behalf of Respondent Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association.
Kevin Hardy(witness) CCMC Division Vice President for Fulton Ranch's Community Manager (CCMC).
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) OAH Handled document transmission.
c. serrano(staff) OAH Handled document transmission.
A. Hansen(staff) ADRE Listed as contact for ADRE.
v. nunez(staff) ADRE Listed as contact for ADRE.
d. jones(staff) ADRE Listed as contact for ADRE.
l. abril(staff) ADRE Listed as contact for ADRE.
Other Participants
Natasha Bell(community manager) CCMC Former CCMC employee who served as the association's community manager in 2020.
The petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, as she had not made a proper written request for the documents since 2019, as required by the statute.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to make a request for records in writing as required by A.R.S. § 33-1258.
Key Issues & Findings
Access to Association Financial and Other Records
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by denying her access and copies of various financial records dating back to 2016. The HOA argued they provided financial summaries and offered in-person review, noting Petitioner failed to make a proper written request.
Orders: Petition denied. Respondent is directed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 going forward upon a proper written request from Petitioner.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Financial Records, Written Request Requirement, HOA Governance, Condominium Act
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222033-REL Decision – 967350.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:19 (46.5 KB)
22F-H2222033-REL Decision – 982397.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:21 (99.3 KB)
Questions
Question
Must I submit my request for HOA financial records in writing?
Short Answer
Yes, the statute explicitly requires that requests for examination of records be made in writing.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled against the homeowner partly because she failed to provide evidence of a written request. The decision emphasizes that the governing statute requires requests for examination to be in writing to be valid and enforceable.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1258 requires that association documents, with certain identified exceptions, 'shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…in writing'.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
records request
procedural requirements
Question
Do I have the right to look through all HOA documents whenever I want?
Short Answer
No, homeowners do not have an unlimited right to peruse all association documents at will.
Detailed Answer
While the law requires records to be reasonably available, it does not grant an unfettered right to browse all documents. Specific procedures must be followed, and certain documents may be withheld.
Alj Quote
Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258
Topic Tags
homeowner rights
limitations
Question
What happens if I cannot prove I sent a written request for records?
Short Answer
Your petition may be denied for failing to meet the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the homeowner claimed she was denied access, but the judge found she failed to establish a denial because the preponderance of the evidence showed she had not made the required written request.
Alj Quote
Further, the preponderance of the evidence showed that she has failed to make any such request in writing as the statute requires. … Therefore, at this time, Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
evidence
Question
Can the HOA charge me for copies of records?
Short Answer
Yes, the HOA is allowed to charge a fee for copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute permits the association to charge a fee per page for making copies of requested records, provided the request is for the purchase of copies.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
fees
copies
Question
Is the HOA allowed to withhold certain records from me?
Short Answer
Yes, specific categories of records, such as personal or privileged information, may be withheld.
Detailed Answer
The decision outlines statutory exceptions where books and records can be withheld, including privileged attorney communications, pending litigation, and personal financial or health records of individual members or employees.
Alj Quote
Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: … Personal, health or financial records of an individual member of the association…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)
Topic Tags
privacy
exemptions
Question
How long does the HOA have to fulfill my request for records?
Short Answer
The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute mandates a ten-business-day timeframe for the association to comply with a written request for either examining records or purchasing copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies … the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
timelines
deadlines
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, it is the petitioner's responsibility to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the specific statute.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222033-REL
Case Title
Roberta J Stevenson-McDermott vs. Four Palms Homeowners
Decision Date
2022-07-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Must I submit my request for HOA financial records in writing?
Short Answer
Yes, the statute explicitly requires that requests for examination of records be made in writing.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled against the homeowner partly because she failed to provide evidence of a written request. The decision emphasizes that the governing statute requires requests for examination to be in writing to be valid and enforceable.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1258 requires that association documents, with certain identified exceptions, 'shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…in writing'.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
records request
procedural requirements
Question
Do I have the right to look through all HOA documents whenever I want?
Short Answer
No, homeowners do not have an unlimited right to peruse all association documents at will.
Detailed Answer
While the law requires records to be reasonably available, it does not grant an unfettered right to browse all documents. Specific procedures must be followed, and certain documents may be withheld.
Alj Quote
Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258
Topic Tags
homeowner rights
limitations
Question
What happens if I cannot prove I sent a written request for records?
Short Answer
Your petition may be denied for failing to meet the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the homeowner claimed she was denied access, but the judge found she failed to establish a denial because the preponderance of the evidence showed she had not made the required written request.
