Michael D. Ludden vs Mountain Gate Homeowners Association

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H051-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-09-23
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael D. Ludden Counsel
Respondent Mountain Gate Homeowners Association Counsel

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 1, Definitions, Area of Association Responsibility

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, concluding that the HOA CC&Rs mandate that the Association is responsible for replacing individual homeowners' roofs, if needed, primarily by interpreting the contractual term 'repair' to encompass 'replacement,' and noting that the roof is explicitly included under the HOA's maintenance and repair duties while items solely the owner's responsibility (windows, doors, interior plumbing) are specifically excluded from Areas of Association Responsibility.

Key Issues & Findings

Areas of Association Responsibility – Association responsibility for roof replacement by the association not clearly specified as to whether or not it’s an association or homeowner responsibility.

Petitioner sought clarification on whether the HOA's CC&Rs mandate roof replacement as part of 'Areas of Association Responsibility.' The ALJ concluded that the term 'repair' includes 'replacement,' and based on the CC&Rs language regarding maintenance and repair of the roof and the specific exclusion of windows and doors, the HOA is responsible for roof replacement if needed.

Orders: Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds and henceforth comply with the provisions of the governing documents.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • CC&Rs Article 1
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Merriam-Webster dictionary

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Responsibility, Roof Replacement, CC&R Interpretation, Planned Community
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • CC&Rs Article 1
  • CC&Rs Article 5.18
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 238 (App. 2005)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H051-REL Decision – 1323178.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:58 (68.2 KB)

25F-H051-REL Decision – 1328240.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:04 (71.7 KB)

25F-H051-REL Decision – 1353423.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:09 (167.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H051-REL


Briefing Document: Ludden v. Mountain Gate Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the legal dispute between petitioner Michael D. Ludden and the Mountain Gate Homeowners Association (HOA) concerning the responsibility for roof replacement. On September 23, 2025, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings issued a final decision, ruling conclusively in favor of the petitioner.

The central finding is that the Mountain Gate HOA is financially responsible for the full replacement of homeowner roofs when necessary, in addition to its acknowledged duties of maintenance and repair. The ruling was based on a close interpretation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The ALJ determined that the CC&Rs’ definition of an “Improvement” (which includes any building or structure) combined with the Association’s explicit obligation to “maintain, repair and replace” such improvements, established the HOA’s liability for roof replacement.

The dispute arose from ambiguous language within the CC&Rs, which was compounded by conflicting verbal and written promises made by both the original and subsequent developers during home sales. The HOA argued that financial impracticality and a 2010 amendment requiring individual homeowner insurance shifted replacement liability to the owners. However, the ALJ’s decision rejected these arguments, finding the language of the governing documents to be controlling. As a direct result of the ruling, the Mountain Gate HOA must reimburse the petitioner’s $500 filing fee and is legally bound to comply with this interpretation of its responsibilities moving forward.

Case Overview

Legal Proceedings

Case Name

In the Matter of: Michael D. Ludden, Petitioner, v. Mountain Gate Homeowners Association, Respondent.

Case Number

25F-H051-REL

Tribunal

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Nicole Robinson, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Date

September 3, 2025

Decision Date

September 23, 2025

Parties Involved

Title/Position

Petitioner

Michael D. Ludden

Homeowner and HOA President

Petitioner’s Witness

Brenda Anderson

HOA Secretary Treasurer

Respondent Representative

James “Jim” Pieper

HOA Board Member at Large

Respondent’s Witness

Pablo Martinez

HOA Director at Large

Central Issue

The core of the dispute was the interpretation of the Mountain Gate HOA’s CC&Rs to determine whether the Association is financially responsible for the full replacement of homeowner roofs at the end of their service life, or if its obligation is limited solely to maintenance and repair.

Background and Community History

The dispute is rooted in the development history of the Mountain Gate community, which consists of 42 townhome units in Lakeside, Arizona.

2006: The community is established and the association is incorporated as a condominium association.

2007: Construction begins on the first 12 units under the original developer.

2010: The development is re-platted from condominiums to townhomes, becoming a planned community. The CC&Rs are amended (Article 5.18) to require individual owners to obtain comprehensive insurance for the full replacement cost of their dwelling unit.

c. 2014: The original developer goes bankrupt. Petitioner Michael Ludden purchases his unit from the developer’s sales agent, Gary Laframboise, who verbally stated that roof maintenance and replacement were the HOA’s responsibility.

2016: A new developer, Maebee Mountaingate LLC, purchases the remaining lots and resumes construction.

2018: The new developer utilizes sales brochures that explicitly promise roof replacement coverage. One document states, “Roofs last 20 years, replacement can cost $9500. In Mountain Gate part of your homeowner’s dues will be there to replace your roof if it is needed.”

2021: The new developer commissions a reserve study which includes line items for roof replacement.

July 2022: With all 42 units completed, control of the HOA is transitioned from the developer to the homeowners. The Association’s reserve fund has a zero balance at the time of turnover.

2024: A homeowner demands the HOA replace his roof, prompting the board to seek a legal opinion and bringing the ambiguity in the CC&Rs to the forefront.

February 28, 2025: Michael Ludden files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate to seek a formal ruling on the matter.

September 3, 2025: An evidentiary hearing is conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Arguments Presented at Hearing

Petitioner’s Position (Michael D. Ludden)

The petitioner argued that the HOA is, and has always been represented as being, responsible for roof replacement.

Governing Documents (CC&Rs): The primary argument centered on Article 1 of the CC&Rs. It defines “Improvements” as “any building, wall or structure” and states the Association “is obligated to maintain, repair and replace” these improvements. The petitioner asserted that a dwelling unit is an “Improvement,” and therefore its roof is subject to replacement by the HOA.

Developer Representations: Evidence was presented showing consistent promises from both developers.

◦ A text message from the original developer’s agent, Gary Laframboise, dated October 8, 2024, confirmed, “roof maintenance and replacement is HOA responsibility.”

◦ Sales brochures from the second developer, dated 2018, were used to attract buyers with the explicit promise that HOA dues would cover roof replacement.

Practical Concerns: It was argued that HOA control over replacement is necessary to maintain aesthetic uniformity and structural standards across the community, preventing homeowners from using substandard materials or unapproved colors (a “purple shingle” scenario was cited).

Respondent’s Position (Mountain Gate HOA)

The respondent, represented by board members, argued that roof replacement is the financial responsibility of the individual homeowner.

Governing Documents (CC&Rs): The respondent focused on a more specific clause within Article 1 that states the Areas of Association Responsibility “shall include the maintenance and repair of: all exterior walls and the roof of any Dwelling Unit.” They contended that the absence of the word “replace” in this specific clause meant the duty did not exist, superseding the more general language.

Shift in Liability (2010 Amendment): A key argument was that the 2010 re-platting of the community from condominiums to townhomes fundamentally shifted liability. The accompanying amendment requiring owners to carry their own insurance for the “full replacement cost of the Dwelling Unit” was presented as evidence that the replacement responsibility was transferred to the homeowner and their insurer.

Financial Impracticality: The board stressed the severe financial burden. With annual dues already at $3,318 with no amenities (e.g., pool, clubhouse), adding the cost of roof replacement would require a further increase estimated at $2,000 to $4,000 per year, which would negatively impact property values and make homes difficult to sell.

Extraneous Documents: The respondent’s position was that sales brochures and verbal promises are not legally binding and cannot override the language of the recorded CC&Rs.

Final Decision and Legal Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge granted the petitioner’s request, finding that the HOA is responsible for replacing homeowner roofs when necessary.

Outcome: PETITION GRANTED.

Judge’s Rationale

The decision was based primarily on an interpretation of the plain language of the CC&Rs.

1. Controlling Language of the CC&Rs: The judge found the broader definition in Article 1 to be controlling. Because an “Improvement” is defined as a “building,” and the Association is obligated to “maintain, repair and replace” such Improvements, the responsibility for roof replacement was established.

2. Definition of “Repair”: The judge cited the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of “repair” as “to restore by replacing a part or putting together what is torn or broken.” From this, she concluded that “a repair could come through replacement,” further blurring the distinction the respondent tried to make.

