Category Archives: HOA Cases

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

The Association unreasonably withheld approval for Marc Archer's two-story garage addition, thereby violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3). The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the design and refund the $500 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

The Association unreasonably withheld preliminary approval for the Petitioner's January 2020 two-story garage addition request. The ALJ determined that none of the three reasons provided by the Association for the denial were reasonable.

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Decision Documents

21F-H2121040-REL-RHG Decision – 980535.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:29:50 (46.7 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL-RHG Decision – 983516.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:29:53 (38.4 KB)

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

The Association unreasonably withheld approval for Marc Archer's two-story garage addition, thereby violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3). The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the design and refund the $500 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

The Association unreasonably withheld preliminary approval for the Petitioner's January 2020 two-story garage addition request. The ALJ determined that none of the three reasons provided by the Association for the denial were reasonable.

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2




Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121040-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key themes, evidence, and legal proceedings in the administrative case Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc. (No. 21F-H2121040-REL). The central conflict revolves around Petitioner Marc Archer’s proposal for a two-story addition to his home, which was denied by the Respondent, the PMPE Community Association’s Architectural Committee (AC). Mr. Archer alleged this denial was an unreasonable withholding of approval, violating Arizona statute § 33-1817(B)(3).

The case is marked by a protracted history, including a previous denial for a different one-story design in 2019 and an earlier ruling in this matter (December 2020) that found the Association had violated its own procedures by not providing a written reason for its April 2020 denial. This procedural failure led to a formal denial letter on December 30, 2020, which became the central focus of the subsequent hearings.

The Association cited three primary reasons for the denial: 1) the addition lacked harmony with the existing structure, resembling a “large box”; 2) the proposal to use painted roof tiles was unacceptable; and 3) the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat expanses.

Mr. Archer countered with extensive evidence, including testimony from building industry experts and a registered architect, arguing that the design was harmonious, incorporated numerous architectural details found on the existing house, and that the Association’s objections were unfounded and inconsistent. The proceedings revealed significant confusion stemming from the Association’s denial letter, which conflated mandatory reasons for denial with what it later claimed were “advisory only” suggestions.

Ultimately, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden ruled in favor of Mr. Archer. The March 30, 2022 decision concluded that the Association’s reasons for denial were unreasonable and not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the project and reimburse Mr. Archer’s $500 filing fee. A subsequent request for rehearing by the Association was withdrawn, making the ALJ’s decision final.

1. Case Overview

Case Number

21F-H2121040-REL

Petitioner

Marc Archer

Respondent

PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Core Allegation

The Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3), which states, “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.”

Subject of Dispute

The denial of Mr. Archer’s January 2020 preliminary submittal for a two-story garage addition to his home at 8619 North Place, Phoenix, AZ.

2. Detailed Procedural History

The dispute has a multi-year history involving multiple architectural proposals and administrative hearings.

• 2019 Denial (One-Story Design): Mr. Archer first sought approval for a one-story garage with a flat roof. The Association denied final approval. In a decision dated September 3, 2019 (Docket 19F-H1919063-REL), an ALJ concluded the Association had not violated the statute, noting the architectural rules favored pitched roofs and the structure would be visible above a nine-foot wall.

• January 2020 Submittal (Two-Story Design): Mr. Archer submitted the current proposal for a two-story garage addition.

• April 10, 2020 Denial (No Written Basis): The Association’s Architectural Committee (AC) denied the proposal during a conference call but failed to provide a written basis for the denial, as required by its own rules.

• December 3, 2020 ALJ Decision (Procedural Violation): In response to a petition filed by Mr. Archer, an ALJ determined the Association had violated its CC&Rs and the state statute by not providing a written reason for denial. The decision explicitly noted it was not a finding on the merits of the architectural design itself.

• December 30, 2020 Written Denial: The Association issued a formal written response outlining its reasons for denial. This document’s confusing structure, with separate sections for “reasons for denial” and “comments… for resubmittal,” became a major point of contention.

• 2021-2022 Hearings: Hearings on the reasonableness of the denial were held before ALJ Thomas Shedden on July 29, 2021, October 22, 2021, and January 31, 2022.

• March 30, 2022 ALJ Decision: ALJ Shedden found in favor of Mr. Archer, ruling the Association’s denial was unreasonable.

• July 13, 2022 Finality: The Association requested a rehearing but subsequently withdrew the request, rendering the March 30, 2022 decision final.

3. The Association’s Rationale for Denial

The Association’s denial, as articulated in the December 30, 2020 letter and testimony from its president, Keith Kauffman, was based on three main points.

3.1 Lack of Harmony and Integration

The primary objection was that the addition failed to “harmonize with the current building structure” as required by the Architectural Rules (ARs).

• Argument: The Association contended Mr. Archer was “attaching a large two-story ‘box’ to [his] home and not incorporating the addition into the current structure.”

• Kauffman’s Testimony: Mr. Kauffman elaborated that the addition was akin to “building a structure and then attaching that structure instead of… building an addition to his home.” Key issues he identified were that the new roofline did not blend into the existing second-story roof and that the structure connected to the house at only two points. The committee felt it would not look like it “was there from the beginning.”

3.2 Unacceptable Painted Roof Tiles

The second reason for denial was that Mr. Archer’s proposal to paint new roof tiles to match the existing roof was unacceptable.

• Argument: According to the letter, “painted roof tiles are not acceptable and are not identified as under section 4.4 of the archetypal rule.”

• Kauffman’s Testimony: Mr. Kauffman argued that because AR Section 4.4 does not explicitly state that painted tiles are acceptable, they are therefore not acceptable. He stated, “[The committee] didn’t feel that in this kind of development… that is not an acceptable… way to… tile one’s roof.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

The final reason was that the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat wall expanses.

• Argument: The denial stated, “There needs to be architectural elements per pop out in windows etc. Prim to break up expanses and add ‘architectural expression’ to the addition as outlined in 4.2.”

• Testimony: Both Mr. Kauffman and community manager Gail Zigler testified that the proposed windows were not appropriate because they were not the same size as other windows on the house.

4. The Petitioner’s Rebuttal and Evidence

Mr. Archer presented a comprehensive case to counter each of the Association’s points, supported by his own testimony and that of multiple expert witnesses.

4.1 Design Harmony and Architectural Details

Mr. Archer argued that his design was meticulously planned to be harmonious with the existing home.

• Existing Elements: He demonstrated that the proposed addition incorporated numerous features already present on his house, including stucco pop-outs, soffit details, and eave designs. During cross-examination of Mr. Kauffman, Mr. Archer used photographs to establish that pop-outs, which the committee initially claimed were not present elsewhere on the house, did in fact exist near the bay windows.

• Roofline: He testified that staggering the rooflines adds aesthetic appeal and that tying the new roof directly into the existing second-story roof was not aesthetically viable.

• Expert Opinion:

◦ Greg Hancock, a builder of 25,000-30,000 homes, testified that the proposed addition is “not non-harmonious.”

◦ Dan Earlie, with 47 years in homebuilding, opined that Mr. Archer “went overboard in an effort to harmonize the addition.”

◦ Thomas Bragg, a registered architect, concluded in a sealed affidavit that the proposal was in compliance with the ARs, noting the design “matched the existing architecture” and was “varied and does not present any large unbroken wall areas with the blended details.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

Mr. Archer presented evidence that the objections regarding tiles and windows were unreasonable.

• Painted Tiles: He provided evidence that painting roof tiles is no different than painting stucco, as both are cement-based products. Furthermore, he noted that the ARs do not contain any prohibition on painting tiles, whereas other materials like vinyl siding are explicitly prohibited. During the hearings, he also indicated he may have located matching tiles, potentially rendering the issue moot.

• Window Sizes: Evidence showed that window sizes on Mr. Archer’s existing house, as well as on other houses in the community, already vary.

4.3 Witness Testimony

In addition to the building experts, a neighbor provided testimony supporting Mr. Archer’s position.

• Dr. Victor Zach, who lives across the street, testified that he is not opposed to the proposed addition.

5. Key Hearing Dynamics and Controversies

5.1 The Confounding Denial Letter

The structure of the December 30, 2020 letter was a central issue.

• Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of six bullet points was “advisory only” and intended to provide guidance.

• However, this section contained two of the three official reasons for denial (roof tiles and architectural elements) and included the statement that the addition “will be limited to a single story,” which Mr. Kauffman later admitted under questioning was not a firm requirement.

• The ALJ noted this created significant confusion: “At the hearing, Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of bullets was advisory only, which was not clear to Mr. Archer until the hearing.”

5.2 Irrelevant Considerations by the Committee

Evidence from a previous hearing revealed that the AC’s decision-making process was influenced by factors outside the scope of architectural review.

• A prior ALJ decision found that during the April 10, 2020 conference call, “at least two members expressed their concerns with how Petitioner was planning to use the new addition. Specifically, the members were concerned Petitioner was going to accumulate more ‘junk’.”

• In the current hearing, Mr. Archer played an audio recording where a prior judge asked Mr. Kauffman, “Is there anything in the architectural guidelines that says how a structure is going to be used should affect whether or not it’s approved?”

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

Mr. Kauffman repeatedly testified that the approval process is intended to be collaborative, yet acknowledged that no discussions occurred after the April 2020 denial. The Association’s stance was that Mr. Archer failed to engage, while Mr. Archer felt he was facing a “moving target.” The ALJ highlighted the lack of clarity from the Association, which hindered any potential collaboration. The judge expressed surprise at the need to clarify that the existing house must be considered in the review:

“I don’t see how you could possibly make a decision without taking the house into consideration. And I apologize… that just strikes me as so self-evident that… I’m surprised we we’ve had to have it out.” – ALJ Thomas Shedden

6. Final Adjudication and Outcome

In his March 30, 2022 decision, ALJ Thomas Shedden ruled definitively in favor of the Petitioner, Marc Archer.

6.1 Conclusions of Law

The decision found that Mr. Archer had met his burden of proof to show the Association unreasonably withheld approval. The ALJ systematically dismantled each of the Association’s reasons for denial:

1. Harmony: “There was no substantial evidence adduced showing that Mr. Archer’s proposed addition will dominate or sharply contrast with the community.” The judge noted that other houses have more than one roofline, making the proposed addition consistent with the neighborhood.

2. Painted Roof Tiles: “The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”

3. Architectural Expression: “Mr. Archer provided credible evidence showing that the proposed addition will provide architectural expression as required by AR section 4.2.”

6.2 Final Order

Based on these conclusions, the Judge issued a two-part order:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Marc Archer is the prevailing party in this matter and that the Association should approve his preliminary design;

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Association must pay to Mr. Archer Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of this Order.

The Association’s subsequent withdrawal of its rehearing request finalized this decision.


Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

The Association unreasonably withheld approval for Marc Archer's two-story garage addition, thereby violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3). The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the design and refund the $500 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

The Association unreasonably withheld preliminary approval for the Petitioner's January 2020 two-story garage addition request. The ALJ determined that none of the three reasons provided by the Association for the denial were reasonable.

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2




Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121040-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key themes, evidence, and legal proceedings in the administrative case Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc. (No. 21F-H2121040-REL). The central conflict revolves around Petitioner Marc Archer’s proposal for a two-story addition to his home, which was denied by the Respondent, the PMPE Community Association’s Architectural Committee (AC). Mr. Archer alleged this denial was an unreasonable withholding of approval, violating Arizona statute § 33-1817(B)(3).

The case is marked by a protracted history, including a previous denial for a different one-story design in 2019 and an earlier ruling in this matter (December 2020) that found the Association had violated its own procedures by not providing a written reason for its April 2020 denial. This procedural failure led to a formal denial letter on December 30, 2020, which became the central focus of the subsequent hearings.

The Association cited three primary reasons for the denial: 1) the addition lacked harmony with the existing structure, resembling a “large box”; 2) the proposal to use painted roof tiles was unacceptable; and 3) the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat expanses.

Mr. Archer countered with extensive evidence, including testimony from building industry experts and a registered architect, arguing that the design was harmonious, incorporated numerous architectural details found on the existing house, and that the Association’s objections were unfounded and inconsistent. The proceedings revealed significant confusion stemming from the Association’s denial letter, which conflated mandatory reasons for denial with what it later claimed were “advisory only” suggestions.

Ultimately, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden ruled in favor of Mr. Archer. The March 30, 2022 decision concluded that the Association’s reasons for denial were unreasonable and not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the project and reimburse Mr. Archer’s $500 filing fee. A subsequent request for rehearing by the Association was withdrawn, making the ALJ’s decision final.

1. Case Overview

Case Number

21F-H2121040-REL

Petitioner

Marc Archer

Respondent

PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Core Allegation

The Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3), which states, “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.”

Subject of Dispute

The denial of Mr. Archer’s January 2020 preliminary submittal for a two-story garage addition to his home at 8619 North Place, Phoenix, AZ.

2. Detailed Procedural History

The dispute has a multi-year history involving multiple architectural proposals and administrative hearings.

• 2019 Denial (One-Story Design): Mr. Archer first sought approval for a one-story garage with a flat roof. The Association denied final approval. In a decision dated September 3, 2019 (Docket 19F-H1919063-REL), an ALJ concluded the Association had not violated the statute, noting the architectural rules favored pitched roofs and the structure would be visible above a nine-foot wall.

• January 2020 Submittal (Two-Story Design): Mr. Archer submitted the current proposal for a two-story garage addition.

• April 10, 2020 Denial (No Written Basis): The Association’s Architectural Committee (AC) denied the proposal during a conference call but failed to provide a written basis for the denial, as required by its own rules.

• December 3, 2020 ALJ Decision (Procedural Violation): In response to a petition filed by Mr. Archer, an ALJ determined the Association had violated its CC&Rs and the state statute by not providing a written reason for denial. The decision explicitly noted it was not a finding on the merits of the architectural design itself.