Alj Quote
Further, the preponderance of the evidence showed that she has failed to make any such request in writing as the statute requires. … Therefore, at this time, Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
evidence
Question
Can the HOA charge me for copies of records?
Short Answer
Yes, the HOA is allowed to charge a fee for copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute permits the association to charge a fee per page for making copies of requested records, provided the request is for the purchase of copies.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
fees
copies
Question
Is the HOA allowed to withhold certain records from me?
Short Answer
Yes, specific categories of records, such as personal or privileged information, may be withheld.
Detailed Answer
The decision outlines statutory exceptions where books and records can be withheld, including privileged attorney communications, pending litigation, and personal financial or health records of individual members or employees.
Alj Quote
Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: … Personal, health or financial records of an individual member of the association…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)
Topic Tags
privacy
exemptions
Question
How long does the HOA have to fulfill my request for records?
Short Answer
The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute mandates a ten-business-day timeframe for the association to comply with a written request for either examining records or purchasing copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies … the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
timelines
deadlines
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, it is the petitioner's responsibility to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the specific statute.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222033-REL
Case Title
Roberta J Stevenson-McDermott vs. Four Palms Homeowners
Decision Date
2022-07-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Roberta J Stevenson-McDermott(petitioner)
Sean Embry(owner/witness) Provided letter of support (not admitted as evidence)
Lenor Embry(owner/witness) Provided letter of support (not admitted as evidence)
Philip Smith(owner/witness) Provided letter of support (not admitted as evidence)
c. serrano(clerical staff) Transmitted document for Petitioner
Respondent Side
Araceli Rodriguez(HOA attorney) Yuma Law Firm (inferred) Represented Four Palms Homeowners Association
Faye Burson(board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Vice President and witness (also listed as FA Buren)
Mario Salinas(board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Treasurer and witness (also listed as Mario Selenus)
Gilbert Sto(board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA President
Lesie Blessing(board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Vice President (2016 board) and Secretary (current board)
Gail Hall(board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Fifth member
Linia Ohn(former board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Received payments in 2018 (also listed as Lenia own)
Scott Hoser(former board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Fifth member (2016 board)
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(ADRE Commissioner) ADRE
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) ADRE Transmitted decision
Other Participants
Lisa Bon(former board member/owner) Secretary (2016 board); provided letter of support to Petitioner
The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petition filed by Stephen and Elizabeth Tosh against the Cimmarron Superstition HOA be dismissed, as the Petitioners failed to appear at the hearing set on their behalf and thus failed to meet the required burden of proof.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to appear at the hearing on June 24, 2022, and consequently did not present evidence to satisfy the burden of proof required under A.A.C. R2-19-119.
Key Issues & Findings
Petition Dismissal for Failure to Appear
Petition was dismissed because Petitioners failed to appear at the scheduled hearing and therefore presented no evidence to meet their burden of proof.
Orders: The petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Analytics Highlights
Topics: dismissal, failure to appear, burden of proof
Additional Citations:
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222035-REL Decision – 968715.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:27 (33.0 KB)
22F-H2222035-REL Decision – 969556.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:30 (48.5 KB)
22F-H2222035-REL Decision – 979812.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:33 (72.2 KB)
22F-H2222035-REL Decision – 989050.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:36 (39.3 KB)
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving the claims in an HOA dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden of proof lies with the party bringing the action (the Petitioners). If they fail to present evidence to support their petition, they cannot prevail.
Alj Quote
The burden of proof in this matter is on Petitioners. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
What happens if I fail to attend my scheduled administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The petition will likely be dismissed because you failed to meet the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
Attendance is mandatory to present evidence. If a petitioner fails to appear, they offer no evidence to support their claims. Consequently, the ALJ will find that they failed to meet the burden of proof and will order the petition dismissed.
Alj Quote
By failing to appear at the hearing, Petitioners failed to meet the required burden of proof. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.
Legal Basis
Failure to Prosecute / Default
Topic Tags
attendance
procedural requirements
dismissal
Question
Is there a grace period if I am late to my hearing?
Short Answer
The judge may allow a short grace period (e.g., 15 minutes), but if you do not appear or contact the office by then, the hearing proceeds without you.
Detailed Answer
In this specific instance, the hearing was scheduled for 9:00 AM, but the judge noted on the record that the hearing did not start until approximately 9:15 AM to allow for a grace period. Since no one appeared or contacted the office to request a delay, the dismissal proceeded.
Alj Quote
Although the hearing did not start until approximately 9:15 a.m., no one appeared on behalf of Petitioners through an attorney, or contact the OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed.