3. The Window Hypothetical: The judge used a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the legal reasoning. The CC&Rs state that owners are solely responsible for the “maintenance and repair” of their windows. If a window needed to be replaced, the responsibility would clearly fall on the owner, even though the word “replace” is absent. The judge reasoned the inverse is true for the roof: since the roof is explicitly listed as an Area of Association Responsibility, that responsibility logically includes replacement when a simple repair is insufficient.

4. Rejection of Respondent’s Arguments: The judge determined that the 2010 amendment requiring individual homeowner insurance “still does not relieve the HOA from repairing and maintaining the roof” and, by extension, replacing it under its CC&R-defined duties. The developer’s promises were noted as supportive but were not the primary basis for the decision.

Direct Orders Issued

Based on the findings, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition be GRANTED.

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.

3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall henceforth comply with the provisions of the governing documents as interpreted in the decision.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael D. Ludden (petitioner)
    Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
    HOA President and Property Owner
  • Brenda Anderson (witness)
    Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
    HOA Secretary-Treasurer

Respondent Side

  • James Pieper (respondent)
    Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
    HOA Director-at-Large
  • Pablo Martinez (witness)
    Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
    HOA Director-at-Large
  • Fzen (board member)
    Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
    Newest board member, observed hearing

Neutral Parties

  • Nicole Robinson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Miranda (OAH staff)
    OAH
    Mentioned by Petitioner regarding document submission
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmission
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmission
  • mneat (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmission
  • lrecchia (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmission
  • gosborn (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmission

Other Participants

  • Gary Laframboise (former developer agent)
    Original Developer
    Provided external statements cited in hearing
  • Karen Johnson (sales agent)
    Navy Construction/Homes Smart
    Represented developer Maebee Mountaingate LLC

Rainey, Chad D. v. The Garden Lakes Community Association

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H061-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-09-01
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Chad D. Rainey Counsel
Respondent The Garden Lakes Community Association Counsel Ashley N. Turner, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petition, finding that Garden violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(A) and its Bylaws by failing to provide access to vendor invoices. The ALJ concluded that vendor invoices are financial records of the association, and the HOA's argument characterizing them as exempt 'source' or 'third-party' documents was rejected. Garden was ordered to provide access to the requested documents and reimburse the filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to provide vendor invoices as part of financial records

Petitioner alleged that the Association failed to fulfill his records request for vendor invoices related to specific bookkeeping accounts (including lake maintenance and annual meeting expenses) for the past 12-24 months. Respondent refused disclosure, arguing invoices were 'third-party' documents and not 'records of the Association' required to be produced under ARS § 33-1805.

Orders: Garden is ordered to comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(A) and Garden Bylaws Article VI, Section 6.13, and reasonably provide examination access to the requested documents. Respondent must reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(A)
  • Garden Bylaws Article VI, Section 6.13
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-11601

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, Financial Records, Vendor Invoices, HOA Transparency, Bylaws Violation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(A)
  • Garden Bylaws Article VI, Section 6.13
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-11601

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H061-REL Decision – 1327389.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:25:46 (53.6 KB)

25F-H061-REL Decision – 1332130.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:25:50 (48.6 KB)

25F-H061-REL Decision – 1334329.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:25:54 (47.9 KB)

25F-H061-REL Decision – 1345206.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:25:58 (136.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H061-REL


Briefing Document: Rainey v. The Garden Lakes Community Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of case number 25F-H061-REL, a dispute between homeowner Chad D. Rainey (Petitioner) and The Garden Lakes Community Association (Respondent) adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The central issue was the Association’s refusal to provide copies of vendor invoices related to lake maintenance and other expenses, which were requested by the Petitioner on April 18, 2025.

The Association argued that such invoices were not “records of the Association” under Arizona law, but rather “third-party” or “source” documents that it was not obligated to disclose. The Petitioner contended that Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which mandates that “all financial and other records” be made available, clearly includes these invoices.

Following an evidentiary hearing on August 4, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn ruled decisively in favor of the Petitioner. The final decision, issued September 1, 2025, concluded that the Association’s characterization of the invoices as “disingenuous” and found that records kept by a management company on behalf of an association are legally considered the association’s records. The judge ordered the Association to provide access to the requested invoices and reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee, establishing that an association cannot arbitrarily exclude such fundamental financial documents from member examination.

Case Overview

Detail

Description

Case Number

No. 25F-H061-REL

Petitioner

Chad D. Rainey

Respondent

The Garden Lakes Community Association

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn

Hearing Date

August 4, 2025

Decision Date

September 1, 2025

Statutes at Issue

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Bylaws at Issue

Article VI, Section 6.13

Procedural History

1. Initial Concern: Beginning March 12, 2025, Mr. Rainey communicated with the community manager regarding concerns about lake quality and fish kills within the community.

2. Formal Records Request: On April 18, 2025, Mr. Rainey sent a formal email request to the Association for specific documents, including vendor invoices for lake maintenance accounts.

3. Association’s Refusal: In a letter dated May 1, 2025, the Association’s legal counsel provided some requested documents (contracts) but explicitly refused to produce any vendor invoices.

4. Petition Filed: On May 8, 2025, Mr. Rainey filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Association violated state law and its own bylaws.

5. Subpoena Dispute: A subpoena was issued for the Association’s Treasurer, Deborah Taylor. The Association filed a Motion to Quash on July 21, 2025, which was initially granted on July 24. However, upon reconsideration, the OAH reissued the subpoena on July 30, 2025, compelling Ms. Taylor’s virtual appearance.

6. Evidentiary Hearing: A virtual hearing was conducted via Google Meet on August 4, 2025.

7. Final Decision: On September 1, 2025, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a final decision granting the Petitioner’s petition.

The Central Dispute: The Records Request

The core of the conflict was Mr. Rainey’s formal request for documents, specifically the Association’s refusal to provide invoices.

Petitioner’s Request (April 18, 2025)

Mr. Rainey requested access to copies of the following:

Invoices for the past 24 months for bookkeeping accounts related to lake maintenance, including:

◦ 618 Water Feature Maintenance

◦ 66702 Lake Repairs

◦ 664 Water Feature Repairs/Maint

◦ 70705 Chemicals

◦ 72308 Lake Chemicals/Dye

◦ 724 Fish Stock

Invoices for the past 12 months for account 56701 Annual Meeting Expense.

• Copy of the current contract with CCMC (the management company).

• Copy of the current contract for the landscape contractor.

Respondent’s Refusal (May 1, 2025)

The Association’s law firm, CHBD Law, responded by providing the CCMC and landscape contracts but refused to supply the requested invoices. The letter stated:

“[T]he Association declines to produce any documents related to your requests for invoices from various vendors or other contractors. Such third-party invoices are not ‘records of the Association’ and the Association has no obligation under Arizona law to produce or disclose thirty-party invoices. See A.R.S. § 10-11601. For this reason, the Association declines to produce any of the invoices you requested for the past 12 or 24 months.”

Key Arguments Presented at Hearing

Petitioner’s Position (Chad D. Rainey)

Plain Language of the Law: A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) is unambiguous, stating “all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available.” The term “all” is inclusive and does not permit the Association to selectively withhold records like invoices.

Insufficiency of Available Records: The summary financial documents on the homeowner portal are inadequate for transparency, as they only list line-item totals without identifying vendors or detailing specific services performed.

Refutation of Association’s Legal Defense:

◦ The Association’s reliance on A.R.S. § 10-11601 (corporate records) is misplaced. Paragraph F of that statute explicitly states that in a conflict, Title 33 (which governs planned communities) prevails.

◦ None of the specific exemptions listed in A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) (e.g., privileged communications, pending litigation) apply to vendor invoices.

Governing Documents: The Association’s own bylaws (Section 6.13) require it to keep “detailed and accurate records… of the receipts and expenditures affecting the Common Areas,” which logically includes invoices.

Motivation for Request: The request was made in good faith to understand how the Association was maintaining community lakes amid declining water quality. As Mr. Rainey stated, “I requested these specific and pointed invoices to learn about how the association maintained the lakes.”