• December 30, 2020 Written Denial: The Association issued a formal written response outlining its reasons for denial. This document’s confusing structure, with separate sections for “reasons for denial” and “comments… for resubmittal,” became a major point of contention.

• 2021-2022 Hearings: Hearings on the reasonableness of the denial were held before ALJ Thomas Shedden on July 29, 2021, October 22, 2021, and January 31, 2022.

• March 30, 2022 ALJ Decision: ALJ Shedden found in favor of Mr. Archer, ruling the Association’s denial was unreasonable.

• July 13, 2022 Finality: The Association requested a rehearing but subsequently withdrew the request, rendering the March 30, 2022 decision final.

3. The Association’s Rationale for Denial

The Association’s denial, as articulated in the December 30, 2020 letter and testimony from its president, Keith Kauffman, was based on three main points.

3.1 Lack of Harmony and Integration

The primary objection was that the addition failed to “harmonize with the current building structure” as required by the Architectural Rules (ARs).

• Argument: The Association contended Mr. Archer was “attaching a large two-story ‘box’ to [his] home and not incorporating the addition into the current structure.”

• Kauffman’s Testimony: Mr. Kauffman elaborated that the addition was akin to “building a structure and then attaching that structure instead of… building an addition to his home.” Key issues he identified were that the new roofline did not blend into the existing second-story roof and that the structure connected to the house at only two points. The committee felt it would not look like it “was there from the beginning.”

3.2 Unacceptable Painted Roof Tiles

The second reason for denial was that Mr. Archer’s proposal to paint new roof tiles to match the existing roof was unacceptable.

• Argument: According to the letter, “painted roof tiles are not acceptable and are not identified as under section 4.4 of the archetypal rule.”

• Kauffman’s Testimony: Mr. Kauffman argued that because AR Section 4.4 does not explicitly state that painted tiles are acceptable, they are therefore not acceptable. He stated, “[The committee] didn’t feel that in this kind of development… that is not an acceptable… way to… tile one’s roof.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

The final reason was that the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat wall expanses.

• Argument: The denial stated, “There needs to be architectural elements per pop out in windows etc. Prim to break up expanses and add ‘architectural expression’ to the addition as outlined in 4.2.”

• Testimony: Both Mr. Kauffman and community manager Gail Zigler testified that the proposed windows were not appropriate because they were not the same size as other windows on the house.

4. The Petitioner’s Rebuttal and Evidence

Mr. Archer presented a comprehensive case to counter each of the Association’s points, supported by his own testimony and that of multiple expert witnesses.

4.1 Design Harmony and Architectural Details

Mr. Archer argued that his design was meticulously planned to be harmonious with the existing home.

• Existing Elements: He demonstrated that the proposed addition incorporated numerous features already present on his house, including stucco pop-outs, soffit details, and eave designs. During cross-examination of Mr. Kauffman, Mr. Archer used photographs to establish that pop-outs, which the committee initially claimed were not present elsewhere on the house, did in fact exist near the bay windows.

• Roofline: He testified that staggering the rooflines adds aesthetic appeal and that tying the new roof directly into the existing second-story roof was not aesthetically viable.

• Expert Opinion:

◦ Greg Hancock, a builder of 25,000-30,000 homes, testified that the proposed addition is “not non-harmonious.”

◦ Dan Earlie, with 47 years in homebuilding, opined that Mr. Archer “went overboard in an effort to harmonize the addition.”

◦ Thomas Bragg, a registered architect, concluded in a sealed affidavit that the proposal was in compliance with the ARs, noting the design “matched the existing architecture” and was “varied and does not present any large unbroken wall areas with the blended details.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

Mr. Archer presented evidence that the objections regarding tiles and windows were unreasonable.

• Painted Tiles: He provided evidence that painting roof tiles is no different than painting stucco, as both are cement-based products. Furthermore, he noted that the ARs do not contain any prohibition on painting tiles, whereas other materials like vinyl siding are explicitly prohibited. During the hearings, he also indicated he may have located matching tiles, potentially rendering the issue moot.

• Window Sizes: Evidence showed that window sizes on Mr. Archer’s existing house, as well as on other houses in the community, already vary.

4.3 Witness Testimony

In addition to the building experts, a neighbor provided testimony supporting Mr. Archer’s position.

• Dr. Victor Zach, who lives across the street, testified that he is not opposed to the proposed addition.

5. Key Hearing Dynamics and Controversies

5.1 The Confounding Denial Letter

The structure of the December 30, 2020 letter was a central issue.

• Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of six bullet points was “advisory only” and intended to provide guidance.

• However, this section contained two of the three official reasons for denial (roof tiles and architectural elements) and included the statement that the addition “will be limited to a single story,” which Mr. Kauffman later admitted under questioning was not a firm requirement.

• The ALJ noted this created significant confusion: “At the hearing, Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of bullets was advisory only, which was not clear to Mr. Archer until the hearing.”

5.2 Irrelevant Considerations by the Committee

Evidence from a previous hearing revealed that the AC’s decision-making process was influenced by factors outside the scope of architectural review.

• A prior ALJ decision found that during the April 10, 2020 conference call, “at least two members expressed their concerns with how Petitioner was planning to use the new addition. Specifically, the members were concerned Petitioner was going to accumulate more ‘junk’.”

• In the current hearing, Mr. Archer played an audio recording where a prior judge asked Mr. Kauffman, “Is there anything in the architectural guidelines that says how a structure is going to be used should affect whether or not it’s approved?”

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

Mr. Kauffman repeatedly testified that the approval process is intended to be collaborative, yet acknowledged that no discussions occurred after the April 2020 denial. The Association’s stance was that Mr. Archer failed to engage, while Mr. Archer felt he was facing a “moving target.” The ALJ highlighted the lack of clarity from the Association, which hindered any potential collaboration. The judge expressed surprise at the need to clarify that the existing house must be considered in the review:

“I don’t see how you could possibly make a decision without taking the house into consideration. And I apologize… that just strikes me as so self-evident that… I’m surprised we we’ve had to have it out.” – ALJ Thomas Shedden

6. Final Adjudication and Outcome

In his March 30, 2022 decision, ALJ Thomas Shedden ruled definitively in favor of the Petitioner, Marc Archer.

6.1 Conclusions of Law

The decision found that Mr. Archer had met his burden of proof to show the Association unreasonably withheld approval. The ALJ systematically dismantled each of the Association’s reasons for denial:

1. Harmony: “There was no substantial evidence adduced showing that Mr. Archer’s proposed addition will dominate or sharply contrast with the community.” The judge noted that other houses have more than one roofline, making the proposed addition consistent with the neighborhood.

2. Painted Roof Tiles: “The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”

3. Architectural Expression: “Mr. Archer provided credible evidence showing that the proposed addition will provide architectural expression as required by AR section 4.2.”

6.2 Final Order

Based on these conclusions, the Judge issued a two-part order:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Marc Archer is the prevailing party in this matter and that the Association should approve his preliminary design;

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Association must pay to Mr. Archer Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of this Order.

The Association’s subsequent withdrawal of its rehearing request finalized this decision.


Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

The Association unreasonably withheld approval for Marc Archer's two-story garage addition, thereby violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3). The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the design and refund the $500 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

The Association unreasonably withheld preliminary approval for the Petitioner's January 2020 two-story garage addition request. The ALJ determined that none of the three reasons provided by the Association for the denial were reasonable.

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2




Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121040-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key themes, evidence, and legal proceedings in the administrative case Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc. (No. 21F-H2121040-REL). The central conflict revolves around Petitioner Marc Archer’s proposal for a two-story addition to his home, which was denied by the Respondent, the PMPE Community Association’s Architectural Committee (AC). Mr. Archer alleged this denial was an unreasonable withholding of approval, violating Arizona statute § 33-1817(B)(3).

The case is marked by a protracted history, including a previous denial for a different one-story design in 2019 and an earlier ruling in this matter (December 2020) that found the Association had violated its own procedures by not providing a written reason for its April 2020 denial. This procedural failure led to a formal denial letter on December 30, 2020, which became the central focus of the subsequent hearings.

The Association cited three primary reasons for the denial: 1) the addition lacked harmony with the existing structure, resembling a “large box”; 2) the proposal to use painted roof tiles was unacceptable; and 3) the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat expanses.

Mr. Archer countered with extensive evidence, including testimony from building industry experts and a registered architect, arguing that the design was harmonious, incorporated numerous architectural details found on the existing house, and that the Association’s objections were unfounded and inconsistent. The proceedings revealed significant confusion stemming from the Association’s denial letter, which conflated mandatory reasons for denial with what it later claimed were “advisory only” suggestions.

Ultimately, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden ruled in favor of Mr. Archer. The March 30, 2022 decision concluded that the Association’s reasons for denial were unreasonable and not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the project and reimburse Mr. Archer’s $500 filing fee. A subsequent request for rehearing by the Association was withdrawn, making the ALJ’s decision final.

1. Case Overview

Case Number

21F-H2121040-REL

Petitioner

Marc Archer

Respondent

PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Core Allegation

The Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3), which states, “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.”

Subject of Dispute

The denial of Mr. Archer’s January 2020 preliminary submittal for a two-story garage addition to his home at 8619 North Place, Phoenix, AZ.

2. Detailed Procedural History

The dispute has a multi-year history involving multiple architectural proposals and administrative hearings.

• 2019 Denial (One-Story Design): Mr. Archer first sought approval for a one-story garage with a flat roof. The Association denied final approval. In a decision dated September 3, 2019 (Docket 19F-H1919063-REL), an ALJ concluded the Association had not violated the statute, noting the architectural rules favored pitched roofs and the structure would be visible above a nine-foot wall.

• January 2020 Submittal (Two-Story Design): Mr. Archer submitted the current proposal for a two-story garage addition.

• April 10, 2020 Denial (No Written Basis): The Association’s Architectural Committee (AC) denied the proposal during a conference call but failed to provide a written basis for the denial, as required by its own rules.

• December 3, 2020 ALJ Decision (Procedural Violation): In response to a petition filed by Mr. Archer, an ALJ determined the Association had violated its CC&Rs and the state statute by not providing a written reason for denial. The decision explicitly noted it was not a finding on the merits of the architectural design itself.

• December 30, 2020 Written Denial: The Association issued a formal written response outlining its reasons for denial. This document’s confusing structure, with separate sections for “reasons for denial” and “comments… for resubmittal,” became a major point of contention.

• 2021-2022 Hearings: Hearings on the reasonableness of the denial were held before ALJ Thomas Shedden on July 29, 2021, October 22, 2021, and January 31, 2022.

• March 30, 2022 ALJ Decision: ALJ Shedden found in favor of Mr. Archer, ruling the Association’s denial was unreasonable.

• July 13, 2022 Finality: The Association requested a rehearing but subsequently withdrew the request, rendering the March 30, 2022 decision final.

3. The Association’s Rationale for Denial

The Association’s denial, as articulated in the December 30, 2020 letter and testimony from its president, Keith Kauffman, was based on three main points.

3.1 Lack of Harmony and Integration

The primary objection was that the addition failed to “harmonize with the current building structure” as required by the Architectural Rules (ARs).

• Argument: The Association contended Mr. Archer was “attaching a large two-story ‘box’ to [his] home and not incorporating the addition into the current structure.”

• Kauffman’s Testimony: Mr. Kauffman elaborated that the addition was akin to “building a structure and then attaching that structure instead of… building an addition to his home.” Key issues he identified were that the new roofline did not blend into the existing second-story roof and that the structure connected to the house at only two points. The committee felt it would not look like it “was there from the beginning.”

3.2 Unacceptable Painted Roof Tiles

The second reason for denial was that Mr. Archer’s proposal to paint new roof tiles to match the existing roof was unacceptable.

• Argument: According to the letter, “painted roof tiles are not acceptable and are not identified as under section 4.4 of the archetypal rule.”

• Kauffman’s Testimony: Mr. Kauffman argued that because AR Section 4.4 does not explicitly state that painted tiles are acceptable, they are therefore not acceptable. He stated, “[The committee] didn’t feel that in this kind of development… that is not an acceptable… way to… tile one’s roof.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

The final reason was that the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat wall expanses.

• Argument: The denial stated, “There needs to be architectural elements per pop out in windows etc. Prim to break up expanses and add ‘architectural expression’ to the addition as outlined in 4.2.”

• Testimony: Both Mr. Kauffman and community manager Gail Zigler testified that the proposed windows were not appropriate because they were not the same size as other windows on the house.

4. The Petitioner’s Rebuttal and Evidence

Mr. Archer presented a comprehensive case to counter each of the Association’s points, supported by his own testimony and that of multiple expert witnesses.

4.1 Design Harmony and Architectural Details

Mr. Archer argued that his design was meticulously planned to be harmonious with the existing home.

• Existing Elements: He demonstrated that the proposed addition incorporated numerous features already present on his house, including stucco pop-outs, soffit details, and eave designs. During cross-examination of Mr. Kauffman, Mr. Archer used photographs to establish that pop-outs, which the committee initially claimed were not present elsewhere on the house, did in fact exist near the bay windows.

• Roofline: He testified that staggering the rooflines adds aesthetic appeal and that tying the new roof directly into the existing second-story roof was not aesthetically viable.

• Expert Opinion:

◦ Greg Hancock, a builder of 25,000-30,000 homes, testified that the proposed addition is “not non-harmonious.”

◦ Dan Earlie, with 47 years in homebuilding, opined that Mr. Archer “went overboard in an effort to harmonize the addition.”

◦ Thomas Bragg, a registered architect, concluded in a sealed affidavit that the proposal was in compliance with the ARs, noting the design “matched the existing architecture” and was “varied and does not present any large unbroken wall areas with the blended details.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

Mr. Archer presented evidence that the objections regarding tiles and windows were unreasonable.

• Painted Tiles: He provided evidence that painting roof tiles is no different than painting stucco, as both are cement-based products. Furthermore, he noted that the ARs do not contain any prohibition on painting tiles, whereas other materials like vinyl siding are explicitly prohibited. During the hearings, he also indicated he may have located matching tiles, potentially rendering the issue moot.