Legal Basis
Procedural Discretion
Topic Tags
attendance
procedural requirements
Question
What is the deadline for requesting a rehearing after a decision is issued?
Short Answer
You must file a request for rehearing with the Commissioner within 30 days of service of the order.
Detailed Answer
If a party disagrees with the ALJ's decision, they have a strict 30-day window from the date of service of the order to file a request for a rehearing with the Real Estate Commissioner.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
appeals
rehearing
deadlines
Question
Can I file an appeal or new documents directly with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) after the case is closed?
Short Answer
No, once the OAH has issued its decision, it generally cannot take further action or consider new documents.
Detailed Answer
Once the ALJ issues the final order or dismissal, the OAH loses jurisdiction to act further on the matter. Subsequent filings, such as notices of appeal or new evidence, will not be considered by the OAH.
Alj Quote
The documents will not be considered because no further action can be taken on the matter by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Legal Basis
Jurisdiction
Topic Tags
appeals
jurisdiction
procedural requirements
Question
Is the Administrative Law Judge's order automatically binding?
Short Answer
Yes, the order is binding on all parties unless a rehearing is officially granted.
Detailed Answer
The decision issued by the ALJ carries the weight of law and binds the parties involved immediately, subject only to the granting of a specific motion for rehearing.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
Topic Tags
legal standards
enforcement
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222035-REL
Case Title
Stephen and Elizabeth Tosh v. Cimmarron Superstition HOA
Decision Date
2022-06-24
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving the claims in an HOA dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden of proof lies with the party bringing the action (the Petitioners). If they fail to present evidence to support their petition, they cannot prevail.
Alj Quote
The burden of proof in this matter is on Petitioners. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
What happens if I fail to attend my scheduled administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The petition will likely be dismissed because you failed to meet the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
Attendance is mandatory to present evidence. If a petitioner fails to appear, they offer no evidence to support their claims. Consequently, the ALJ will find that they failed to meet the burden of proof and will order the petition dismissed.
Alj Quote
By failing to appear at the hearing, Petitioners failed to meet the required burden of proof. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.
Legal Basis
Failure to Prosecute / Default
Topic Tags
attendance
procedural requirements
dismissal
Question
Is there a grace period if I am late to my hearing?
Short Answer
The judge may allow a short grace period (e.g., 15 minutes), but if you do not appear or contact the office by then, the hearing proceeds without you.
Detailed Answer
In this specific instance, the hearing was scheduled for 9:00 AM, but the judge noted on the record that the hearing did not start until approximately 9:15 AM to allow for a grace period. Since no one appeared or contacted the office to request a delay, the dismissal proceeded.
Alj Quote
Although the hearing did not start until approximately 9:15 a.m., no one appeared on behalf of Petitioners through an attorney, or contact the OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed.
Legal Basis
Procedural Discretion
Topic Tags
attendance
procedural requirements
Question
What is the deadline for requesting a rehearing after a decision is issued?
Short Answer
You must file a request for rehearing with the Commissioner within 30 days of service of the order.
Detailed Answer
If a party disagrees with the ALJ's decision, they have a strict 30-day window from the date of service of the order to file a request for a rehearing with the Real Estate Commissioner.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
appeals
rehearing
deadlines
Question
Can I file an appeal or new documents directly with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) after the case is closed?
Short Answer
No, once the OAH has issued its decision, it generally cannot take further action or consider new documents.
Detailed Answer
Once the ALJ issues the final order or dismissal, the OAH loses jurisdiction to act further on the matter. Subsequent filings, such as notices of appeal or new evidence, will not be considered by the OAH.
Alj Quote
The documents will not be considered because no further action can be taken on the matter by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Legal Basis
Jurisdiction
Topic Tags
appeals
jurisdiction
procedural requirements
Question
Is the Administrative Law Judge's order automatically binding?
Short Answer
Yes, the order is binding on all parties unless a rehearing is officially granted.
Detailed Answer
The decision issued by the ALJ carries the weight of law and binds the parties involved immediately, subject only to the granting of a specific motion for rehearing.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
Topic Tags
legal standards
enforcement
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222035-REL
Case Title
Stephen and Elizabeth Tosh v. Cimmarron Superstition HOA
Decision Date
2022-06-24
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Stephen Tosh(petitioner)
Elizabeth Tosh(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Christopher Hanlon(HOA attorney) Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of Transmissions
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of Transmissions
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of Transmissions
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of Transmissions
c. serrano(staff) Transmitted documents
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) Transmitted Decision
Petitioner's petition was granted in part based on the violation of CC&Rs Article 10.9 (failure to provide specific steps to cure violations), resulting in a $500.00 payment to Petitioner. The petition was denied in part regarding alleged violations of CC&Rs Article 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10, as Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof on those issues.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof for the allegations concerning CC&Rs Article 4.5 (as it applies solely to construction activities), Article 10.1 (as subsequent letters stemmed from the same issues), and Article 10.10 (as Petitioner failed to allege or establish a violation of a specific law, ordinance or regulation).