Respondent’s Position (The Garden Lakes Community Association)

Invoices are Not “Association Records”: The core of the defense was the assertion that invoices created by third-party vendors are not financial records of the Association. They were characterized as “source documents” that inform the financials but are not the financials themselves.

Demonstrated Transparency: The Association argued it complies with the law by making its official financial records—such as balance sheets, statements of revenue, and budget summaries—available to all homeowners on the online portal.

Operational Structure: The defense emphasized that invoices are not part of the Association’s ordinary records. They are handled exclusively by the management company’s accounting department, processed through a separate system called “IPS,” and are not included in the monthly financial packets reviewed by the Board of Directors.

Statutory Interpretation: The Association contended that the statute does not specifically mention the word “invoice” and therefore does not compel their disclosure.

Key Witness Testimony

Deborah Taylor (Association Treasurer)

Role and Responsibilities: Ms. Taylor testified that her role as Treasurer involves reviewing financial statements prepared by the management company, primarily to check for variances from the budget.

Invoice Handling: She confirmed that neither she nor any other board member reviews, processes, or approves individual vendor invoices. This function is entirely delegated to the management company. She stated, “They [the Board] do not” review invoices and approve them for payment. When asked who does, she said, “As far as I’m I know, the management company. That’s what they’re contracted for.”

Financial Packet: She testified that the monthly financial packet provided to the Board is over 100 pages long but does not contain copies of vendor invoices.

Stephanie Via (Community Manager, CCMC)

Invoice Process: Ms. Via detailed the “life cycle” of an invoice. Vendors typically send invoices to CCMC’s invoicing department, which are then uploaded into a third-party system called IPS. She or others in the management company then process the payments.

Board Approval: She testified that the Board approves expenditures based on contracts agreed upon in open meetings, not by reviewing individual invoices. For non-contractual repairs, she has a spending limit of $2,500 for emergencies.

Online Financials: Ms. Via confirmed that the financial statements posted on the homeowner portal are summaries of about 14-15 pages and do not contain vendor names, only line-item categories. When asked if a homeowner could see who was paid, she responded, “It doesn’t have vendor names, but it has line items that pertain to lake maintenance or landscape.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order

The ALJ’s final decision sided entirely with the Petitioner, rejecting the Association’s arguments and interpretation of the law.

Findings and Conclusions

Records Held by Agent are Association Records: The decision established that “Garden’s financial documents are prepared by, and kept in the custody of, Garden’s property management company and, thus, are considered to be Garden’s documents.” An association cannot evade its disclosure obligations by delegating record-keeping to a third party.

Rejection of “Source Document” Argument: The ALJ found the Association’s attempt to reclassify the invoices to be without merit, stating, “Garden’s portrayal of requested documents as ‘executive,’ ‘third-party,’ or ‘source’ is disingenuous.”

Plain Meaning of Statute and Bylaws: The decision affirmed that A.R.S. § 33-1805’s use of “all financial and other records” is comprehensive. Furthermore, the Association’s own bylaws require “detailed and accurate records” of expenditures, which invoices represent.

Violation Confirmed: The judge concluded that the Petitioner had sustained his burden of proof and that the Association violated both A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and its own Bylaws (Article VI, Section 6.13) by failing to provide the requested records.

Final Order

1. The Petitioner, Chad D. Rainey, is declared the prevailing party and his Petition is GRANTED.

2. The Garden Lakes Community Association is ordered to comply with the law and reasonably provide examination access to the requested documents.

3. The Association is ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00.

4. No civil penalty was found to be appropriate in the matter.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Chad D. Rainey (petitioner)
    Self-represented at hearing

Respondent Side

  • Ashley N. Turner (HOA attorney)
    CHBD Law
  • Deborah Taylor (Treasurer/Board Member/Witness)
    The Garden Lakes Community Association
    Respondent's Treasurer/Board Member; presented testimony for Garden
  • Stephanie Via (Community Manager/Witness)
    CCMC Capital Consulting Property Management
    Also referred to as Stephanie Villa in findings. Presented testimony for Garden.
  • Joshua Bolen (Attorney)
    CHBD Law
    Electronic recipient of OAH documents
  • Theresa Laubenthal (Staff)
    CHBD Law
    Electronic recipient of OAH documents

Neutral Parties

  • Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Madison Raider (Observer)
    CHBD Law
    Summer associate observing the hearing
  • Sebastian Shuya (Observer)
    CHBD Law
    Summer associate observing the hearing
  • V. Nunez (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Electronic recipient of OAH documents (derived from email [email protected]),,,
  • D. Jones (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Electronic recipient of OAH documents (derived from email [email protected]),,,
  • L. Abril (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Electronic recipient of OAH documents (derived from email [email protected]),,,
  • M. Neat (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Electronic recipient of OAH documents (derived from email [email protected]),,,
  • L. Recchia (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Electronic recipient of OAH documents (derived from email [email protected]),,,
  • G. Osborn (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Electronic recipient of OAH documents (derived from email [email protected]),,,

Jeremy R Whittaker v. The Val Vista Lake Community Association (ROOT)

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H045-REL; 25F-H054-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-08
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $1,000.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jeremy R. Whittaker Counsel
Respondent The Val Vista Lakes Community Association Counsel Joshua M. Bolen, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted both consolidated petitions (25F-H045-REL and 25F-H054-REL), finding that Respondent, The Val Vista Lakes Community Association, violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by wrongfully withholding requested documents and failing to respond to records requests. Respondent was ordered to follow A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) for all pending and future requests, reimburse the Petitioner the total filing fees of $1000.00, and pay a total civil penalty of $1000.00.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation regarding failure to provide association records (Policies/Legal)

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide requested records (including those regarding records policy and attorney fee information) within the ten-business-day deadline, and by conditioning production on an unenforceable ‘Records Request Form’. The tribunal found Val Vista wrongfully withheld the documents and violated the statute.

Orders: Petition granted. Respondent ordered to follow A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), reimburse the $500 filing fee, and pay a $500 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Violation regarding failure to provide financial records (Bank Statements)

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide requested operating and reserve bank statements. Val Vista failed to respond to the request. The tribunal found the failure to respond unacceptable and in violation of the statute.

Orders: Petition granted. Respondent ordered to follow A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), reimburse the $500 filing fee, and pay a $500 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Failure to Produce Documents, Statutory Violation, Civil Penalty, Filing Fee Refund, Consolidated Cases
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1315733.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:34 (58.2 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1316066.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:34 (61.5 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1316100.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:34 (58.7 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1316101.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:34 (9.5 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1318153.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:34 (46.4 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1324339.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:34 (50.1 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1324343.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:34 (43.8 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1324372.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:35 (44.6 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1328416.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:35 (38.0 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1337742.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:35 (129.7 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1342973.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:35 (47.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H045-REL


Briefing Document: Whittaker v. The Val Vista Lake Community Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the administrative legal proceedings and final judgment in the consolidated cases of Jeremy R. Whittaker v. The Val Vista Lake Community Association. The core of the dispute centered on the association’s failure to comply with member records requests, a direct violation of Arizona state law. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) ruled decisively in favor of the Petitioner, Jeremy R. Whittaker, finding that The Val Vista Lake Community Association (Val Vista) wrongfully withheld documents and failed to respond to legitimate requests within the statutory timeframe.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected Val Vista’s defense, which included claims that the relevant statute was outdated and that the association’s internal “Records Policy” justified its non-compliance. The judge’s decision labeled the association’s failure to respond as “simply unacceptable.” Consequently, the OAH ordered Val Vista to comply with the law for all current and future requests, reimburse the Petitioner for $1,000 in filing fees, and pay an additional $1,000 in civil penalties. A subsequent clarification order explicitly extended the compliance mandate to “all pending and future requests,” solidifying the prospective impact of the ruling.

Case Overview

The matter involves two separate petitions filed by a homeowner against a homeowners’ association, which were later consolidated by the OAH for judicial economy.

Entity / Individual

Petitioner

Jeremy R. Whittaker (Appeared on his own behalf)

Respondent

The Val Vista Lake Community Association (Val Vista)

Respondent’s Counsel

Joshua M. Bolen, Esq., CHDB Law LLP

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding ALJs

Velva Moses-Thompson (pre-hearing motions), Adam D. Stone (hearing and final decision)

Overseeing Agency

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Consolidated Dockets

25F-H045-REL and 25F-H054-REL

Procedural History and Key Rulings

The case progressed through a series of motions and orders leading to a final evidentiary hearing and decision.