• Window Sizes: Evidence showed that window sizes on Mr. Archer’s existing house, as well as on other houses in the community, already vary.

4.3 Witness Testimony

In addition to the building experts, a neighbor provided testimony supporting Mr. Archer’s position.

• Dr. Victor Zach, who lives across the street, testified that he is not opposed to the proposed addition.

5. Key Hearing Dynamics and Controversies

5.1 The Confounding Denial Letter

The structure of the December 30, 2020 letter was a central issue.

• Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of six bullet points was “advisory only” and intended to provide guidance.

• However, this section contained two of the three official reasons for denial (roof tiles and architectural elements) and included the statement that the addition “will be limited to a single story,” which Mr. Kauffman later admitted under questioning was not a firm requirement.

• The ALJ noted this created significant confusion: “At the hearing, Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of bullets was advisory only, which was not clear to Mr. Archer until the hearing.”

5.2 Irrelevant Considerations by the Committee

Evidence from a previous hearing revealed that the AC’s decision-making process was influenced by factors outside the scope of architectural review.

• A prior ALJ decision found that during the April 10, 2020 conference call, “at least two members expressed their concerns with how Petitioner was planning to use the new addition. Specifically, the members were concerned Petitioner was going to accumulate more ‘junk’.”

• In the current hearing, Mr. Archer played an audio recording where a prior judge asked Mr. Kauffman, “Is there anything in the architectural guidelines that says how a structure is going to be used should affect whether or not it’s approved?”

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

Mr. Kauffman repeatedly testified that the approval process is intended to be collaborative, yet acknowledged that no discussions occurred after the April 2020 denial. The Association’s stance was that Mr. Archer failed to engage, while Mr. Archer felt he was facing a “moving target.” The ALJ highlighted the lack of clarity from the Association, which hindered any potential collaboration. The judge expressed surprise at the need to clarify that the existing house must be considered in the review:

“I don’t see how you could possibly make a decision without taking the house into consideration. And I apologize… that just strikes me as so self-evident that… I’m surprised we we’ve had to have it out.” – ALJ Thomas Shedden

6. Final Adjudication and Outcome

In his March 30, 2022 decision, ALJ Thomas Shedden ruled definitively in favor of the Petitioner, Marc Archer.

6.1 Conclusions of Law

The decision found that Mr. Archer had met his burden of proof to show the Association unreasonably withheld approval. The ALJ systematically dismantled each of the Association’s reasons for denial:

1. Harmony: “There was no substantial evidence adduced showing that Mr. Archer’s proposed addition will dominate or sharply contrast with the community.” The judge noted that other houses have more than one roofline, making the proposed addition consistent with the neighborhood.

2. Painted Roof Tiles: “The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”

3. Architectural Expression: “Mr. Archer provided credible evidence showing that the proposed addition will provide architectural expression as required by AR section 4.2.”

6.2 Final Order

Based on these conclusions, the Judge issued a two-part order:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Marc Archer is the prevailing party in this matter and that the Association should approve his preliminary design;

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Association must pay to Mr. Archer Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of this Order.

The Association’s subsequent withdrawal of its rehearing request finalized this decision.


Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

The Association unreasonably withheld approval for Marc Archer's two-story garage addition, thereby violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3). The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the design and refund the $500 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

The Association unreasonably withheld preliminary approval for the Petitioner's January 2020 two-story garage addition request. The ALJ determined that none of the three reasons provided by the Association for the denial were reasonable.

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 928659.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:06 (39.6 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 943581.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:10 (37.9 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 953334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:13 (45.2 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 958716.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:16 (124.7 KB)





Study Guide – 21F-H2121040-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “21F-H2121040-REL”, “case_title”: “Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2022-03-30”, “alj_name”: “Thomas Shedden”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA unreasonably refuse to approve my architectural plans?”, “short_answer”: “No, state law prohibits the unreasonable withholding of approval for construction projects.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law explicitly states that an HOA cannot unreasonably withhold approval for architectural designs, plans, or amendments. If an HOA denies a request, the denial must be based on reasonable grounds supported by the community documents.”, “alj_quote”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3) provides that “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.””, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural review”, “homeowner rights”, “statutory compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to give me a written reason if they deny my project?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, failing to provide a written reason for denial can be considered a violation of the statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this dispute, a prior decision established that the HOA violated the law by failing to provide the homeowner with a written explanation for denying preliminary approval. The homeowner must be informed of the specific basis for the decision.”, “alj_quote”: “In a Decision dated December 3, 2020, the ALJ in that matter determined that the Association had violated its CC&Rs and section 33-1817(B)(3) because it did not provide Mr. Archer with a written reason for denying preliminary approval.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)”, “topic_tags”: [ “procedural requirements”, “due process”, “denial notices” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA deny my request based on a rule that isn’t written down?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no. If the architectural rules do not explicitly prohibit a specific material or method, the HOA may be acting outside its authority to deny it.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA acted outside its authority by denying a request to paint roof tiles because the architectural rules (ARs) did not explicitly prohibit painting tiles, whereas other sections of the rules explicitly prohibited other specific materials (like vinyl siding).”, “alj_quote”: “Regarding the second basis for denial, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”, “legal_basis”: “Scope of Authority”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement authority”, “architectural rules”, “unwritten rules” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove the case if I file a petition against my HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner alleging the violation is responsible for providing evidence that supports their claim by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “Mr. Archer bears the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA deny my project because they think it doesn’t ‘harmonize’ with the neighborhood?”, “short_answer”: “Only if they can prove it will ‘dominate or sharply contrast’ with the community.”, “detailed_answer”: “While rules often require harmony, this is interpreted to mean the project should not dominate or contrast sharply. If the evidence shows the project shares features (like roof pitch) with other homes, a denial based on lack of harmony may be unreasonable.”, “alj_quote”: “AR section 1.1 shows that improvements are to harmonize with the community, “rather than to dominate and/or contrast sharply with it.” … There was no substantial evidence adduced showing that Mr. Archer’s proposed addition will dominate or sharply contrast with the community.”, “legal_basis”: “Community Documents (AR Section 1.1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “aesthetics”, “harmony”, “architectural standards” ] }, { “question”: “Can I get my filing fee back if I win against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the homeowner prevails, the HOA can be ordered to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “State law allows the prevailing party in an HOA dispute to recover the filing fee. In this case, because the ALJ ordered the HOA to approve the design, the HOA was also ordered to pay the petitioner’s $500 fee.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association also must pay to Mr. Archer his $500 filing fee. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “penalties”, “reimbursement”, “filing fees” ] }, { “question”: “Does hiring an architect to review my plans help my case?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, professional opinions stating your plans comply with the rules can be strong evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner presented an affidavit from a registered architect who reviewed the plans and rules, concluding the design was compliant. This evidence helped refute the HOA’s claims that the design lacked architectural elements.”, “alj_quote”: “Mr. Bragg concluded that the proposal was in compliance with the ARs. He noted that the proposed second floor matched the existing architecture and that the “lowered roof height is stepped below the existing second floor roof line….””, “legal_basis”: “Evidence Weight”, “topic_tags”: [ “expert testimony”, “evidence”, “architectural review” ] }, { “question”: “What if the HOA’s denial letter is confusing or lists reasons as just ‘advisory’?”, “short_answer”: “The judge will look at the actual reasons for denial, even if the HOA categorizes them poorly.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA listed some reasons for denial under a section labeled ‘advisory.’ The ALJ noted this was confusing but still analyzed whether those reasons were valid grounds for denial. The confusion did not prevent the judge from ruling the denial was unreasonable.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association’s reasons for denial are arguably not clear because it included two of its three reasons in a portion of the denial notice that was advisory only. Nevertheless, Mr. Archer presented sufficient evidence to show that none of the three reasons is reasonable.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness Standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “denial notices”, “administrative review”, “confusion” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 21F-H2121040-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “21F-H2121040-REL”, “case_title”: “Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2022-03-30”, “alj_name”: “Thomas Shedden”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA unreasonably refuse to approve my architectural plans?”, “short_answer”: “No, state law prohibits the unreasonable withholding of approval for construction projects.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law explicitly states that an HOA cannot unreasonably withhold approval for architectural designs, plans, or amendments. If an HOA denies a request, the denial must be based on reasonable grounds supported by the community documents.”, “alj_quote”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3) provides that “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.””, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural review”, “homeowner rights”, “statutory compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to give me a written reason if they deny my project?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, failing to provide a written reason for denial can be considered a violation of the statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this dispute, a prior decision established that the HOA violated the law by failing to provide the homeowner with a written explanation for denying preliminary approval. The homeowner must be informed of the specific basis for the decision.”, “alj_quote”: “In a Decision dated December 3, 2020, the ALJ in that matter determined that the Association had violated its CC&Rs and section 33-1817(B)(3) because it did not provide Mr. Archer with a written reason for denying preliminary approval.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)”, “topic_tags”: [ “procedural requirements”, “due process”, “denial notices” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA deny my request based on a rule that isn’t written down?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no. If the architectural rules do not explicitly prohibit a specific material or method, the HOA may be acting outside its authority to deny it.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA acted outside its authority by denying a request to paint roof tiles because the architectural rules (ARs) did not explicitly prohibit painting tiles, whereas other sections of the rules explicitly prohibited other specific materials (like vinyl siding).”, “alj_quote”: “Regarding the second basis for denial, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”, “legal_basis”: “Scope of Authority”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement authority”, “architectural rules”, “unwritten rules” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove the case if I file a petition against my HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner alleging the violation is responsible for providing evidence that supports their claim by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “Mr. Archer bears the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA deny my project because they think it doesn’t ‘harmonize’ with the neighborhood?”, “short_answer”: “Only if they can prove it will ‘dominate or sharply contrast’ with the community.”, “detailed_answer”: “While rules often require harmony, this is interpreted to mean the project should not dominate or contrast sharply. If the evidence shows the project shares features (like roof pitch) with other homes, a denial based on lack of harmony may be unreasonable.”, “alj_quote”: “AR section 1.1 shows that improvements are to harmonize with the community, “rather than to dominate and/or contrast sharply with it.” … There was no substantial evidence adduced showing that Mr. Archer’s proposed addition will dominate or sharply contrast with the community.”, “legal_basis”: “Community Documents (AR Section 1.1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “aesthetics”, “harmony”, “architectural standards” ] }, { “question”: “Can I get my filing fee back if I win against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the homeowner prevails, the HOA can be ordered to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “State law allows the prevailing party in an HOA dispute to recover the filing fee. In this case, because the ALJ ordered the HOA to approve the design, the HOA was also ordered to pay the petitioner’s $500 fee.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association also must pay to Mr. Archer his $500 filing fee. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “penalties”, “reimbursement”, “filing fees” ] }, { “question”: “Does hiring an architect to review my plans help my case?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, professional opinions stating your plans comply with the rules can be strong evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner presented an affidavit from a registered architect who reviewed the plans and rules, concluding the design was compliant. This evidence helped refute the HOA’s claims that the design lacked architectural elements.”, “alj_quote”: “Mr. Bragg concluded that the proposal was in compliance with the ARs. He noted that the proposed second floor matched the existing architecture and that the “lowered roof height is stepped below the existing second floor roof line….””, “legal_basis”: “Evidence Weight”, “topic_tags”: [ “expert testimony”, “evidence”, “architectural review” ] }, { “question”: “What if the HOA’s denial letter is confusing or lists reasons as just ‘advisory’?”, “short_answer”: “The judge will look at the actual reasons for denial, even if the HOA categorizes them poorly.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA listed some reasons for denial under a section labeled ‘advisory.’ The ALJ noted this was confusing but still analyzed whether those reasons were valid grounds for denial. The confusion did not prevent the judge from ruling the denial was unreasonable.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association’s reasons for denial are arguably not clear because it included two of its three reasons in a portion of the denial notice that was advisory only. Nevertheless, Mr. Archer presented sufficient evidence to show that none of the three reasons is reasonable.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness Standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “denial notices”, “administrative review”, “confusion” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Marc Archer (petitioner)
  • Greg Hancock (witness)
    Witness for Petitioner, works in building industry
  • Dr. Victor Zach (witness)
    Witness for Petitioner, lives across the street from Petitioner
  • Dan Earlie (witness)
    Witness for Petitioner, experienced in homebuilding and HOA boards
  • Thomas Bragg (architect/witness)
    Registered architect hired by Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas C. S. Nogami (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Keith Kauffman (board member/witness)
    PMPE Community Association, Inc.
    President and long-time board member of the Association
  • Gail Zigler (property manager/witness)
    Community manager for the Association
  • Mr. Sasser (committee member/neighbor)
    Mentioned as an opponent to the addition
  • Carlotta L. Turman (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Tammy L. Ikenberg (ALJ/Hearing Officer)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    ALJ in prior related proceedings (19F-H1919063-REL, 20F-H2020063-REL)
  • Claire Miller (Preserve Park Supervisor)
    City Parks and Recreation

Other Participants

  • AHansen (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • tandert (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (unknown)
    Clerical staff noted on transmission records (also Miranda A)
  • c. serrano (unknown)
    Clerical staff noted on transmission records
  • Dr. Smith (unknown)
    House used for a meeting location

Judy Clapp v. Forest Trails Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221026-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-29
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Judy Clapp Counsel Kevin Harper
Respondent Forest Trails Homeowners Association Counsel Edward D. O'Brien; Edith I. Rudder

Alleged Violations

Declaration § 2.2; Declaration § 2.21; Architectural Guidelines

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Forest Trails Homeowners Association violated its governing documents when it approved landscaping that obstructed parking in a common area.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary burden that the HOA violated the Declaration or related statutes. The ALJ found that the Declaration permits landscaping in the common area (Section 2.2) and the petitioner presented no legal authority mandating the disputed area remain solely available for parking.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation concerning landscaping in common area preventing parking.