Key Issues & Findings
The Association violated Article 10 Section 9 of the CC&Rs by failing to provide specific steps necessary to cure the violation with each violation notice that was sent as required under the CC&Rs
The Association violated Article 10.9 by issuing vague, overbroad, and nondescript violation warning letters that failed to provide the requisite specific steps Petitioner needed to take to satisfactorily remedy the alleged violation(s), such as covering exposed irrigation lines, removing a specific plant, or filling in holes.
Orders: Respondent is ORDERED to pay $500.00 to Petitioner, a pro rata portion of his filing fee, directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this ORDER.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
CC&Rs Article 10.9
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA enforcement, notice specificity, arbitrary and capricious, CC&R violation, landscaping, weeds
Additional Citations:
CC&Rs Article 4 Section 5
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 1
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 9
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 10
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 946305.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:41 (47.7 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 950368.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:45 (46.3 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 957992.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:50 (54.5 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 958039.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:55 (7.8 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 960467.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:00 (49.7 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 977411.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:03 (229.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 22F-H2221022-REL
Briefing Document: Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Wesley T Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association (No. 22F-H2221022-REL). The dispute centered on a series of six violation notices and associated fines issued by the Association to the Petitioner regarding the landscaping of his front yard between January and June 2021.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in partial favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Association violated its own governing documents. The core of the decision rested on the finding that the Association’s violation notices were “vague, overbroad, and nondescript,” failing to provide the specific steps necessary for the homeowner to cure the alleged violations as required by the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Critically, the ALJ also determined that the Association cited an inapplicable article of the CC&Rs (pertaining to construction activities) in all of its notices, when a different article (concerning landscaping maintenance) should have been used.
As a result, the Petitioner’s petition was granted in part, and the Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner $500.00, representing a pro rata portion of his filing fee. While the petition’s claims of improper fine progression and violations of state law were denied, the central finding regarding the insufficiency of the notices effectively invalidated the basis for the Association’s enforcement action.
Case Overview
Case Name
Wesley T Chadwick, Petitioner, vs. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association, Respondent
The conflict unfolded over approximately six months, followed by a period of appeals and the formal administrative hearing.
Jan 25, 2021
Petitioner receives 1st Notice citing Article 4.5 for weeds. Directive is “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS.”
Feb 09, 2021
Petitioner receives 2nd Notice, identical to the first, with an added $50.00 fine.
Feb 10, 2021
Petitioner hires contractors to remove dead cacti (350)andweeds(100).
Feb 25, 2021
Petitioner receives 3rd Notice, identical to the first two, with an added $100.00 fine.
Mar 18, 2021
Petitioner and the Association’s property management company (OPM) reach an agreement via email: the $100 fine is waived in exchange for payment of the $50 fine, provided no new weed violations occur within 90 days.
Mar 23, 2021
Petitioner receives 4th Notice (dated March 15), which now includes the directive “fix rock area” and a $100.00 fine.
Mar 30, 2021
Petitioner receives 5th Notice, identical to the fourth, with another $100.00 fine.
Apr 05, 2021
In an email exchange, OPM manager Danielle Miglio provides a photo with circled areas of concern, identifying exposed irrigation lines, holes, weeds, and an overgrown plant for the first time with specificity.
May 2021
Petitioner submits a formal request to the Board of Directors to review the case and waive fines.
June 2021
Petitioner is informed his request was denied by the Board.
June 16, 2021
Petitioner receives 6th Notice, which reverts to “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and adds a $100.00 fine.
June 22, 2021
OPM informs Petitioner the Board would not waive fees until the violation is closed, but could remove $75 after three months of compliance.
Sep 23, 2021
Petitioner appears at a Board meeting to appeal; his request is again denied.
Oct 14, 2021
Petitioner files his formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
May 25, 2022
An all-day evidentiary hearing is held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
June 14, 2022
The Administrative Law Judge issues a final decision.
Core Allegations and Arguments
The hearing addressed four specific issues raised in the Petitioner’s petition, which formed the basis of the legal arguments.