Case Consolidation (June 10, 2025): Petitioner’s motion to consolidate docket No. 25F-H054-REL with No. 25F-H045-REL was granted. The hearing for the consolidated matter was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on July 15, 2025.

Motions Denied (June 10, 2025): In the same order, a motion for summary judgment was denied, and a motion to quash a subpoena for Bryan Patterson was denied as moot, allowing the Petitioner to file a new subpoena for the revised hearing date.

Virtual Appearance (June 10, 2025): The Respondent’s motion for a virtual appearance at the hearing via Google Meet was granted.

Subpoena Rulings:

Bryan Patterson (June 17 & July 1, 2025): The OAH granted a subpoena requiring the appearance of Bryan Patterson but denied the request for the production of documents listed as 2a through 2d. A subsequent motion to quash a new subpoena (dated June 25, 2025) was partially granted; Patterson was still required to appear but not to produce the specified documents.

Tamara Swanson (July 1, 2025): A June 5, 2025 subpoena was partially quashed. Tamara Swanson was ordered to appear at the hearing but was not required to produce documents listed as 2a through 2d.

Disqualification of Counsel Denied (July 1, 2025): Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify CHDB Law, LLP as counsel for the Respondent, which the OAH denied.

Evidentiary Hearing (July 15, 2025): The consolidated hearing was held before ALJ Adam D. Stone. The record was held open until July 24, 2025, to allow both parties to submit written closing arguments.

Final Decision (August 8, 2025): ALJ Adam D. Stone issued a final decision in favor of the Petitioner.

Order Clarification (August 26, 2025): Upon the Petitioner’s Motion for Clarification, the ALJ modified the decision’s language to ensure future compliance from the Respondent.

Analysis of Records Requests and Disputes

The dispute originated from three separate, comprehensive records requests made by the Petitioner to which the Respondent, Val Vista, failed to provide documents or a substantive response.

Case 25F-H045-REL: Records Policy and Legal Fees

This case encompassed two records requests made on February 27, 2025. The official dispute was summarized in the Notice of Hearing:

“Petitioner alleges Respondent of violating, ‘A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the requested records with the ten-business-day statutory deadline, conditioning production on a legally unenforceable ‘Records Request Form’, and withholding critical attorney fee information-particularly troubling given its counsel’s documented disciplinary history for inflated or misleading HOA fee practices.'”

Requested Documents (February 27, 2025):

1. Records Retention and Request Policy: The final, fully executed version of the policy adopted around February 25, 2025, including all exhibits and attachments.

2. Meeting Minutes: Draft or final minutes from the February 25, 2025, Board meeting discussing the adoption of the policy.

3. Legal Services Records:

◦ Current and past legal services agreements and retainers.

◦ Attorney rate schedules and fee structures.

◦ Invoices, billing statements, and payment records (with legally permitted redactions).

◦ Board meeting minutes discussing attorney engagement or retention.

◦ RFPs or other bid solicitations related to retaining legal counsel.

◦ Conflict-of-interest disclosures or waivers concerning the law firm.

◦ Any other records detailing the contractual or advisory relationship.

Case 25F-H054-REL: Financial Records

This case stemmed from a request made on March 21, 2025. The Notice of Hearing defined the dispute:

“Petitioner alleges Respondent of violating, A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), ‘by failing to provide the requested bank statements and FSR-related communications, and is operating in ongoing breach or its statutory obligations.’”

Requested Documents (March 21, 2025):

1. Operating Bank Statements: Complete monthly statements for all operating/checking accounts from January 1, 2024, to the present.

2. Reserve Account Statements: All monthly or quarterly statements for reserve accounts from January 1, 2024, to the present.

For both cases, the final decision confirmed that “No documents have been turned over by Val Vista.”

Final Administrative Law Judge Decision

The ALJ’s final decision on August 8, 2025, provided a clear resolution to the disputes, finding definitively against Val Vista.

Summary of Arguments

Petitioner’s Position: Argued that Val Vista failed to produce the requested records within the statutory timeline and had no authority to compel the use of a specific records request form or to ignore a request not submitted on that form.

Respondent’s Position: Argued that A.R.S. § 33-1805 was “outdated and misunderstood” and that it only had ten days to provide copies after an examination of records occurred. Val Vista claimed it created its Records Policy to streamline previously broad requests from members and that some requested documents were privileged.

Conclusions of Law

The ALJ found that the Petitioner met the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Val Vista violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Wrongful Withholding: The central conclusion was that “Val Vista wrongfully withheld the requested documents.”

Failure to Respond: The decision stated that Val Vista’s lack of any response was unacceptable. Even if documents were privileged, they “could have properly been withheld and/or redacted.”

Invalid Justification: The fact that the second request was not made on Val Vista’s preferred form “does not excuse Val Vista from at a minimum responding.” The Petitioner’s written request complied with the statute.

Unacceptable Conduct: The ALJ concluded, “No response by Val Vista was simply unacceptable, and in violation of the statute.”

Final Order and Penalties

The OAH granted both of the Petitioner’s petitions and imposed the following orders and penalties:

Case Docket

Filing Fee Reimbursement

Civil Penalty

25F-H045-REL

Granted; Respondent must follow A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

$500.00

$500.00

25F-H054-REL

Granted; Respondent must follow A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

$500.00

$500.00

$1,000.00

$1,000.00

The total financial judgment against The Val Vista Lake Community Association was $2,000.00.

Post-Decision Clarification

On August 26, 2025, in response to a Motion for Clarification from the Petitioner, ALJ Adam D. Stone issued a modifying order. The order strengthened the original decision by stating:

“IT IS ORDERED that the Administrative Law Judge Decision shall be modified to read, ‘Respondent shall follow the A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) for all pending and future requests.'”

This clarification ensures that the ruling is not limited to the specific past violations but establishes a clear, forward-looking mandate for the association’s compliance with state law regarding member access to records.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jeremy R. Whittaker (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Josh Bolen (attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
    Also referred to as Joshua M. Bolen, Esq.; Represented Respondent
  • Vicki Goslin (staff)
    CHDB Law LLP
    Listed as a recipient for transmission

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
    Signed orders dated June 10 and July 1
  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
    Signed Order Holding Record Open and Administrative Law Judge Decision/Modification
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • vnunez (ADRE staff/recipient)
    ADRE
  • djones (ADRE staff/recipient)
    ADRE
  • labril (ADRE staff/recipient)
    ADRE
  • mneat (ADRE staff/recipient)
    ADRE
  • lrecchia (ADRE staff/recipient)
    ADRE
  • gosborn (ADRE staff/recipient)
    ADRE

Other Participants

  • Bryan Patterson (witness)
    Subject of motions to quash subpoena
  • Tamara Swanson (witness)
    Subject of motion to quash subpoena

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton vs Sycamore Springs Homeowners

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-06
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $150.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton Counsel Craig L. Cline
Respondent Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Nikolas Thompson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620, 33-1805, 33-1810, Bylaws Article 10.1.1, 10.3, 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1, and CC&R Article X Section 3
A.R.S. § 33-1803, CC&Rs Article IX Section 10, Section 18, Article XI Section 1, Section 5, HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition entirely, concluding that Petitioners failed to establish any of the alleged violations of statutes, CC&Rs, or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ found that the HOA provided reasonable explanations regarding delays in document production and that the Petitioners' security camera created a nuisance for a neighbor, requiring the submission of a Design Modification Request (DMR).

Why this result: Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof for the numerous alleged violations. The records requests claims failed because Petitioners did not satisfy prerequisites (e.g., payment, inspection request) or because the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays. The security camera issue failed because the device created a nuisance and Petitioners refused to submit a required DMR.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to follow governing documents & State laws with respect to preparation of mandatory records and documents; retention of required records and documents; and/or fulfillment of Owner requests for same.

Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to timely produce requested board minutes and financial compilations for 2022 and 2023. The ALJ found that A.R.S. §§ 10-11601 and 10-11620 were inapplicable. Regarding A.R.S. §§ 33-1805 and 33-1810, the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays (management transition, accountant extension). Petitioners failed to establish violations, noting they did not request inspection, offer to pay for copies, or inform the HOA of the missing 2022 compilation.

Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • A.R.S. § 10-11620
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • Bylaws Article 10.1.1
  • Bylaws Article 10.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.4
  • Bylaws Article 5.1
  • CC&R Article X Section 3

Misinterpreting the CC&Rs in regards to the Petitioners' security devices.

Petitioners argued their security camera installation was exempt (a “carve out”) from requiring a Design Modification Request (DMR). They also alleged improper notice and fining under A.R.S. § 33-1803 and CC&Rs Article XI Sec 5. The ALJ found the camera created a nuisance for the neighbor by invading privacy. Although the HOA may have had a technical violation in notice (Article XI Sec 5), Petitioners failed to establish overall violations, noting Petitioners refused to submit a DMR as required of all homeowners.

Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed. Petitioners are required to submit a DMR.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $150.00

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 10
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 18
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 5
  • HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records, minutes, financial statements, audit, compilation, security camera, nuisance, design modification request, DMR, failure to submit DMR, notice violation, burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • A.R.S. § 10-11620
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • Bylaws Article 10.1.1
  • Bylaws Article 10.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.4
  • Bylaws Article 5.1
  • CC&R Article X Section 3
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 10
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 18
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 5
  • HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1275948.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:25 (49.4 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1275971.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:29 (8.8 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1297318.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:33 (49.2 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1302228.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:37 (49.4 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1302231.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:42 (8.6 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1336572.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:45 (212.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H027-REL


Briefing on the Administrative Hearing: Schafer & Lawton v. Sycamore Springs HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 25F-H027-REL). The dispute centered on two core issues: the Homeowners Association’s (HOA) alleged failure to properly prepare, retain, and provide mandatory corporate records, and its alleged misinterpretation of governing documents concerning the installation of a security camera by the petitioners.

Following a hearing on July 22, 2025, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella issued a decision on August 6, 2025, dismissing the petition in its entirety. The ALJ concluded that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on all allegations.

Key findings indicate that the HOA’s explanations for delays and missing records—namely, a difficult transition between management companies and a tax filing extension—were deemed reasonable. Regarding the security camera, the ALJ determined that the device constituted a nuisance to a neighbor, a finding within the HOA board’s discretion, and upheld the HOA’s requirement for a Design Modification Request (DMR). The decision affirmed the respondent’s central legal argument distinguishing the duty to “keep” records from a requirement to “take” them.

Case Overview

Case Name

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton, Petitioners, v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent.

Case Number

25F-H027-REL

Tribunal

State of Arizona, Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

Hearing Date

July 22, 2025

Decision Date

August 6, 2025

Petitioners

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton (Represented by Craig Cline, Esq.)

Respondent

Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Represented by Nikolas Thompson, Esq.)

The matter was subject to several continuances at the request of the Respondent, moving the final hearing date to July 22, 2025.

Core Allegations and Disputed Issues

The dispute was formally divided into two primary areas of contention, each involving alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws).

Issue 1: Records and Document Management

Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA systematically failed to follow governing documents and state laws regarding the preparation, retention, and fulfillment of owner requests for mandatory records. This included the failure to provide five specific sets of board meeting minutes and the annual financial compilations for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 in a timely manner. Petitioners argued this constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of multiple statutes and bylaws.

Respondent’s Position: The HOA contended that governing documents and statutes require them to keep records of minutes taken, but not to take minutes for every meeting. This interpretation was based on advice from legal counsel. They argued that most documents were available on the homeowner portal and that the failure to produce one specific set of minutes (December 2023) was due to them being lost by a previous “garbage” management company. The delay in providing the 2023 financial compilation was attributed to a reasonable circumstance: an extension filed for the association’s taxes.

Issue 2: Security Camera Installation

Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA misinterpreted its own CC&Rs by requiring a DMR for the petitioners’ security camera. Petitioners argued that Article IX, Section 18 of the CC&Rs provides a specific “carve out” for “security devices used exclusively for security purposes.” They further contended they were being targeted, as the HOA had no history of enforcing such a requirement for security cameras until after their device was installed and a neighbor complained.

Respondent’s Position: The HOA board interpreted the CC&R “carve out” as applying only to sound-emitting devices (e.g., alarms, bells), as the clause is situated within a paragraph on noise nuisances. They argued a security camera is an “attachment to an existing structure,” which requires approval from the Architectural Control Committee under a separate CC&R article. Furthermore, the installation created a nuisance by invading a neighbor’s privacy, obligating the board to act. The HOA asserted that all homeowners, including the board president, were subsequently required to submit DMRs for their cameras to ensure consistent enforcement.

Key Testimony and Evidence

Patricia Lawton (Petitioner)

• A former HOA board president for three years, Ms. Lawton testified to having an expert-level understanding of the governing documents.

• Regarding records, she stated that of five requested sets of board minutes, only one was provided, and it was delivered late. She claimed she never received the 2022 financial compilation, only tax returns, and that the 2023 compilation was not provided within the statutorily required timeframe.

• She disputed the validity of the HOA’s tax-extension excuse, testifying that the association operates on a cash basis of accounting, which should not have prevented the timely completion of the compilation.

• She testified that due to security concerns (fear of being hacked), she does not have a registered account for the homeowner portal and accesses it through other community members.

• On the security camera, she asserted it was a residential-grade device installed in response to trespassing and property damage. She maintained that the CC&Rs provided a clear exemption and that the HOA’s enforcement action was retaliatory and inconsistent with historical practice.

Kristen Rowlette (HOA Board President)

• Ms. Rowlette testified that critical documents, including the December 2023 minutes, were lost during a problematic transition from a prior management company, Adams LLC, to the current one, Mission Management. She stated Ms. Lawton was aware of these difficulties as she attended every board meeting.

• She admitted that the board made a decision to stop taking minutes for meetings where no votes were held. She stated this was done on the advice of legal counsel (Smith and Wamsley) and was a direct response to feeling “inundated with requests from Patricia.”

• Regarding the camera, she testified that the issue arose only after a neighbor filed a formal complaint citing privacy concerns for their children. She described visiting the neighbor’s property and observing the camera’s “eye” actively tracking her movements.

• She confirmed that following the complaint, the board, on legal advice, required all homeowners to retroactively submit DMRs for any existing security cameras to ensure uniform enforcement.

Central Legal Arguments

The “Keep” vs. “Take” Debate

The primary legal conflict regarding the meeting minutes centered on the interpretation of a single word.

Petitioners’ Argument: Counsel for the petitioners argued that the phrase “keep the minutes” must be interpreted through a “common sense application,” meaning “maintaining a written record of proceedings and decisions.” It was described as a standard practice for nonprofit organizations for decades, and the respondent’s narrow definition was “overly simplistic.”

Respondent’s Argument: Counsel for the HOA focused on a strict textual interpretation. He argued, “they cannot point to any language in any of the governing documents in any of the statutes that requires associations to take minutes. It just doesn’t exist. What they’ve done is they’ve conflated the word keep… to mean take.” He cited dictionary definitions to assert that “keep” means to hold, maintain, or retain, not to create.

The Security Camera “Carve Out”

The dispute over the camera hinged on whether it fell under an exception in the nuisance clause of the CC&Rs.

Petitioners’ Argument: Article IX, Section 18 exempts “security devices used exclusively for security purposes” from the general prohibition on sound devices. Petitioners argued their camera fit this description, and this carve-out, combined with a total lack of historical enforcement or specific design guidelines for cameras, meant a DMR was not required.

Respondent’s Argument: The exemption is located in a provision focused on noise nuisances (“speakers, horns, whistles, bells or other sound devices”). The board’s interpretation was that the exception logically applies only to sound-emitting security devices like driveway alarms. The camera, as a physical modification, was governed by architectural rules requiring a DMR and was also subject to the board’s “sole discretion” to determine if it constituted a nuisance to neighbors.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding the petitioners failed to establish their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rationale on Issue 1 (Records)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620 (Corporate Records)

No Jurisdiction

The tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33 (planned communities) and does not extend to these Title 10 (nonprofit corporations) statutes.