Petitioner Judy Clapp alleged the HOA improperly approved the adjacent homeowner's (Normans) landscaping project in the common area next to Lot 1473 Trailhead. She claimed this blocked a historical parking area used by multiple homeowners, violating Declaration Section 2.2 (common area use for benefit of all members, including parking as a permitted use) and Architectural Guidelines (prohibiting exclusive use of common area).

Orders: The petition was dismissed. The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the Declaration or any statute.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Declaration § 2.2
  • Declaration § 2.21
  • Architectural Guidelines
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Declaration § 3.4
  • Declaration § 4.1

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Common Area, Landscaping, Parking, Architectural Control Committee, Exclusive Use, HOA Governance
Additional Citations:

  • Declaration § 2.2
  • Declaration § 2.21
  • Architectural Guidelines
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Declaration § 3.4
  • Declaration § 4.1

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_ElectronicNotice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:20:57 (92.4 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_ElectronicNotice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:20:59 (125.2 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_Hearing_Scheduled.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:01 (194.1 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_Notice_AppearanceRespondent.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:03 (218.4 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_Notice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:06 (1111.9 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_Notice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:08 (1303.7 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_Payment.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:10 (223.9 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:12 (1183.8 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_Response_Petition_Form.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:15 (72.2 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 958497.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:16 (122.6 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_ElectronicNotice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:18 (92.4 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_ElectronicNotice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:19 (125.2 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Hearing_Scheduled.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:20 (194.1 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Notice_AppearanceRespondent.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:22 (218.4 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Notice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:23 (1111.9 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Notice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:25 (1303.7 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Payment.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:26 (223.9 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:28 (1183.8 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Response_Petition_Form.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:30 (72.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 22F-H2221026-REL


Case Briefing: Judy Clapp v. Forest Trails Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings of the administrative hearing held on March 9, 2022, regarding Docket Number 22F-H2221026-l. The dispute involves a challenge by petitioner Judy Clapp against the Forest Trails Homeowners Association (HOA) concerning the landscaping of an eight-foot unpaved common area adjacent to 1473 Trail Head (the “Norman lot”).

The central conflict involves the Board’s decision to allow a homeowner to install a rock berm on association-owned land that had historically functioned as a parking lane for residents accessing a nearby trail head. The petitioner alleges this action violates the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by granting exclusive use of common area to one homeowner and eliminating a long-standing community benefit. The association contends that the Board acted within its authority to approve architectural requests, maintained consistency with community-wide landscaping standards, and addressed legitimate nuisance and erosion concerns.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview and Hearing Details

• Date of Hearing: March 9, 2022

• Administrative Law Judge: Alvin Moses Thompson

• Petitioner: Judy Clapp (Represented by Kevin Harper)

• Respondent: Forest Trails Homeowners Association (Represented by Ed O’Brien)

• Key Witnesses: Judy Clapp (Petitioner); Dean Meyers (Board Member/Witness for Respondent)

• Subject Property: Common area adjacent to 1473 Trail Head, Prescott, Arizona.

——————————————————————————–

Primary Legal and Regulatory Framework

The dispute centers on the interpretation of specific governing documents produced as evidence:

Amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

• Section 2.2 (Common Areas and Open Space): States that common areas “shall be for the use and benefit of all members” and should be left in their natural state unless used for specific purposes, including “trails, walkways, driveways, parking areas, appropriate signs, recreational amenities, [and] landscaping.”

• Section 3.4: Grants the association the authority to “own, repair, manage, operate, and maintain” common areas according to the plat.

• Section 3.4.9: Designates the Architectural Control Committee (ACC) as the “judge of all aesthetic matters” on the common area.

• Section 4.1: Provides the Board with flexibility in its decision-making regarding association property.

Architectural Guidelines

• Landscaping Provisions: Permitted on the unpaved association-owned area (approx. 8 feet) between the lot line and the street only with ACC approval.

• Exclusive Use Restriction: Mandates that any such approval “will not give the property owner exclusive use of this association property.”

——————————————————————————–

Main Themes and Arguments

1. Historical Use vs. New Architectural Approval

The petitioner argues that the area in question served as a de facto parking lane for approximately 15–20 years, accommodating up to three vehicles.

• Petitioner Position: The removal of this parking area harms residents who now must walk an additional mile or more to access trail heads. Clapp asserts the association consistently denied similar requests in the past to protect common area access.

• Respondent Position: The HOA argues that parking was never a “guaranteed right” or a “written amenity” in the declaration. They contend the Board could not “say no” to the Normans’ request because hundreds of other homeowners have similar roadside landscaping.

2. Allegations of “Exclusive Use”

A major point of contention is whether the rock berm constitutes a violation of the rule against “exclusive use.”

• Petitioner’s Argument: The installation of large boulders and a rock berm makes it impossible for vehicles to park and “unsafe” or “risky” for pedestrians to walk over, effectively gifting the land to the adjacent homeowner.

• Respondent’s Argument: The area is not fenced or walled. Members of the public or homeowners can still theoretically walk on it, meaning use is not exclusive. Dean Meyers testified that the area is “less accessible” but still accessible at the ends.

3. Nuisance Mitigation and Safety

The HOA justifies the landscaping as a solution to long-standing issues.

• Respondent’s Evidence: Dean Meyers testified that the parking area created nuisances including noise (dogs, yelling), trash, and public intrusion 40 feet from the Normans’ kitchen. Furthermore, Meyers cited an erosion issue where water was undermining the cement curb, a problem he claims the landscaping resolved.

• Petitioner’s Rebuttal: Clapp, a former board member of 10 years, testified she never heard of safety, noise, or trash complaints regarding this site until February 2021, four months after the rocks were installed. She suggested the “safety” argument was an after-the-fact justification.

4. Conflict of Interest and Procedure

The petitioner raised concerns regarding the motivations behind the approval.

• Self-Serving Motivation: Witness Dean Meyers is a permanent board member and also the owner of the landscaping company hired by the Normans to perform the work.

• Lack of Formal Vote: Clapp testified that the work appeared to be allowed without a formal board vote, though respondent minutes from October 27, 2020, show the board requested gravel samples for the project.

——————————————————————————–

Critical Evidence and Testimony

Photographic Evidence (Exhibit 6)

The hearing reviewed nine photographs showing the evolution of the site:

• Before: A dirt “parking lane” capable of holding cars.

• After: A “rock berm” consisting of large boulders and smaller rocks that completely prohibit vehicle access.

Comparison to Other Amenities

Clapp pointed to the community tennis courts as evidence of unfair treatment.

• Tennis Court Parking: The HOA recently expanded and paved parking for tennis players (Exhibits 17, 18).

• Trail Head Parking: Conversely, the HOA eliminated parking for hikers at the trail head, which Clapp described as the community’s only other amenity.

Legal Opinion of Jim Atkinson

An email exchange (Exhibit 7) involving former Board President and attorney Jim Atkinson was introduced. Atkinson’s noted opinion stated:

• The 8-foot area is common area property, “no different than its ownership of the paved areas.”

• Parking is a permitted use under Section 2.2.

• The Board “never agreed to allow a lot owner to block access to the shoulder area.”

——————————————————————————–

Conclusions and Sought Relief

The Petitioner seeks an order confirming that the CC&Rs prohibit these specific landscaping changes and requiring the association to restore the common area to its original condition.

The Respondent maintains that the Board acted within its discretionary authority to manage common areas and treat all members fairly by approving a standard landscaping request. They argue the Petitioner is seeking a “prescriptive easement” to park in a specific spot, a right they claim does not exist under the governing documents or Arizona law.

Summary Table of Arguments

Petitioner’s View

Respondent’s View

Land Use

Reserved for the benefit of all members (parking/trails).

Subject to Board management and aesthetic discretion.

Accessibility

Rock berm creates “exclusive use” by blocking access.

No fence exists; property remains technically accessible.

Safety/Nuisance

No evidence of prior complaints; “punitive” decision.

Resolved erosion, trash, and noise nuisances.

Consistency

Association has historically denied such requests.

Hundreds of other lots have identical landscaping.

Board Ethics

Decision was self-serving (witness was the contractor).

Business was private between the contractor and homeowner.






Study Guide – 22F-H2221026-REL


Study Guide: Judy Clapp v. Forest Trails Homeowners Association (Docket No. 22F-H2221026-I)

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing held on March 9, 2022, regarding a dispute over common area usage, landscaping rights, and parking access within the Forest Trails community.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2–3 sentences based on the provided hearing transcript and documents.

1. What is the central issue of the dispute between Judy Clapp and the Forest Trails Homeowners Association?

2. How does Section 2.2 of the Forest Trails Declaration define the purpose and permitted uses of “common areas”?

3. What physical modification to the area near 1473 Trail Head triggered this legal action, and who performed the work?

4. What is the Petitioner’s primary argument regarding the “exclusive use” of the landscaped common area?

5. How does the Association justify its decision to approve the Normans’ landscaping request despite member objections?

6. What did the 2002–2003 review of the plat and CC&Rs reveal to the Association board regarding the 8-foot strips alongside the roadways?

7. What “nuisances” did the Respondent cite as reasons for prohibiting parking at the trail head location?

8. How does the Petitioner use the example of the community tennis courts to argue that the Association’s parking policy is inconsistent?

9. According to the testimony of Dean Myers, what is the Association’s policy regarding damage to homeowner-installed landscaping caused by snowplows?

10. What specific legal relief is the Petitioner seeking from the Administrative Law Judge?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The dispute centers on the Association’s decision to allow a specific homeowner (the Normans) to landscape a common area in a way that prohibits long-standing member parking. The Petitioner argues this violates the Declaration’s provision that common areas benefit all members, while the Association claims the right to manage aesthetics and address nuisances.

2. Section 2.2 states that common areas are for the “use and benefit of all members” and should generally be left in their natural state. However, it explicitly allows these areas to be used for specific purposes, including trails, walkways, driveways, parking areas, landscaping, and utility easements.

3. The Normans installed large boulders and a rock berm on the association-owned unpaved roadway shoulder to prevent vehicles from parking there. This work was executed by Dean Myers, who is a permanent member of the Association’s Board of Directors and the owner of a landscaping company.

4. The Petitioner argues that the installation of the rock berm effectively grants the Normans “exclusive use” of the common area by making it physically inaccessible to others. She contends this violates the Architectural Guidelines, which state that landscaping approval shall not give a property owner exclusive use of association property.

5. The Association argues it must treat all members fairly, noting that hundreds of other residents have been allowed to landscape the common area up to the roadside. They assert that denying the Normans’ request would have unfairly “singled them out” when similar requests are universally approved.

6. The board realized that the 8-foot unpaved areas on each side of the paved roads were not private property but were actually “common areas” owned and managed by the Association. Following this discovery, the Association took over maintenance responsibilities, such as weed control and erosion management, for these strips.

7. The Respondent claimed that parking at the trail head created nuisances including trash, noise, and “public intrusion” from non-residents. Additionally, Dean Myers testified that parking was exacerbating erosion issues that were beginning to undermine the concrete street curb.

8. The Petitioner points out that the Association recently expanded and paved parking at the community tennis courts to benefit members who play tennis. She argues it is discriminatory to improve amenities for one group of members while removing a traditional parking benefit for those who use the hiking trails.

9. The Association generally holds the homeowner responsible for the costs of repairing any landscaping that extends into the common area if it is damaged by a snowplow. This serves as a condition of allowing private landscaping on association-owned land; the board only pays if the plow operator acted “stupidly.”

10. The Petitioner is seeking an order confirming that the Declaration prohibits these specific landscaping changes. Furthermore, she is requesting that the Association be ordered to restore the common area to its original condition to allow for continued member parking.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts. (Answers not provided).

1. Aesthetics vs. Utility: Analyze the tension between the Board’s authority to judge “aesthetic matters” (Section 3.4.9) and the “permitted uses” of common areas (Section 2.2). Which authority should take precedence when a visual improvement eliminates a functional use?

2. The Definition of Exclusive Use: Evaluate the Respondent’s argument that the rock berm does not constitute “exclusive use” because there is no fence. Contrast this with the Petitioner’s testimony regarding the physical safety and accessibility of the area for members.

3. Conflicts of Interest in Governance: Discuss the implications of Dean Myers serving as both the board member approving (or allowing) the project and the contractor performing the work. How does this dual role affect the Association’s “fairness” argument?

4. Safety and Nuisance as Justification: Examine the evidence provided for safety concerns and nuisances at the trail head. Was the Association’s response (permitting boulders) a proportionate and evidenced-based solution to the problems described?

5. Historical Practice vs. Written Code: Explore the legal weight of “decades of practice” versus the literal interpretation of the Plat and Declaration. Should sixteen years of uninterrupted use by members create a protected right to park, even if not explicitly marked on a plat map?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Architectural Control Committee (ACC)

The body (often the Board of Directors in this case) responsible for reviewing and approving or denying changes to property and common areas.

Common Area

Land owned by the Homeowners Association for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of all members, such as the 8-foot strips adjacent to roadways.

Declaration (CC&Rs)

The “Amended Declaration of Covenant Conditions and Restrictions,” which serves as the primary governing document for the Forest Trails community.

Developer Position

A permanent seat on the Board of Directors reserved for the original developer or their representative (currently held by Dean Myers).

Easement

A legal right to use another’s land for a specific limited purpose; in this case, the trail head access is described as an easement between two lots.

Exclusive Use

The sole right to use a portion of property to the exclusion of others; prohibited for private owners on association common areas.

GIS (Geographic Information System)

Digital mapping technology used in the hearing to show property lines and the relationship between lots and association-owned streets.

Natural State

The original, undeveloped condition of land; Section 2.2 mandates common areas be kept this way unless used for specific permitted purposes like trails or parking.

Petitioner

The party initiating the legal grievance or “petition” (Judy Clapp).