Petitioner’s Position (Wesley T Chadwick)
1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Lack of Specificity): The violation notices were fundamentally deficient because they failed to provide “specific steps which must be taken… to cure the violation.” Directives like “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were overly broad. The entire front yard consists of rock, making “fix rock area” ambiguous. The Association only provided clarity with a circled photograph after issuing multiple notices and fines.
2. Violation of CC&R Article 4.5 (Exceeding Authority): The Association exceeded its authority by issuing violations for issues not explicitly covered by the language it quoted in the notices, such as exposed irrigation lines or a specific plant which was not a weed. The notices selectively quoted the portion of Article 4.5 related to weeds and debris, omitting the broader “unsightly” language, which misled the Petitioner as to the nature of the violation.
3. Violation of CC&R Article 10.1 (Improper Fine Progression): The introduction of a new issue, “fix rock area,” in the fourth notice constituted a new violation. As such, it should have been preceded by a warning notice, not an immediate $100 fine as part of a continuing violation.
4. Violation of CC&R Article 10.10 (Arbitrary and Capricious Enforcement): The Association enforced its rules selectively and arbitrarily. This was evidenced during the hearing when the Board’s Vice President, Cynthia Ecker, admitted under oath that her own property had exposed irrigation lines visible from the yard, yet she had never received a violation notice.
Respondent’s Position (Entrada Mountainside HOA)
1. Broad Discretionary Authority: CC&R Article 4.5 grants the Association’s Architectural Committee the “exclusive right to determine the existence of any nuisance” and provides wide discretion to enforce against any condition deemed “unsanitary, unsightly, offensive, or detrimental.”
2. Continuing Nature of the Violation: The entire series of violations stemmed from a single, ongoing issue of poor landscape maintenance. The Petitioner created the “debris”—the hole and exposed irrigation lines—by failing to complete the remediation after removing the cacti. This was a continuation of the original violation, not a new one, and thus did not require a new warning notice.
3. Petitioner’s Responsibility: The Petitioner failed to use his right to appeal the initial notices and only engaged with the Association after three notices had been issued. He admitted to not having reviewed the Association’s official landscape guidelines. The onus was on him to seek clarification if he found the notices unclear.
4. Good Faith Efforts to Comply: The Association manager went “above and beyond” by sending a detailed photo with circled areas, a measure not typically taken. The Association also demonstrated a willingness to work with the Petitioner on fines by waiving the initial $100 fine and later offering a potential $75 reduction.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision focused on the procedural adequacy and legal foundation of the Association’s violation notices.
Final Ruling
The petition was GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
• Granted: The claim that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9 by failing to provide specific notice was upheld.
• Denied: The claims that the Association violated CC&R Articles 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10 were not sustained.
Key Findings and Rationale
1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Notice of Violation): This was the central finding in the Petitioner’s favor. The ALJ concluded the Association failed its contractual obligation to provide adequate notice.
◦ Direct Quote from Decision: “Here, what the Association did was essentially tell Petitioner to ‘fix this’ without telling him exactly what needed fixing and affording him a reasonable opportunity to comply.”
◦ The directives “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were deemed insufficient to inform a person of ordinary prudence of the specific actions required, such as covering irrigation lines or removing a particular plant.
◦ The fact that the Association later had to provide a photograph with “circled with specific areas of concern after issuing multiple warning letters” was cited as evidence that the initial notices were inadequate.
2. Misapplication of CC&R Article 4.5 (Nuisances): In a critical finding, the ALJ determined that the Association had cited the wrong governing article in all six of its notices.
◦ The decision states: “It is clear from the record that CC&Rs Article 4.5 is inapplicable as the regulation pertains solely to construction activities… CC&Rs Article 4.4 [Maintenance of Landscaping] should have been used by Respondent.”
◦ This finding invalidated the legal basis for every notice issued to the Petitioner.
3. Ruling on Other Allegations:
◦ Article 10.1 (Enforcement): The ALJ found no violation, concluding that notices 2-6 all “stemmed from the same issue(s)” raised in the first letter and were not new violations requiring a separate warning.
◦ Article 10.10 (Laws, Ordinances and Regulations): The ALJ found no violation because the “Petitioner failed to allege that Respondent violated a specific law, ordinance or regulation.” This indicates the claim of arbitrary enforcement was not sustained on a technical basis, despite the testimony from the Board’s Vice President.
Final Order
Based on the finding that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9:
• IT IS ORDERED that Respondent pay $500.00 to Petitioner; a pro rata portion of his filing fee, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the ORDER.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Wesley T Chadwick(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Nick Eicher(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Respondent