A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Availability)

No Violation

Respondent made records “reasonably available.” The loss of minutes during a management transition and the delay of financials due to a tax extension were deemed reasonable explanations.

A.R.S. § 33-1810 (Annual Audit)

No Violation

The request was made in 2024, entitling petitioners only to 2023 statements. The CC&Rs require owners to pay for audited statements, which petitioners did not offer to do.

CC&R Article X Section 3 & Bylaws Article 10.3 (Inspection)

No Violation

These provisions govern the inspection of documents. Petitioners requested copies without offering to pay for reproduction and never formally requested an in-person inspection.

Bylaws Articles 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1 (Secretary/Treasurer Duties, Meetings)

No Violation

Petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Secretary or Treasurer failed in their duties or that meetings were not held as required.

Rationale on Issue 2 (Camera)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

CC&Rs Art. IX §§ 10, 18 (Nuisance)

No Violation

The CC&Rs grant the Board “sole discretion” to determine the existence of a nuisance. The ALJ found the evidence credible that the camera invaded the neighbor’s privacy, thus creating a nuisance.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 1 (Enforcement)

No Violation

Petitioners were notified of their right to a hearing before the Board. The HOA’s request for a DMR was a reasonable enforcement action applied to all community members.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 5 (Notice by Mail)

Technical Violation, No Harm

While there may have been a “technical violation” of the certified mail requirement, the ALJ found that the “Petitioners clearly received all notices” and were not prejudiced.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kevin W. Schafer (petitioner)
  • Patricia A. Lawton (petitioner)
    Testified on her own behalf; Former HOA Board President
  • Craig L. Cline (petitioner attorney)
    Udall Law Firm, LLP
  • Maile L. Belongie (petitioner attorney)
    Udall Law Firm, LLP
  • c zauner (petitioner attorney staff)
    Udall Law Firm, LLP
    Listed on email distribution list

Respondent Side

  • Nikolas Thompson (respondent attorney)
    MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P.
  • Kristen Rowlette (board member)
    Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc.
    HOA President; Testified as witness
  • Jennifer Pembertton (property manager)
    Mission Management
    Community Manager; Mentioned as present at hearing
  • Kurt M. Zitzer (respondent attorney)
    MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P.
  • William Custer (witness)
    Neighbor/Complainant regarding security camera

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • mneat (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • lrecchia (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • gosborn (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list

Other Participants

  • Eric Harris (board member)
    Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Former)
    Former HOA Secretary

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton vs Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-06
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $150.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton Counsel Craig L. Cline
Respondent Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Nikolas Thompson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620, 33-1805, 33-1810, Bylaws Article 10.1.1, 10.3, 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1, and CC&R Article X Section 3
A.R.S. § 33-1803, CC&Rs Article IX Section 10, Section 18, Article XI Section 1, Section 5, HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition entirely, concluding that Petitioners failed to establish any of the alleged violations of statutes, CC&Rs, or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ found that the HOA provided reasonable explanations regarding delays in document production and that the Petitioners' security camera created a nuisance for a neighbor, requiring the submission of a Design Modification Request (DMR).

Why this result: Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof for the numerous alleged violations. The records requests claims failed because Petitioners did not satisfy prerequisites (e.g., payment, inspection request) or because the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays. The security camera issue failed because the device created a nuisance and Petitioners refused to submit a required DMR.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to follow governing documents & State laws with respect to preparation of mandatory records and documents; retention of required records and documents; and/or fulfillment of Owner requests for same.

Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to timely produce requested board minutes and financial compilations for 2022 and 2023. The ALJ found that A.R.S. §§ 10-11601 and 10-11620 were inapplicable. Regarding A.R.S. §§ 33-1805 and 33-1810, the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays (management transition, accountant extension). Petitioners failed to establish violations, noting they did not request inspection, offer to pay for copies, or inform the HOA of the missing 2022 compilation.

Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • A.R.S. § 10-11620
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • Bylaws Article 10.1.1
  • Bylaws Article 10.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.4
  • Bylaws Article 5.1
  • CC&R Article X Section 3

Misinterpreting the CC&Rs in regards to the Petitioners' security devices.

Petitioners argued their security camera installation was exempt (a “carve out”) from requiring a Design Modification Request (DMR). They also alleged improper notice and fining under A.R.S. § 33-1803 and CC&Rs Article XI Sec 5. The ALJ found the camera created a nuisance for the neighbor by invading privacy. Although the HOA may have had a technical violation in notice (Article XI Sec 5), Petitioners failed to establish overall violations, noting Petitioners refused to submit a DMR as required of all homeowners.

Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed. Petitioners are required to submit a DMR.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $150.00

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 10
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 18
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 5
  • HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records, minutes, financial statements, audit, compilation, security camera, nuisance, design modification request, DMR, failure to submit DMR, notice violation, burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • A.R.S. § 10-11620
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • Bylaws Article 10.1.1
  • Bylaws Article 10.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.4
  • Bylaws Article 5.1
  • CC&R Article X Section 3
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 10
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 18
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 5
  • HOA Hearing and Fine Policy




Briefing Doc – 25F-H027-REL


Briefing on the Administrative Hearing: Schafer & Lawton v. Sycamore Springs HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 25F-H027-REL). The dispute centered on two core issues: the Homeowners Association’s (HOA) alleged failure to properly prepare, retain, and provide mandatory corporate records, and its alleged misinterpretation of governing documents concerning the installation of a security camera by the petitioners.

Following a hearing on July 22, 2025, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella issued a decision on August 6, 2025, dismissing the petition in its entirety. The ALJ concluded that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on all allegations.

Key findings indicate that the HOA’s explanations for delays and missing records—namely, a difficult transition between management companies and a tax filing extension—were deemed reasonable. Regarding the security camera, the ALJ determined that the device constituted a nuisance to a neighbor, a finding within the HOA board’s discretion, and upheld the HOA’s requirement for a Design Modification Request (DMR). The decision affirmed the respondent’s central legal argument distinguishing the duty to “keep” records from a requirement to “take” them.

Case Overview

Case Name

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton, Petitioners, v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent.

Case Number

25F-H027-REL

Tribunal

State of Arizona, Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

Hearing Date

July 22, 2025

Decision Date

August 6, 2025

Petitioners

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton (Represented by Craig Cline, Esq.)

Respondent

Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Represented by Nikolas Thompson, Esq.)

The matter was subject to several continuances at the request of the Respondent, moving the final hearing date to July 22, 2025.

Core Allegations and Disputed Issues

The dispute was formally divided into two primary areas of contention, each involving alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws).

Issue 1: Records and Document Management

Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA systematically failed to follow governing documents and state laws regarding the preparation, retention, and fulfillment of owner requests for mandatory records. This included the failure to provide five specific sets of board meeting minutes and the annual financial compilations for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 in a timely manner. Petitioners argued this constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of multiple statutes and bylaws.

Respondent’s Position: The HOA contended that governing documents and statutes require them to keep records of minutes taken, but not to take minutes for every meeting. This interpretation was based on advice from legal counsel. They argued that most documents were available on the homeowner portal and that the failure to produce one specific set of minutes (December 2023) was due to them being lost by a previous “garbage” management company. The delay in providing the 2023 financial compilation was attributed to a reasonable circumstance: an extension filed for the association’s taxes.

Issue 2: Security Camera Installation

Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA misinterpreted its own CC&Rs by requiring a DMR for the petitioners’ security camera. Petitioners argued that Article IX, Section 18 of the CC&Rs provides a specific “carve out” for “security devices used exclusively for security purposes.” They further contended they were being targeted, as the HOA had no history of enforcing such a requirement for security cameras until after their device was installed and a neighbor complained.

Respondent’s Position: The HOA board interpreted the CC&R “carve out” as applying only to sound-emitting devices (e.g., alarms, bells), as the clause is situated within a paragraph on noise nuisances. They argued a security camera is an “attachment to an existing structure,” which requires approval from the Architectural Control Committee under a separate CC&R article. Furthermore, the installation created a nuisance by invading a neighbor’s privacy, obligating the board to act. The HOA asserted that all homeowners, including the board president, were subsequently required to submit DMRs for their cameras to ensure consistent enforcement.