Plat / Plat Map

An official map drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land, including lots, streets, and common areas.

Respondent

The party responding to the legal grievance (Forest Trails Homeowners Association).

Rock Berm

A man-made barrier or mound constructed of rocks and boulders used in this case to physically block vehicle access to a shoulder.






Blog Post – 22F-H2221026-REL


Study Guide: Judy Clapp v. Forest Trails Homeowners Association (Docket No. 22F-H2221026-I)

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing held on March 9, 2022, regarding a dispute over common area usage, landscaping rights, and parking access within the Forest Trails community.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2–3 sentences based on the provided hearing transcript and documents.

1. What is the central issue of the dispute between Judy Clapp and the Forest Trails Homeowners Association?

2. How does Section 2.2 of the Forest Trails Declaration define the purpose and permitted uses of “common areas”?

3. What physical modification to the area near 1473 Trail Head triggered this legal action, and who performed the work?

4. What is the Petitioner’s primary argument regarding the “exclusive use” of the landscaped common area?

5. How does the Association justify its decision to approve the Normans’ landscaping request despite member objections?

6. What did the 2002–2003 review of the plat and CC&Rs reveal to the Association board regarding the 8-foot strips alongside the roadways?

7. What “nuisances” did the Respondent cite as reasons for prohibiting parking at the trail head location?

8. How does the Petitioner use the example of the community tennis courts to argue that the Association’s parking policy is inconsistent?

9. According to the testimony of Dean Myers, what is the Association’s policy regarding damage to homeowner-installed landscaping caused by snowplows?

10. What specific legal relief is the Petitioner seeking from the Administrative Law Judge?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The dispute centers on the Association’s decision to allow a specific homeowner (the Normans) to landscape a common area in a way that prohibits long-standing member parking. The Petitioner argues this violates the Declaration’s provision that common areas benefit all members, while the Association claims the right to manage aesthetics and address nuisances.

2. Section 2.2 states that common areas are for the “use and benefit of all members” and should generally be left in their natural state. However, it explicitly allows these areas to be used for specific purposes, including trails, walkways, driveways, parking areas, landscaping, and utility easements.

3. The Normans installed large boulders and a rock berm on the association-owned unpaved roadway shoulder to prevent vehicles from parking there. This work was executed by Dean Myers, who is a permanent member of the Association’s Board of Directors and the owner of a landscaping company.

4. The Petitioner argues that the installation of the rock berm effectively grants the Normans “exclusive use” of the common area by making it physically inaccessible to others. She contends this violates the Architectural Guidelines, which state that landscaping approval shall not give a property owner exclusive use of association property.

5. The Association argues it must treat all members fairly, noting that hundreds of other residents have been allowed to landscape the common area up to the roadside. They assert that denying the Normans’ request would have unfairly “singled them out” when similar requests are universally approved.

6. The board realized that the 8-foot unpaved areas on each side of the paved roads were not private property but were actually “common areas” owned and managed by the Association. Following this discovery, the Association took over maintenance responsibilities, such as weed control and erosion management, for these strips.

7. The Respondent claimed that parking at the trail head created nuisances including trash, noise, and “public intrusion” from non-residents. Additionally, Dean Myers testified that parking was exacerbating erosion issues that were beginning to undermine the concrete street curb.

8. The Petitioner points out that the Association recently expanded and paved parking at the community tennis courts to benefit members who play tennis. She argues it is discriminatory to improve amenities for one group of members while removing a traditional parking benefit for those who use the hiking trails.

9. The Association generally holds the homeowner responsible for the costs of repairing any landscaping that extends into the common area if it is damaged by a snowplow. This serves as a condition of allowing private landscaping on association-owned land; the board only pays if the plow operator acted “stupidly.”

10. The Petitioner is seeking an order confirming that the Declaration prohibits these specific landscaping changes. Furthermore, she is requesting that the Association be ordered to restore the common area to its original condition to allow for continued member parking.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts. (Answers not provided).

1. Aesthetics vs. Utility: Analyze the tension between the Board’s authority to judge “aesthetic matters” (Section 3.4.9) and the “permitted uses” of common areas (Section 2.2). Which authority should take precedence when a visual improvement eliminates a functional use?

2. The Definition of Exclusive Use: Evaluate the Respondent’s argument that the rock berm does not constitute “exclusive use” because there is no fence. Contrast this with the Petitioner’s testimony regarding the physical safety and accessibility of the area for members.

3. Conflicts of Interest in Governance: Discuss the implications of Dean Myers serving as both the board member approving (or allowing) the project and the contractor performing the work. How does this dual role affect the Association’s “fairness” argument?

4. Safety and Nuisance as Justification: Examine the evidence provided for safety concerns and nuisances at the trail head. Was the Association’s response (permitting boulders) a proportionate and evidenced-based solution to the problems described?

5. Historical Practice vs. Written Code: Explore the legal weight of “decades of practice” versus the literal interpretation of the Plat and Declaration. Should sixteen years of uninterrupted use by members create a protected right to park, even if not explicitly marked on a plat map?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Architectural Control Committee (ACC)

The body (often the Board of Directors in this case) responsible for reviewing and approving or denying changes to property and common areas.

Common Area

Land owned by the Homeowners Association for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of all members, such as the 8-foot strips adjacent to roadways.

Declaration (CC&Rs)

The “Amended Declaration of Covenant Conditions and Restrictions,” which serves as the primary governing document for the Forest Trails community.

Developer Position

A permanent seat on the Board of Directors reserved for the original developer or their representative (currently held by Dean Myers).

Easement

A legal right to use another’s land for a specific limited purpose; in this case, the trail head access is described as an easement between two lots.

Exclusive Use

The sole right to use a portion of property to the exclusion of others; prohibited for private owners on association common areas.

GIS (Geographic Information System)

Digital mapping technology used in the hearing to show property lines and the relationship between lots and association-owned streets.

Natural State

The original, undeveloped condition of land; Section 2.2 mandates common areas be kept this way unless used for specific permitted purposes like trails or parking.

Petitioner

The party initiating the legal grievance or “petition” (Judy Clapp).

Plat / Plat Map

An official map drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land, including lots, streets, and common areas.

Respondent

The party responding to the legal grievance (Forest Trails Homeowners Association).

Rock Berm

A man-made barrier or mound constructed of rocks and boulders used in this case to physically block vehicle access to a shoulder.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Judy Clapp (Petitioner)
    Homeowner
    Also referred to as Judith Ellen Black
  • Kevin Harper (Petitioner Attorney)
    Harper Law PLC
  • Rick Ohanesian (Petitioner)
    Homeowner
    Listed in Respondent's Amended Notice of Appearance
  • Lucy McMillan (Former Board Member)
    Forest Trails HOA
    Listed as witness but not present

Respondent Side

  • Edward D. O'Brien (Respondent Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Edith I. Rudder (Respondent Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Dean Meyers (Board Member)
    Forest Trails HOA Board
    Developer position on board; Professional landscaper hired by the Normans; Witness
  • James Norman (Homeowner)
    Forest Trails HOA
    Owner of lot 30; requested landscaping
  • Cynthia Norman (Homeowner)
    Forest Trails HOA
    Owner of lot 30
  • Jim Atkinson (HOA Attorney)
    Former Board President; identified as Association attorney in testimony
  • Nancy Char (Board President)
    Forest Trails HOA
    Current president mentioned in testimony
  • Marissa (Property Manager)
    Community Asset Management LLC
    Mentioned in meeting minutes regarding sample handling

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transcribed as 'Alvin Moses Thompson' in audio transcript
  • Dan Gardner (HOA Coordinator)
    ADRE
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE

Other Participants

  • Lenor Hemphill (Former Board Member)
    Forest Trails HOA
    Sent email regarding landscaping issue

John J Balaco v. Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221011-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-21
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John J Balaco Counsel —
Respondent Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq. & Sami Farhat, Esq.

Alleged Violations

5th Amended Master Declaration Article 6.7

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's claim was denied because the ALJ concluded that the alleged violation of the 5th Amended Master Declaration Article 6.7 was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; the argument was premature as the action (substantial change in use) had not yet come to fruition.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the argument was not ripe and predicated on actions that have yet to occur.

Key Issues & Findings

Change in Use of Common Area

Petitioner alleged that the Association violated Article 6.7 by modifying renovation plans for the Activity Center's coffee bar to include the sale of alcoholic beverages (cafe wine bar) without the requisite 60% membership vote, arguing this converted common area into a restricted commercial bar.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • 5th Amended Master Declaration Article 6.7

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Master Declaration, Change of Use, Common Area, Liquor License, Renovation, Ripeness, Cafe Wine Bar
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221011-REL Decision – 935334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:43 (49.3 KB)

22F-H2221011-REL Decision – 956246.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:48 (138.2 KB)

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner filing the petition to prove that a violation occurred. The HOA does not have to disprove the claim; the petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

How much evidence is required to win a case against an HOA?

Short Answer

A preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The standard of proof is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means the evidence must show that the homeowner's claim is more likely true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than the quantity of witnesses.

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 § 5

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standards

Question

Can I file a petition against my HOA for a violation that hasn't happened yet but is planned?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The dispute must be 'ripe' and not theoretical.

Detailed Answer

Administrative Law Judges generally cannot rule on grievances that are theoretical or based on actions that have not yet occurred. If a construction project or change has not physically started, a claim that it 'will' cause a violation may be dismissed as not ripe.

Alj Quote

The crux of Petitioner’s is theoretical and predicated on action(s) that have yet to occur… Therefore, it cannot reasonably be concluded that the Association substantially changed the use of a portion of a common area.

Legal Basis

Ripeness Doctrine

Topic Tags

  • ripeness
  • future violations
  • construction

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge order an injunction to stop the HOA from doing something?

Short Answer

No, injunctive relief is unavailable in this administrative process.

Detailed Answer

The administrative hearing process in Arizona for HOA disputes does not grant the ALJ the authority to issue injunctions (orders to stop an action) or declaratory relief. The ALJ determines if a violation occurred based on past or present facts.

Alj Quote

Based on Petitioner’s arguments in closing, it is apparent that he is seeking injunctive and/or declaratory relief that is unavailable for litigants in the administrative hearing process in the State of Arizona.

Legal Basis

Administrative Hearing Limits

Topic Tags

  • injunctions
  • remedies
  • legal relief

Question

Does a renovation of a common area facility automatically count as a 'substantial change in use'?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if the change hasn't occurred yet or doesn't alter the character of the area.

Detailed Answer

Whether a renovation is a 'substantial change in use' (which often requires a member vote) depends on if it changes the character and nature of the area. However, if the project is not yet built, an ALJ may be unable to determine if the change is substantial.

Alj Quote

Notably, the undersigned cannot make any determinations about whether the Association’s proposed voter-approved construction would alter the character and nature of the common area to such an extent that it would create a “substantial change of use” to the area.

Legal Basis

Master Declaration Article 6.7 (cited in decision)

Topic Tags

  • common areas
  • renovations
  • change of use

Question

Is the decision made by the Administrative Law Judge final and binding?

Short Answer

Yes, unless a rehearing is granted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ's order is binding on both the homeowner and the HOA unless one party successfully files for a rehearing within 30 days of service of the order.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)

Topic Tags

  • appeals
  • binding order
  • procedure

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221011-REL
Case Title
John J Balaco vs. Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-03-21
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner filing the petition to prove that a violation occurred. The HOA does not have to disprove the claim; the petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

How much evidence is required to win a case against an HOA?

Short Answer

A preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The standard of proof is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means the evidence must show that the homeowner's claim is more likely true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than the quantity of witnesses.

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 § 5

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standards

Question

Can I file a petition against my HOA for a violation that hasn't happened yet but is planned?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The dispute must be 'ripe' and not theoretical.

Detailed Answer

Administrative Law Judges generally cannot rule on grievances that are theoretical or based on actions that have not yet occurred. If a construction project or change has not physically started, a claim that it 'will' cause a violation may be dismissed as not ripe.

Alj Quote

The crux of Petitioner’s is theoretical and predicated on action(s) that have yet to occur… Therefore, it cannot reasonably be concluded that the Association substantially changed the use of a portion of a common area.

Legal Basis

Ripeness Doctrine

Topic Tags

  • ripeness
  • future violations
  • construction

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge order an injunction to stop the HOA from doing something?

Short Answer

No, injunctive relief is unavailable in this administrative process.

Detailed Answer

The administrative hearing process in Arizona for HOA disputes does not grant the ALJ the authority to issue injunctions (orders to stop an action) or declaratory relief. The ALJ determines if a violation occurred based on past or present facts.

Alj Quote

Based on Petitioner’s arguments in closing, it is apparent that he is seeking injunctive and/or declaratory relief that is unavailable for litigants in the administrative hearing process in the State of Arizona.

Legal Basis

Administrative Hearing Limits

Topic Tags

  • injunctions
  • remedies
  • legal relief

Question

Does a renovation of a common area facility automatically count as a 'substantial change in use'?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if the change hasn't occurred yet or doesn't alter the character of the area.

Detailed Answer

Whether a renovation is a 'substantial change in use' (which often requires a member vote) depends on if it changes the character and nature of the area. However, if the project is not yet built, an ALJ may be unable to determine if the change is substantial.

Alj Quote

Notably, the undersigned cannot make any determinations about whether the Association’s proposed voter-approved construction would alter the character and nature of the common area to such an extent that it would create a “substantial change of use” to the area.

Legal Basis

Master Declaration Article 6.7 (cited in decision)

Topic Tags

  • common areas
  • renovations
  • change of use

Question

Is the decision made by the Administrative Law Judge final and binding?

Short Answer

Yes, unless a rehearing is granted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ's order is binding on both the homeowner and the HOA unless one party successfully files for a rehearing within 30 days of service of the order.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)

Topic Tags

  • appeals
  • binding order
  • procedure

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221011-REL
Case Title
John J Balaco vs. Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-03-21
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John J Balaco (petitioner)
  • Diane Paton (witness)
  • James Gearhart (helper / observer)
    Assisted Petitioner with documents; observed hearing

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Sami Farhat (attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Mark Wade (general manager / witness)
  • Randall Jean Trenary (controller / witness)
    Liquor license agent
  • James Henry Mitchell (witness)
    Also referred to as Jim Mitchell or Randall James Mitchell

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Contact for appeal procedure
  • c. serrano (OAH staff)
    OAH
    Transmitter of Minute Entry
  • Miranda Alvarez (OAH staff)
    OAH
    Transmitter of ALJ Decision

Other Participants

  • Marla Balaco (observer)
  • Janet Ambrosio (observer)
  • Sheila Helmuth (observer)
  • Sherokee Ilse (observer)
  • Edward Zwerling (observer)
  • Robin Coulter (observer)
  • Rocky Gedrose (observer)
  • Thelma LaFleur (observer)
  • Tim Kelley (observer)
  • Vicki McFadden (observer)
  • Allan Mashburn (observer)
  • Cathy Winje (observer)
  • Chris Ludwig (observer)
  • Dan Edward (observer)
  • Dibri Ruiz (observer)
  • Donna Harting (observer)
  • Eric Meyers (observer)
  • Anthony Denaro (observer)
  • Melanie Stenson (observer)
  • Bertha Medina (observer)
  • Carol Johnson (observer)
  • Rita Petterson (observer)
  • David Sullivan (observer)
  • Gary Lurch (observer)
  • Janet Keller (observer)
  • Joanne Keck (observer)
  • Kaaren Brent (observer)
  • Karen Roche (observer)
  • Ken Sandrick (observer)
  • Kristi Halverson (observer)
  • Lindsay Welbers (observer)
  • Marie Scarpulla (observer)
  • Maxine Yunker (observer)
  • Pamela Sarpalius (observer)
  • Phyliss Austin (observer)
  • Robert Watson (observer)
  • Sandra Fischer (observer)
  • Sharon Kennedy (observer)
  • Vicki McFadin (observer)
  • William Whitney (observer)

Daniel Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Assoc.

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121058-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-11
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Daniel B Belt Counsel —
Respondent Beaver Valley Improvement Association Counsel Ellen B. Davis, Esq.

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order dismissing the Petitioner’s Petition because the Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing on March 10, 2022, and thus failed to meet the burden of proof.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing. Petitioner had previously indicated he would unequivocally not participate in the hearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Petition alleging violation

Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing and thus failed to sustain the burden of proof required to establish the alleged violation.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed because Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing and failed to sustain the burden of proof.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, failure_to_appear, dismissal, rehearing, OAH
Additional Citations:

  • 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • R2-19-119(A)
  • R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • 32-2199.02(B)
  • 12-904(A)
  • 41-1092.01
  • 41-1092.07(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121058-REL-RHG Decision – 936420.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:17 (52.8 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL-RHG Decision – 936523.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:20 (6.7 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL-RHG Decision – 942810.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:26 (53.5 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL-RHG Decision – 954077.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:31 (66.4 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2121058-REL/915454.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:35 (133.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121058-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Daniel B. Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcomes of the administrative case Daniel B. Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association (No. 21F-H2121058-REL), a dispute adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Daniel B. Belt, alleged that the Beaver Valley Improvement Association (BVIA) violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1812(6) by refusing to provide him with unredacted copies of election ballots, a matter he characterized as “voter fraud” and of “life and death” importance.

The case was ultimately dismissed twice. The initial decision on October 5, 2021, dismissed the petition on its merits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the petitioner failed to prove a violation, concluding that the HOA’s community documents permitted secret ballots and that state law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)) prohibited the disclosure of the personal voting information requested. Following the petitioner’s request for a rehearing, the case was dismissed a second time on March 11, 2022, after the petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, thereby failing to meet his burden of proof.

A significant theme throughout the proceedings was the petitioner’s conduct. Testimony from the HOA’s accounting services provider, Planned Development Services (PDS), described the petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” This conduct included a 45-day picket of the PDS office, verbal threats, and behavior that led PDS to obtain an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against the petitioner and ultimately resign its contract with the HOA. After the initial dismissal, the petitioner filed pleadings demanding that the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings act in an “appellate capacity” to “dispense justice,” a request the Director found he had no legal authority to grant. The petitioner also indicated his intent to not participate in the rehearing and to pursue the matter in federal court.

I. Case Overview and Procedural History

The Core Dispute: Access to Election Ballots

On June 8, 2021, Daniel B. Belt filed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged a single violation by the Beaver Valley Improvement Association of A.R.S. § 33-1812(6), a statute governing election materials.

The specific allegation, as articulated in the petition narrative, was that “…PDS refused to give petitioner the ballots containing the names, addresses and signatures, in compliance with ARS 33-1812(6)…”. The petitioner asserted that his petition, which he characterized as addressing “voter fraud,” was a “life and death matter.”

Key Parties

Name/Entity

Representation/Affiliation

Petitioner

Daniel B. Belt

Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent

Beaver Valley Improvement Association

Represented by Ellen B. Davis, Esq.

Witness (Initial Hearing)

Petra Paul

Managing Agent, Planned Development Services (PDS)

Witness (Initial & Final Hearing)

William Campbell

Member, BVIA Board of Directors

Administrative Law Judge

Sondra J. Vanella

Office of Administrative Hearings

Director

Greg Hanchett

Office of Administrative Hearings

Procedural Timeline

• June 8, 2021: Petitioner Daniel B. Belt files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• September 10, 2021: An initial hearing is held before ALJ Sondra J. Vanella.

• October 5, 2021: ALJ Vanella issues a decision dismissing the petition.

• January 4, 2022: A minute entry is issued continuing a scheduled rehearing to March 10, 2022.

• January 14, 2022: Petitioner files a pleading perceived by the Director as a motion for a change of judge.

• January 28, 2022: Petitioner files a subsequent pleading clarifying he is not seeking a change of judge but is demanding the Director review the prior proceeding.

• January 31, 2022: Director Greg Hanchett issues an order stating he lacks the statutory authority to review the case in an “appellate capacity” as requested.

• March 10, 2022: The rehearing convenes. The petitioner fails to appear. Respondent’s counsel moves for dismissal.

• March 11, 2022: ALJ Vanella issues a final decision dismissing the petition due to the petitioner’s failure to appear and sustain his burden of proof.

II. Analysis of the Initial Hearing and Decision

Respondent’s Defense and Evidence

The BVIA’s defense centered on the established practice and legal basis for maintaining voter privacy through secret ballots. Key points included:

• Policy on Secret Ballots: The BVIA Board of Directors approved a “Ballot/Proxy Handling Procedure” on July 10, 2004, which explicitly states that ballots will be folded “TO MAINTAIN THE SECRECY OF THE BALLOT.”

• Reaffirmation of Policy: In a meeting on May 8, 2021, the Board unanimously passed two motions: one to allow members to review ballots without personally identifying information, and a second to “reaffirm that all Board of Directors elections be conducted with a secret ballot.”

• Bylaws Protecting Privacy: The BVIA’s Bylaws (Article VII) explicitly state that “Personal . . . information about an individual Member of the Association” is not subject to inspection by parties other than the Board or its agent.

• Statutory Protection: Respondent argued that A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) prohibits the disclosure of personal records of an individual member, which includes how they voted.

• Constitutional Basis: Board member William Campbell cited Article VII, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution, which provides that “secrecy in voting shall be preserved,” opining that non-secret ballots would have a “chilling effect” on member participation.

• Accommodations Offered: The petitioner was offered the opportunity to review the un-redacted ballots in person (but not take copies) and was provided with redacted copies of the ballots. He refused both offers.

Key Witness Testimony

Petra Paul, Managing Agent for PDS, testified that her company’s contract with BVIA was for accounting services only, not HOA management. PDS’s involvement in the election was limited to mailing ballots, collecting returns, and verifying a quorum.

Ms. Paul’s testimony detailed the petitioner’s conduct:

• Escalating Demands: The petitioner demanded ballots before the election (which was denied) and demanded un-redacted copies the Monday after the election.

• Harassment and Intimidation: Ms. Paul described the petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” She testified that his actions grew increasingly agitated, that he refused to leave PDS’s premises, and that PDS staff was intimidated and concerned for their personal safety.

• Workplace Injunction: The petitioner’s behavior, which impacted PDS’s business operations, culminated in PDS obtaining an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against him. This came after he spent 45 days picketing outside the PDS office with a large sign that stated, “PDS Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars.”

• Threats: The injunction noted threats made by the petitioner against PDS employees, including, “You’ll be sorry,” “You’ll regret this,” and “You haven’t seen the end of me.”

• Contract Resignation: Due to the petitioner’s “abusive and erratic” interactions, PDS resigned its contract with the BVIA and demanded its legal fees be paid by the association.

William Campbell testified about the association’s long-standing policy of secret ballots. He acknowledged a procedural deviation—the ballots were folded for secrecy rather than being placed in manila envelopes as stipulated by the 2004 policy—but maintained that secrecy was preserved. Mr. Campbell also testified that multiple opportunities were provided in May, June, and July 2021 for members to view the ballots and confirm their votes were counted, but no one took advantage of the offers in June or July.

ALJ’s Conclusions of Law and Order (October 5, 2021)

ALJ Vanella concluded that the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the BVIA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6). The decision found that:

1. The credible evidence established that the ballots were intended to be secret pursuant to community documents.

2. The Respondent was precluded by A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) from disclosing the personal voting information demanded by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was offered the chance to review the ballots and was provided redacted copies, both of which he declined. Based on these findings, the petition was ordered dismissed.

III. Rehearing Proceedings and Final Disposition

Petitioner’s Post-Decision Filings

Following the initial dismissal, the petitioner requested a rehearing. In subsequent filings, he created confusion regarding his intentions. A January 14, 2022 filing was perceived as a motion for a change of judge. However, in a January 28, 2022 pleading, the petitioner clarified this was not his intent. Instead, he demanded the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings intervene directly:

“if Director Hanchett declines to make the case, with rationale, that the actions of Petra Paul and ALJ Vanella did not constitute the felony crimes as cited by the Petitioner, and if Director Hanchett declines to dispense justice in this case . . . as outlined by Petitioner, those issues will be decided in federal court.“

He further stated that the Director did not have the right to “pervert Petitioner’s request… for Impartial Justice and Equal Protection of the Laws, into a motion for a Change of Judge.”

Director’s Response

On January 31, 2022, Director Greg Hanchett issued an order rescinding a prior order that required the respondent to reply to the petitioner’s motion. The Director stated that the petitioner was not seeking a change of judge, but rather “seeks to have the Director review the earlier proceeding in some appellate capacity and pass judgment on the propriety of that proceeding.” Director Hanchett concluded that “There is no authority contained in either statute or rule that would permit the Director to undertake such action,” as an administrative agency has only those powers prescribed by law.

The Final Hearing and Dismissal (March 10-11, 2022)

The rehearing was held on March 10, 2022. The petitioner, Daniel Belt, failed to appear, despite having received proper notice at his address of record and email addresses. The hearing transcript notes that the petitioner had previously stated in a January 14 filing that he “would unequivocally not participate in the hearing.”

As the petitioner bears the burden of proof, and having failed to appear to present his case, the respondent’s counsel made a motion to dismiss. ALJ Vanella granted the motion. The final order, issued March 11, 2022, dismissed the petition, stating: “Because Petitioner failed to appear, Petitioner failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation by Respondent.” This decision was binding on the parties.






Study Guide – 21F-H2121058-REL-RHG


Study Guide for the Case of Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the information presented in the case documents.

1. Identify the petitioner and respondent in this case and state the petitioner’s central allegation.

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did the petitioner claim the respondent violated, and what does this statute generally require?

3. What was the role of Planned Development Services (PDS) in the respondent’s election process, according to the testimony of Petra Paul?

4. Describe the petitioner’s behavior that prompted PDS to obtain an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment.

5. According to William Campbell, what was the respondent’s long-standing policy regarding elections, and what documents supported this policy?

6. Explain the two offers the respondent and its agent made to the petitioner to allow him to review the election ballots.

7. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final order in the initial decision on October 5, 2021, and what were the two key statutes cited to support this conclusion?

8. After filing for a rehearing, what was the petitioner’s stated intention regarding his participation, and what was the ultimate outcome of the March 10, 2022, hearing?

9. What did the petitioner demand from the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings in January 2022, and how did the Director respond?

10. What evidentiary standard was the petitioner required to meet, and did the judge find that he met this standard in either the initial hearing or the rehearing?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Daniel B. Belt, and the respondent was the Beaver Valley Improvement Association (HOA). Belt alleged the HOA violated state law by refusing to provide him with election ballots containing the names, addresses, and signatures of the voters, an act he characterized as “voter fraud.”

2. The petitioner claimed a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(6). This statute requires completed ballots to contain the voter’s name, address, and signature, but it provides an exception for secret ballots, where this identifying information need only appear on the envelope.

3. Petra Paul testified that PDS was contracted for accounting services only, not HOA management. PDS’s involvement in the election was limited to mailing the annual meeting documents, collecting the returned ballots, and reviewing the number of returns to ensure a quorum was met. PDS did not conduct the election or tabulate the ballots.

4. The petitioner’s behavior was described as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” He picketed the PDS office for 45 days with a sign calling employees “Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars,” made threats such as “You’ll be sorry,” and refused to leave the premises, causing employees to fear for their personal safety.

5. William Campbell testified that the respondent had a long-standing practice of using a secret ballot. This was supported by a Ballot/Proxy Handling Procedure approved in 2004 and a unanimous Board vote on May 8, 2021, to reaffirm that all Board of Directors elections would be conducted with a secret ballot.