Key Testimony and Evidence

Patricia Lawton (Petitioner)

• A former HOA board president for three years, Ms. Lawton testified to having an expert-level understanding of the governing documents.

• Regarding records, she stated that of five requested sets of board minutes, only one was provided, and it was delivered late. She claimed she never received the 2022 financial compilation, only tax returns, and that the 2023 compilation was not provided within the statutorily required timeframe.

• She disputed the validity of the HOA’s tax-extension excuse, testifying that the association operates on a cash basis of accounting, which should not have prevented the timely completion of the compilation.

• She testified that due to security concerns (fear of being hacked), she does not have a registered account for the homeowner portal and accesses it through other community members.

• On the security camera, she asserted it was a residential-grade device installed in response to trespassing and property damage. She maintained that the CC&Rs provided a clear exemption and that the HOA’s enforcement action was retaliatory and inconsistent with historical practice.

Kristen Rowlette (HOA Board President)

• Ms. Rowlette testified that critical documents, including the December 2023 minutes, were lost during a problematic transition from a prior management company, Adams LLC, to the current one, Mission Management. She stated Ms. Lawton was aware of these difficulties as she attended every board meeting.

• She admitted that the board made a decision to stop taking minutes for meetings where no votes were held. She stated this was done on the advice of legal counsel (Smith and Wamsley) and was a direct response to feeling “inundated with requests from Patricia.”

• Regarding the camera, she testified that the issue arose only after a neighbor filed a formal complaint citing privacy concerns for their children. She described visiting the neighbor’s property and observing the camera’s “eye” actively tracking her movements.

• She confirmed that following the complaint, the board, on legal advice, required all homeowners to retroactively submit DMRs for any existing security cameras to ensure uniform enforcement.

Central Legal Arguments

The “Keep” vs. “Take” Debate

The primary legal conflict regarding the meeting minutes centered on the interpretation of a single word.

Petitioners’ Argument: Counsel for the petitioners argued that the phrase “keep the minutes” must be interpreted through a “common sense application,” meaning “maintaining a written record of proceedings and decisions.” It was described as a standard practice for nonprofit organizations for decades, and the respondent’s narrow definition was “overly simplistic.”

Respondent’s Argument: Counsel for the HOA focused on a strict textual interpretation. He argued, “they cannot point to any language in any of the governing documents in any of the statutes that requires associations to take minutes. It just doesn’t exist. What they’ve done is they’ve conflated the word keep… to mean take.” He cited dictionary definitions to assert that “keep” means to hold, maintain, or retain, not to create.

The Security Camera “Carve Out”

The dispute over the camera hinged on whether it fell under an exception in the nuisance clause of the CC&Rs.

Petitioners’ Argument: Article IX, Section 18 exempts “security devices used exclusively for security purposes” from the general prohibition on sound devices. Petitioners argued their camera fit this description, and this carve-out, combined with a total lack of historical enforcement or specific design guidelines for cameras, meant a DMR was not required.

Respondent’s Argument: The exemption is located in a provision focused on noise nuisances (“speakers, horns, whistles, bells or other sound devices”). The board’s interpretation was that the exception logically applies only to sound-emitting security devices like driveway alarms. The camera, as a physical modification, was governed by architectural rules requiring a DMR and was also subject to the board’s “sole discretion” to determine if it constituted a nuisance to neighbors.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding the petitioners failed to establish their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rationale on Issue 1 (Records)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620 (Corporate Records)

No Jurisdiction

The tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33 (planned communities) and does not extend to these Title 10 (nonprofit corporations) statutes.

A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Availability)

No Violation

Respondent made records “reasonably available.” The loss of minutes during a management transition and the delay of financials due to a tax extension were deemed reasonable explanations.

A.R.S. § 33-1810 (Annual Audit)

No Violation

The request was made in 2024, entitling petitioners only to 2023 statements. The CC&Rs require owners to pay for audited statements, which petitioners did not offer to do.

CC&R Article X Section 3 & Bylaws Article 10.3 (Inspection)

No Violation

These provisions govern the inspection of documents. Petitioners requested copies without offering to pay for reproduction and never formally requested an in-person inspection.

Bylaws Articles 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1 (Secretary/Treasurer Duties, Meetings)

No Violation

Petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Secretary or Treasurer failed in their duties or that meetings were not held as required.

Rationale on Issue 2 (Camera)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

CC&Rs Art. IX §§ 10, 18 (Nuisance)

No Violation

The CC&Rs grant the Board “sole discretion” to determine the existence of a nuisance. The ALJ found the evidence credible that the camera invaded the neighbor’s privacy, thus creating a nuisance.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 1 (Enforcement)

No Violation

Petitioners were notified of their right to a hearing before the Board. The HOA’s request for a DMR was a reasonable enforcement action applied to all community members.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 5 (Notice by Mail)

Technical Violation, No Harm

While there may have been a “technical violation” of the certified mail requirement, the ALJ found that the “Petitioners clearly received all notices” and were not prejudiced.


Marilyn J Fogelsong vs Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong Counsel
Respondent Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (A) and (F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was DENIED because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on all four issues. Issues 1, 2, and 3 lacked sufficient evidentiary support or statutory violation proof. Issue 4 was dismissed due to lack of OAH jurisdiction over ARS § 10-830.

Key Issues & Findings

The HOA failed to disclose conflicts-of-interest when hiring an HOA property manager to manage the HOA which is a violation of ARS 33-1811.

Petitioner alleged that the hiring of TRT (Tucson Realty & Trust Company, Management Services, LLC) as the HOA manager constituted an undisclosed conflict of interest because TRT also managed individual townhouses within the community.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811

The HOA has violated paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs by directing an HOA property manager to pursue an unsanctioned project for individual townhouses which is beyond the scope of HOA management for common areas.

The HOA manager solicited bids to paint the exteriors of all townhouses. Petitioner argued the HOA lacked authority to manage improvements for individual units, as Paragraph 19 limits HOA authority to common areas.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs

The board has violated the open meeting laws of ARS 33-1804 (A) and (F) by holding a private board meeting without notice; failing to provide material information, minutes, financial statements, and a budget upon request; and by failing to communicate via the designated representative.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and failing to provide requested documentation (minutes, financial statements, etc.).

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The board has violated ARS 10-830(A) by failing to act in good faith with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would act by failing to perform their duties.

Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform required duties in a timely or prudent manner, including failing to elect officers, manage the bank account, check the post office box, and schedule a backflow test.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Management, Conflict of Interest, Open Meeting Law, Jurisdiction, Planned Community, CC&Rs, Director Duty, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Park Association

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1336348.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:33 (157.7 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1348020.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:37 (43.9 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1380164.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:41 (51.8 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1384549.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:45 (49.0 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1384804.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:50 (7.5 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1393862.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-12T19:19:32 (59.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H050-REL


Briefing Document: Fogelsong vs. Park Townhouses Homeowners Association (Docket No. 25F-H050-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the legal dispute between Marilyn J. Fogelsong (“Petitioner”) and the Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The case was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

The Petitioner, a co-owner of a unit in the eight-unit Park Townhouses community, filed a petition on or about March 31, 2025, alleging four distinct violations by the HOA board. These allegations included failure to disclose a conflict of interest in hiring an HOA manager, violating the community’s CC&Rs by pursuing projects for individual units, violating state open meeting laws, and failing to act in good faith as fiduciaries.

An evidentiary hearing was conducted on July 16, 2025, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Nicole Robinson. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing, and the Petitioner provided sole testimony.

On August 5, 2025, the ALJ issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence for three of the four issues. The fourth issue was dismissed on the grounds that the OAH lacked the jurisdiction to enforce the specific statute cited (A.R.S. § 10-830). A subsequent request for a rehearing filed by the Petitioner was rejected by the OAH as it was submitted to the incorrect office after the OAH’s jurisdiction had ended.

Case Overview

Case Number

25F-H050-REL

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Administrative Law Judge

Nicole Robinson

Petitioner

Marilyn J. Fogelsong

Respondent

Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, Inc.