6. First, Petra Paul of PDS offered the petitioner copies of the ballots with personal information such as names and signatures redacted, which he refused. Paul also offered him the opportunity to review the non-redacted ballots in the office but advised him he could not take them with him.

7. The judge ordered that the petitioner’s Petition be dismissed. The judge cited A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6), noting that the community’s documents permitted secret ballots, and A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4), which precludes an HOA from disclosing personal records of its members.

8. In a January 14, 2022, filing, the petitioner stated he would “unequivocally not participate in the hearing.” Consequently, the petitioner failed to appear at the March 10, 2022, hearing, and the judge dismissed his petition for failure to sustain his burden of proof.

9. The petitioner demanded that the Director, Greg Hanchett, review the previous hearing in an appellate capacity, determine if felony crimes were committed, and “dispense justice.” The Director responded that he had no statutory authority to perform such an appellate review and rescinded his order related to what he had mistakenly perceived as a motion for a change of judge.

10. The petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” In the initial hearing, the judge found he failed to meet this burden because the evidence showed the respondent had not violated the law. In the rehearing, he failed to meet the burden because he did not appear to present any evidence at all.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to promote a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, incorporating specific details and legal principles from the provided source documents.

1. Analyze the conflict between a member’s right to inspect association records under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and the protection of individual members’ personal information and voting privacy as outlined in the same statute and the association’s bylaws.

2. Discuss the legal concept of “burden of proof” as it applied to the petitioner in both the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing. How did the petitioner’s actions (and inaction) directly lead to the dismissal of his case on two separate occasions?

3. Evaluate the actions of the Beaver Valley Improvement Association and its agent, PDS, in response to the petitioner’s demands for election materials. Did their responses align with their own bylaws, state law, and established procedures as presented in the hearings?

4. Trace the petitioner’s escalating behavior as described in the testimony of Petra Paul. How did this behavior impact PDS and ultimately factor into the context of the hearing, even if it was not the direct legal violation being adjudicated?

5. Examine the petitioner’s apparent misunderstanding of the administrative legal process, as evidenced by his filings with Director Greg Hanchett. Contrast what the petitioner demanded of the Director with the actual legal authority vested in the Director’s office according to the case documents.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent, impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

An Arizona Revised Statute concerning the examination of a homeowners association’s financial and other records. It grants members the right to inspect records but also allows the association to withhold certain information, including personal records of individual members.

A.R.S. § 33-1812(6)

An Arizona Revised Statute detailing requirements for ballots used in HOA meetings. It mandates that ballots contain the voter’s name, address, and signature, but creates an exception for secret ballots permitted by community documents.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the petitioner had the burden to prove the respondent committed the alleged violation.

Bylaws

The official rules and regulations that govern a corporation or association. The respondent’s Bylaws, specifically Article VII, were cited to justify withholding personal member information.

Homeowners Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium building that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Beaver Valley Improvement Association is the HOA in this case.

Injunction Against Workplace Harassment

A court order obtained by an employer to prohibit a person from committing acts of harassment against the business and its employees. PDS obtained one against Daniel B. Belt.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or initiates a legal action. In this case, Daniel B. Belt is the petitioner.

Planned Development Services (PDS)

An HOA management and accounting company. PDS provided accounting-only services to the respondent and was the entity that interacted directly with the petitioner regarding his ballot requests.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative case. It means that the trier of fact must be convinced that it is more probably true than not that the contention is correct.

Quorum

The minimum number of members of an association that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid. PDS reviewed ballot returns to ensure a quorum was established for the respondent’s election.

Redacted

Edited to remove or obscure confidential or private information. The respondent offered the petitioner redacted copies of the ballots with names, email addresses, and signatures removed.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues and evidence, which may be granted upon request after an initial decision. The petitioner was granted a rehearing but failed to appear.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, the Beaver Valley Improvement Association is the respondent.

Secret Ballot

A voting method in which a voter’s choices are anonymous, preventing intimidation and protecting privacy. The respondent’s bylaws and policies permitted the use of secret ballots for its elections.






Blog Post – 21F-H2121058-REL-RHG


An HOA Ballot Dispute, a 45-Day Picket, and 4 Shocking Lessons in Community Conflict

Introduction: When Neighborly Disagreements Go Nuclear

Disputes within Homeowners Associations (HOAs) are common, often revolving around landscaping, dues, or parking violations. But rarely do they escalate into a nearly year-long legal battle involving workplace harassment injunctions and vendor resignations. The story of one homeowner’s quest for election transparency in Arizona serves as a startling case study in how quickly a simple request can spiral out of control, offering crucial lessons for any community association. What began as a demand to see election ballots ended in a dismissed court case, but not before triggering a workplace harassment injunction, forcing its accounting firm to resign, and handing the HOA the bill for its legal fees.

——————————————————————————–

1.A Request for Ballots Can Escalate into a Harassment Injunction

The dispute began when petitioner Daniel B. Belt filed a petition against his HOA, the Beaver Valley Improvement Association. Alleging “voter fraud,” he demanded copies of unredacted election ballots in a conflict he framed as a “life and death matter.” When the HOA denied his request for unredacted copies, Mr. Belt’s tactics escalated from formal petitioning to direct, public confrontation aimed at the HOA’s accounting firm, Planned Development Services (PDS).

He picketed the PDS office for 45 consecutive days, holding a large sign that read, “PDS Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars.” According to court documents, he also allegedly made threats to PDS employees, stating, “You’ll be sorry,” “You’ll regret this,” and “You haven’t seen the end of me.” These actions crossed a critical legal line, resulting in PDS obtaining an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against the petitioner.

This escalation provides a crucial lesson in community governance. The line between passionate advocacy and unlawful harassment is critical because volunteer boards and their essential vendors are uniquely vulnerable. Tactics involving defamatory signage and direct threats don’t just amplify a grievance; they can cripple an association’s ability to function, turning a dispute over records into an existential threat to its day-to-day management.

Ms. Paul described Petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying” and that she and other employees were concerned for their personal safety.

——————————————————————————–

2.The “Right to Know” vs. The Right to Privacy and a Secret Ballot

The central conflict pitted one homeowner’s demand for total transparency against the community’s right to privacy. The petitioner insisted on receiving unredacted copies of all completed ballots, which contained the names, addresses, and signatures of every voter.

In response, the HOA did not deny access outright but instead offered a compromise. The petitioner was given the choice to either review the unredacted ballots in person under supervision or accept redacted copies with personal information removed. He refused both options. Notably, the HOA went a step further in its attempt to balance transparency with privacy. Board member William Campbell testified that he “devised a way in which he could match a members’ demographic information to the members’ vote if upon Petitioner’s inspection, something appeared irregular.”

The HOA grounded its refusal in multiple sources of authority, citing its own bylaws protecting member information, a long-standing practice of secret ballots, and, most critically, Arizona state law. A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) explicitly permits an association to withhold the personal records of its members. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately agreed, ruling that the HOA acted correctly and that state law sided with protecting member privacy.

Mr. Campbell referenced Article VII, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution which provides that “all elections by the people shall be by ballot, or by such other method as may be prescribed by law; Provided, that secrecy in voting shall be preserved.”

——————————————————————————–

3.Third Parties Can Become Expensive Collateral Damage

This dispute demonstrates how community conflicts can ensnare and inflict significant damage on essential third-party vendors. The accounting firm, PDS, had a limited, non-managerial role. Its contract was for accounting services only; it facilitated the mailing of election documents, collected the returned ballots, and confirmed a quorum was met. PDS did not conduct the election or tabulate the votes.

Despite this narrow involvement, PDS bore the brunt of the petitioner’s aggressive campaign. The harassment severely impacted its business operations and, according to testimony, created an “abusive and erratic” environment. This led the firm to take two drastic steps: first, obtaining the legal injunction, and second, resigning its contract with the HOA. Critically, the collateral damage had a direct financial cost for the entire community. Court documents reveal that “PDS demanded its legal fees be paid by Respondent [the HOA]” for the costs of securing the harassment injunction.

This outcome reveals the cascading governance failures that result from such conflicts. When a key vendor like an accounting firm resigns under duress, it creates instability, raises the prospect of missed payments or financial errors, and makes it harder to secure a new vendor, who may now view the HOA as a high-risk client—with any increased costs ultimately passed on to all homeowners.

——————————————————————————–

4.You Can’t Win a Legal Battle You Refuse to Fight

In a final, counter-intuitive act, the petitioner successfully filed for a rehearing after losing his initial case, earning a second chance to argue his claims. His actions leading up to the new hearing, however, signaled a preference for performative conflict over substantive legal engagement. He attempted to have the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings review the case in an “appellate capacity,” a power the Director confirmed he did not possess, and threatened to escalate the matter to federal court.

Then came the final twist. After securing the rehearing, the petitioner submitted a filing stating he would “unequivocally not participate in the hearing.”

True to his word, on the day of the hearing—March 10, 2022—the petitioner failed to appear. As the party bringing the complaint, he carried the burden of proof. His absence meant the judge had no evidence to consider and was compelled to dismiss the case. This chapter serves as a stark lesson in strategic failure. After doing the difficult work of securing a second hearing, the petitioner abandoned the field. The legal system, for all its complexities, responds to procedure and participation, not to external threats or pronouncements. Passionate conviction is powerless if you refuse to show up and fight the battle you initiated.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Drawing the Line Between Advocacy and Anarchy

The arc of this conflict—from a simple request for ballots to a multi-stage legal dispute that ended not with a bang, but a whimper—is a cautionary tale. It illustrates how a homeowner’s campaign for transparency, when pursued without regard for legal boundaries or civil discourse, can backfire completely. It left a vendor harassed, forced the community to pay its agent’s legal fees, and ultimately left the original issue unresolved. This case leaves all community leaders and members with a critical question: How can we foster a culture that balances the legitimate need for transparency with the equally important need for member privacy and basic civility?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Daniel B. Belt (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Ellen B. Davis (HOA attorney)
    HENZE COOK MURPHY, PLLC
  • William Campbell (board member, witness)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Member of Respondent's Board of Directors; testified for Respondent
  • President Mexal (board member)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    President of Respondent's Board
  • Director Hallett (board member)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Director of Respondent's Board
  • Sarah Linkey (board member)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Treasurer of Respondent's Board

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Greg Hanchett (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Issued an order regarding Petitioner’s pleading
  • c. serrano (admin staff)
    Signed transmittals
  • Miranda A. (admin staff)
    Signed transmittal

Other Participants

  • Petra Paul (witness, property manager)
    Planned Development Services HOA Management & Accounting Company (PDS)
    Managing Agent for PDS; testified regarding services provided to Respondent
  • Lori Rutledge (unknown)
    Recipient of official transmittal
  • Brandee Abraham (unknown)
    Recipient of official transmittal

Nancy L Pope v. La Vida Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221013-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-02
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nancy L Pope Counsel —
Respondent La Vida Homeowners Association Counsel Erik J. Stone

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article V Section 1, CC&Rs Article VI Section 1a, and Bylaws Article IV Section 2c

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted Petitioner's request, finding that the HOA violated its community documents regarding common area maintenance because a bottle tree in the common area caused damage to Petitioner's property. The ALJ ordered the HOA to comply with the relevant community document provisions and refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. The ALJ noted she lacked statutory authority to award the approximately $28,486.00 in monetary damages requested by Petitioner.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA failure to maintain common area landscaping resulting in root damage to homeowner property.

The Respondent HOA violated its community document obligations for common area maintenance (including landscaping) because a bottle tree located in the common area caused substantial root intrusion damage (lifting and heaving) to the Petitioner's patio and concrete slab.

Orders: Petition granted. Respondent ordered to abide by CC&Rs Article V Section 1, CC&Rs Article VI Section 1a, and Bylaws Article IV Section 2c. Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. No civil penalty imposed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220

Analytics Highlights

Topics: homeowner rights, maintenance violation, root damage, planned community, bottle tree, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221013-REL Decision – 932121.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:00 (43.6 KB)

22F-H2221013-REL Decision – 932140.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:05 (5.8 KB)

22F-H2221013-REL Decision – 951381.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:08 (122.2 KB)

22F-H2221013-REL Decision – 954163.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:10 (46.1 KB)

Questions

Question

If a tree in the HOA common area damages my home, is the HOA responsible even if the tree was planted by a previous homeowner?

Short Answer

Yes. The HOA's duty to maintain the common area applies regardless of who originally planted the tree.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that even though the parties presumed the trees were planted by an original homeowner decades ago, the HOA still had an obligation to maintain the common area. The HOA was found in violation of the CC&Rs because the tree located in the common area caused damage to the homeowner's property.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s duty to maintain the Common Area did not end at the boundary line of the Common Area. A tree in Respondent’s Common Area caused damage to Petitioner’s property.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article V Section 1; Article VI Section 1a

Topic Tags

  • common area maintenance
  • property damage
  • landscaping
  • liability

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge award me money (damages) to cover the cost of repairs to my home?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ does not have the statutory authority to award monetary damages or injunctive relief.

Detailed Answer

While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and order the HOA to abide by the community documents, they cannot order the HOA to pay for the repairs (damages). The homeowner may need to pursue a separate civil action for monetary compensation beyond the filing fee.

Alj Quote

Nothing in the statutes applicable to these disputes provides the Administrative Law Judge with any additional authority to award damages, injunction relief, or declaratory judgments.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • damages
  • remedies
  • jurisdiction
  • repairs

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the ALJ is required to order the respondent to pay the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly ordered the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the $500 filing fee because the petition was granted. This is a statutory requirement when the petitioner wins.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

Does the HOA's duty to 'maintain' landscaping include preventing root damage, or just trimming trees?

Short Answer

The duty to maintain includes preventing damage. Regular trimming is not sufficient if the roots are causing damage.

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued that they fulfilled their duty by having a landscaper trim the trees. However, the ALJ found that despite this regular maintenance, the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the tree's existence and condition caused damage to the adjacent property.

Alj Quote

Despite Respondent’s contract with CityScape for regular arbor maintenance, the bottle tree’s roots caused lifting and heaving of Petitioner’s patio and concrete slab.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article V Section 1

Topic Tags

  • maintenance definition
  • landscaping
  • negligence defense

Question

What is the standard of proof I need to meet to win a hearing against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner bears the burden of proof. This standard means you must show that your claim is 'more probably true than not' or carries the greater weight of the evidence.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

Is the HOA liable if they claim they didn't know the roots were causing problems?

Short Answer

Yes. Lack of knowledge or 'negligence' is not necessarily the standard for a CC&R violation in this context.

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued they were not negligent because they did not know about the root intrusion. The ALJ ruled against them anyway, basing the decision on the strict violation of the duty to maintain the common area which resulted in damage, effectively setting aside the 'we didn't know' defense.

Alj Quote

Respondent further argued that because it did not know or have reason to know of the root intrusion, Respondent was not negligent… [However,] the undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that… Petitioner established a violation… her petition must be granted.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article V Section 1

Topic Tags

  • negligence
  • liability
  • defense arguments

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221013-REL
Case Title
Nancy L. Pope vs. La Vida Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-03-02
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If a tree in the HOA common area damages my home, is the HOA responsible even if the tree was planted by a previous homeowner?

Short Answer

Yes. The HOA's duty to maintain the common area applies regardless of who originally planted the tree.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that even though the parties presumed the trees were planted by an original homeowner decades ago, the HOA still had an obligation to maintain the common area. The HOA was found in violation of the CC&Rs because the tree located in the common area caused damage to the homeowner's property.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s duty to maintain the Common Area did not end at the boundary line of the Common Area. A tree in Respondent’s Common Area caused damage to Petitioner’s property.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article V Section 1; Article VI Section 1a

Topic Tags

  • common area maintenance
  • property damage
  • landscaping
  • liability

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge award me money (damages) to cover the cost of repairs to my home?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ does not have the statutory authority to award monetary damages or injunctive relief.

Detailed Answer

While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and order the HOA to abide by the community documents, they cannot order the HOA to pay for the repairs (damages). The homeowner may need to pursue a separate civil action for monetary compensation beyond the filing fee.

Alj Quote

Nothing in the statutes applicable to these disputes provides the Administrative Law Judge with any additional authority to award damages, injunction relief, or declaratory judgments.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • damages
  • remedies
  • jurisdiction
  • repairs

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the ALJ is required to order the respondent to pay the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly ordered the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the $500 filing fee because the petition was granted. This is a statutory requirement when the petitioner wins.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

Does the HOA's duty to 'maintain' landscaping include preventing root damage, or just trimming trees?

Short Answer

The duty to maintain includes preventing damage. Regular trimming is not sufficient if the roots are causing damage.

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued that they fulfilled their duty by having a landscaper trim the trees. However, the ALJ found that despite this regular maintenance, the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the tree's existence and condition caused damage to the adjacent property.

Alj Quote

Despite Respondent’s contract with CityScape for regular arbor maintenance, the bottle tree’s roots caused lifting and heaving of Petitioner’s patio and concrete slab.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article V Section 1

Topic Tags

  • maintenance definition
  • landscaping
  • negligence defense

Question

What is the standard of proof I need to meet to win a hearing against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner bears the burden of proof. This standard means you must show that your claim is 'more probably true than not' or carries the greater weight of the evidence.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

Is the HOA liable if they claim they didn't know the roots were causing problems?

Short Answer

Yes. Lack of knowledge or 'negligence' is not necessarily the standard for a CC&R violation in this context.

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued they were not negligent because they did not know about the root intrusion. The ALJ ruled against them anyway, basing the decision on the strict violation of the duty to maintain the common area which resulted in damage, effectively setting aside the 'we didn't know' defense.

Alj Quote

Respondent further argued that because it did not know or have reason to know of the root intrusion, Respondent was not negligent… [However,] the undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that… Petitioner established a violation… her petition must be granted.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article V Section 1

Topic Tags

  • negligence
  • liability
  • defense arguments

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221013-REL
Case Title
Nancy L. Pope vs. La Vida Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-03-02
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nancy L Pope (petitioner)
  • Ed Humston (witness)
    H&H Enterprises of Arizona
    Petitioner's Contractor

Respondent Side

  • Erik J. Stone (HOA attorney)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
  • Gabrielle Sherwood (property manager)
    City Property Management
    Community Manager for La Vida HOA
  • Debbie Duffy (board member)
    La Vida Homeowners Association
    Board Secretary
  • Lawrence Oliva (board member)
    La Vida Homeowners Association
    Board President
  • Barbara (board member)
    La Vida Homeowners Association
    Mentioned in email correspondence

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Santos Diaz (witness)
    CareScape
    Area Manager for CareScape, Respondent's landscaper
  • c. serrano (unknown)
    Transmitted documents
  • Miranda Alvarez (unknown)
    Transmitted documents
  • AHansen (unknown)
    ADRE staff
    Recipient of transmission
  • djones (unknown)
    ADRE staff
    Recipient of transmission
  • DGardner (unknown)
    ADRE staff
    Recipient of transmission
  • vnunez (unknown)
    ADRE staff
    Recipient of transmission
  • tandert (unknown)
    ADRE staff
    Recipient of transmission

Dean A Yelenik v. Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-02-18
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Dean A Yelenik Counsel —
Respondent Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association Counsel Nick Eicher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1243(B) and Community Bylaws 3.1 and 3.6

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found the Board acted within its lawful authority because the governing documents and statute cited did not explicitly prohibit a Board Member from resigning and immediately being appointed to fill an unexpired term to elongate their service, and Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated ARS § 33-1243(B) and Bylaws 3.1 and 3.6. The Tribunal found the Board’s action, though potentially questionable, was not unlawful.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the Association violated ARS § 33-1243(B) and Bylaws 3.1 and 3.6 by appointing an existing board member to fill a vacancy, effectively extending her term.

The Board appointed existing Board member Joan Robley to fill the unexpired term of Board Member Gallu (expiring Jan 2023) immediately after she resigned her own seat (expiring Jan 2021), which Petitioner alleged violated governing documents by extending her term and not genuinely filling a vacancy.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(B)
  • Community Bylaws 3.1
  • Community Bylaws 3.6
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Board Vacancy, Term Extension, Bylaw Interpretation, Resignation and Reappointment, ARS 33-1243(B)
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(B)
  • Community Bylaws 3.1
  • Community Bylaws 3.6
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221021-REL Decision – 948752.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:33 (130.2 KB)

Questions

Question

Can a board member resign and immediately be appointed to a different vacancy to get a longer term?

Short Answer

Yes, unless the governing documents specifically prohibit it.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that a board member can resign their current seat and be appointed to a vacancy with a longer unexpired term. As long as the member is eligible (e.g., a unit owner) and the bylaws or statutes do not explicitly forbid this practice, it is considered a lawful exercise of the board's authority to fill vacancies.

Alj Quote

Neither Bylaws Section 3.6 nor ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1243(B) implicitly or explicitly prohibit what occurred.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(B); Bylaws Section 3.6

Topic Tags

  • Board Vacancies
  • Term Limits
  • Board Appointments

Question

Does the HOA board have to choose a new person ('new blood') when filling a vacancy?

Short Answer

No, the board is not required to select a new person.

Detailed Answer

There is no legal requirement for a board to seek out new candidates or 'new blood' when filling a vacancy. The board may appoint a former or resigning director to a vacant seat as long as they meet the basic qualifications, such as being a unit owner.

Alj Quote

There is no presumption of 'new blood' as Petitioner argued. The sole requisite to fill the vacancy was that the choice be limited to unit owners, which Ms. Robley is.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Board Qualifications
  • Vacancies

Question

Does the board have the authority to fill vacancies without holding a general membership election?

Short Answer

Yes, the board generally has the statutory authority to appoint members to fill vacancies.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute allows the board of directors to fill vacancies in its membership for the remainder of an unexpired term without holding a full election, provided the bylaws align with this authority.

Alj Quote

The statute does note, however, that the board of directors may 'fill vacancies in its membership for the unexpired portion of any term.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(B)

Topic Tags

  • Elections
  • Board Authority

Question

Is a board decision illegal just because it is 'questionable' or unpopular?

Short Answer

No, a questionable choice is not necessarily unlawful.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ clarified that even if a board makes a decision that is questionable or if they could have made a different determination, the decision is not unlawful unless it specifically violates the statutes or governing documents.

Alj Quote

Just because the Association could have made any number of different determinations after Mr. Gallu resigned, does not mean that its questionable choice to appoint Ms. Robley to his seat was unlawful.

Legal Basis

Board Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Board Conduct
  • Decision Making

Question

What burden of proof does a homeowner have when challenging an HOA in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for providing enough evidence to convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this standard, the petition will be denied.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Hearings

Question

Does the Administrative Law Judge have the power to interpret the HOA's CC&Rs and Bylaws?

Short Answer

Yes, the OAH tribunal can interpret the contract between the parties.

Detailed Answer

The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the specific authority to hear contested cases and interpret the contract (the CC&Rs and Bylaws) that exists between the homeowner and the association.

Alj Quote

OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Contract Interpretation

Question

If I pay for a single-issue petition, can the judge rule on other related issues?

Short Answer

No, the tribunal is limited to the specific issue paid for.

Detailed Answer

The tribunal's scope is limited to the specific issue(s) for which the filing fee was paid. They cannot adjudicate outside that scope even if related violations are alleged.

Alj Quote

Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may only determine whether Respondent committed a violation… based on the same event or series of alleged conduct.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.05

Topic Tags

  • Procedure
  • Fees

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221021-REL
Case Title
Dean A Yelenik vs. Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-02-18
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can a board member resign and immediately be appointed to a different vacancy to get a longer term?

Short Answer

Yes, unless the governing documents specifically prohibit it.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that a board member can resign their current seat and be appointed to a vacancy with a longer unexpired term. As long as the member is eligible (e.g., a unit owner) and the bylaws or statutes do not explicitly forbid this practice, it is considered a lawful exercise of the board's authority to fill vacancies.

Alj Quote

Neither Bylaws Section 3.6 nor ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1243(B) implicitly or explicitly prohibit what occurred.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(B); Bylaws Section 3.6

Topic Tags

  • Board Vacancies
  • Term Limits
  • Board Appointments

Question

Does the HOA board have to choose a new person ('new blood') when filling a vacancy?

Short Answer

No, the board is not required to select a new person.

Detailed Answer

There is no legal requirement for a board to seek out new candidates or 'new blood' when filling a vacancy. The board may appoint a former or resigning director to a vacant seat as long as they meet the basic qualifications, such as being a unit owner.

Alj Quote

There is no presumption of 'new blood' as Petitioner argued. The sole requisite to fill the vacancy was that the choice be limited to unit owners, which Ms. Robley is.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Board Qualifications
  • Vacancies

Question

Does the board have the authority to fill vacancies without holding a general membership election?

Short Answer

Yes, the board generally has the statutory authority to appoint members to fill vacancies.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute allows the board of directors to fill vacancies in its membership for the remainder of an unexpired term without holding a full election, provided the bylaws align with this authority.

Alj Quote

The statute does note, however, that the board of directors may 'fill vacancies in its membership for the unexpired portion of any term.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(B)

Topic Tags

  • Elections
  • Board Authority

Question

Is a board decision illegal just because it is 'questionable' or unpopular?

Short Answer

No, a questionable choice is not necessarily unlawful.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ clarified that even if a board makes a decision that is questionable or if they could have made a different determination, the decision is not unlawful unless it specifically violates the statutes or governing documents.

Alj Quote

Just because the Association could have made any number of different determinations after Mr. Gallu resigned, does not mean that its questionable choice to appoint Ms. Robley to his seat was unlawful.

Legal Basis

Board Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Board Conduct
  • Decision Making

Question

What burden of proof does a homeowner have when challenging an HOA in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for providing enough evidence to convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this standard, the petition will be denied.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Hearings

Question

Does the Administrative Law Judge have the power to interpret the HOA's CC&Rs and Bylaws?

Short Answer

Yes, the OAH tribunal can interpret the contract between the parties.

Detailed Answer

The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the specific authority to hear contested cases and interpret the contract (the CC&Rs and Bylaws) that exists between the homeowner and the association.

Alj Quote

OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Contract Interpretation

Question

If I pay for a single-issue petition, can the judge rule on other related issues?

Short Answer

No, the tribunal is limited to the specific issue paid for.

Detailed Answer

The tribunal's scope is limited to the specific issue(s) for which the filing fee was paid. They cannot adjudicate outside that scope even if related violations are alleged.

Alj Quote

Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may only determine whether Respondent committed a violation… based on the same event or series of alleged conduct.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.05

Topic Tags

  • Procedure
  • Fees

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221021-REL
Case Title
Dean A Yelenik vs. Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-02-18
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Arthur Dean Yelenik (petitioner)
    Also goes by Dean Yelenik
  • Kristen Terry Beloo (homeowner/past board president)
    Part of petitioner's working group; Past president (6 years)
  • Kathleen Moles (homeowner/past board president)
    Part of petitioner's working group; Past president (3 years)
  • David Moles (homeowner)
    Part of petitioner's working group

Respondent Side

  • Eadie Rudder (respondent attorney)
  • Nick Eicher (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Margo McInnis (board president/witness)
    Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association
    Testified for Respondent
  • Joan Robley (board member)
    Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association
    Appointment subject of dispute
  • Annette (property manager)
    Century Management
    Referred to as Community Manager
  • Quinton Phillips (HOA attorney)
    Attorney for the Association

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Dan Gardner (HOA Coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Chris Gallu (former board member)
    Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association
    Resignation created the contested vacancy; referred to as Mr. Beloo/Blue in transcript
  • Fran McGovern (board member)
    Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association
    Elected to Robley's former seat in Jan 2021