Subject Property

Park Townhouses, an 8-unit planned community in Tucson, AZ

Petition Filed

On or about March 31, 2025

Hearing Date

July 16, 2025

Decision Issued

August 5, 2025

Final Outcome

Petition DENIED

The Parties and Property

Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong: A partial owner of unit 2467 East 1st Street since April 2021, co-owning with her 39-year-old son who resides in the unit. Fogelsong previously served as the HOA board president for three years, with her last term ending in September 2024.

Respondent Park Townhouses HOA: A planned community association for an eight-unit townhouse development in Tucson, Arizona. Each unit owner is responsible for their own structure and lot.

The Property: The community consists of two buildings, each with four townhouses facing each other across a 20-foot wide common driveway.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Testimony

During the July 16, 2025 hearing, Ms. Fogelsong, representing herself, presented testimony on the four issues outlined in her petition. The HOA did not appear.

Issue #1: Conflict of Interest (A.R.S. § 33-1811)

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA failed to disclose conflicts of interest when hiring Tucson Realty & Trust Company (TRT) as the HOA property manager, rendering the contract void.

Core Allegation: On February 17, 2025, the HOA board presented only one proposal—from TRT—and asked homeowners to approve the hire without disclosing pertinent conflicts.

Identified Conflicts:

◦ TRT’s property management division manages two units within the community (2463 and 2467) owned by then-current board members Mark Schlang (Treasurer) and Gerald Schwarzenb[erger] (Secretary).

◦ Both the property management and HOA management divisions of TRT operate under the same broker, Deborah Garcia.

History of Misconduct by TRT: The Petitioner testified to a history of issues with TRT that she believed constituted conflicts of interest:

◦ TRT collected parking violation fines from a tenant but failed to remit them to the HOA.

◦ TRT failed to provide tenant contact information to the HOA upon request, which is a violation of Arizona law.

◦ TRT’s attorney, BL Edmonson, sent a “cease and desist” letter to Fogelsong and then invoiced the HOA for the legal fees, which Fogelsong, as president at the time, rejected. The invoice was resubmitted to the HOA 18 months later.

Issue #2: CC&R Violation (Paragraph 19)

The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Paragraph 19 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by directing the HOA manager to pursue an “unsanctioned project for individual townhouses.”

Core Allegation: The HOA manager (TRT) met with a painting company on March 31, 2025, to solicit bids for painting the exteriors of all townhouses. The Petitioner argued this action is beyond the scope of the HOA’s authority, which is limited to maintaining common areas.

Supporting Evidence:

◦ The Petitioner cited a legal opinion she obtained from an HOA attorney, Jason Smith, which concluded that the HOA does not have the right to conduct repairs on individual units.

◦ She referenced a past incident where another homeowner, David Zinfeld, paid an assessment for awning wood repair “under protest” because the funds were being used for an individual unit, not a common area.

Issue #3: Open Meeting Law Violations (A.R.S. § 33-1804)

The Petitioner claimed the board violated Arizona’s open meeting laws through multiple actions.

Secret Meeting: The board held a private meeting to approve TRT as the manager before the February 17, 2025, homeowners meeting where the vote occurred. No notice of this prior board meeting was given to homeowners.

Failure to Provide Information: The Petitioner made multiple requests for documents that were ignored. She requested management proposals on February 4, 2025, and later requested minutes, financial statements, and property management agreements, none of which were provided.

Disregarded Standing: In its written response to the petition, the HOA claimed the Petitioner lacked “sufficient standing” due to her “limited ownership stake,” a position the Petitioner refutes based on her recorded deed.

Issue #4: Failure to Act in Good Faith (A.R.S. § 10-830A)

The Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform its duties with the care an “ordinarily prudent person” would exercise.

Dereliction of Duties:

◦ The board, elected in September 2024, waited 10 weeks to meet and elect officers.

◦ The board failed to take control of the HOA bank account until March 2025, approximately six months into its one-year term.

◦ It failed to schedule a required annual backflow test for the irrigation system, resulting in the water being shut off.

◦ It failed to replace a dead tree that was on the agenda for replacement in fall 2024.

◦ It failed to check the HOA’s post office box, leading to the return of dues checks from homeowners.

◦ It did not abate new graffiti for six weeks, at which point the Petitioner did so herself after receiving permission.

Respondent’s Position

Although the HOA was not present at the hearing, its positions were articulated in a five-page written response submitted to the Department of Real Estate on May 8, 2025, and were referenced during the hearing.

Denial of Claims: The Respondent denied all of the Petitioner’s claims.

Challenge to Standing: The HOA’s formal position was that Ms. Fogelsong lacked sufficient standing due to her “limited ownership stake.”

Allegation of Ulterior Motive: The Respondent accused the Petitioner of a “calculated and systematic attempt to devalue the property and agitate the owners to possibly sell their respective units to Miss Fogong [sic] and her son at a below market value.” They claimed several owners could testify to her “repeated suggestions and solicitations to sell.”

Claim of Non-cooperation: The HOA stated that the Petitioner had “not been fully cooperative in the transition process” regarding missing documentation after her term as president ended.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

On August 5, 2025, ALJ Nicole Robinson issued a decision denying the petition. The core finding was that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving the violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Findings on Each Issue

Issue #1 (Conflict of Interest): No Violation Found. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove the hiring of TRT constituted a conflict of interest as defined by A.R.S. § 33-1811. The evidence showed that a prior management company (McElwain) also managed individual units while serving as the HOA manager, suggesting this was an established practice. The statute specifically addresses benefits to board members or their families, which was not sufficiently established by the evidence presented.

Issue #2 (CC&R Violation): No Violation Found. The decision stated that the Petitioner failed to submit the entirety of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, providing only “snippets.” Without the complete governing documents, the tribunal could not definitively determine the scope of the HOA’s authority regarding projects on individual units. Furthermore, the evidence only showed that a bid was solicited for painting; there was no evidence that work was actually performed.

Issue #3 (Open Meeting Law): No Violation Found. The ALJ found that the February 17, 2025, meeting was properly noticed via email. Regarding a March 5, 2025, email the Petitioner did not receive, the evidence showed her co-owner son did receive it, meaning the unit was properly notified. A December 2024 meeting was deemed emergent, for which the statute does not require prior notice.

Issue #4 (Failure to Act in Good Faith): No Jurisdiction. The ALJ concluded that the Office of Administrative Hearings lacks jurisdiction to enforce A.R.S. § 10-830. The OAH’s authority is limited by statute to adjudicating violations of Title 33 (Planned Communities and Condominiums) and community documents, not Title 10 (Corporations and Associations).

Post-Decision Events

• On August 26, 2025, the Petitioner filed a request for a rehearing.

• On September 8, 2025, the OAH issued a Minute Entry stating that the request would not be considered because it was “inappropriately sent to the Office of Administrative Hearings.”

• The OAH’s jurisdiction over the matter had concluded with the August 5 decision. The Petitioner was advised to address any further requests to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Marilyn J. Fogelsong (petitioner)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Represented herself; former HOA President/Treasurer
  • Levi Benjamin Lazarus (co-owner/son of petitioner)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Co-owner of petitioner's unit
  • Jason Smith (HOA attorney)
    Consulted by petitioner regarding CC&R interpretation for unit repairs

Respondent Side

  • Gerald Schwarzenb (board member/Secretary)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Current HOA board member; his unit managed by TRT
  • Mark Schlang (board member/Treasurer/architect)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Current HOA board member; his unit managed by TRT
  • Deborah Garcia (broker/HOA manager)
    TRT Property Management
    Broker of TRT; homeowners voted to accept her as HOA manager
  • Andrew Viscara (HOA property manager)
    TRT Property Management
    TRT representative designated for Park Townhouses HOA management
  • Mary Lord Lr (property manager)
    TRT Property Management
    Property manager for unit 2465
  • B.L. Edmonson (attorney)
    TRT Property Management
    Wrote cease and desist letter to petitioner; billed HOA

Neutral Parties

  • Nicole Robinson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE

Other Participants

  • David Zinfeld (homeowner/former Treasurer)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Property owner; prior treasurer during self-managed period; paid assessment under protest
  • Ray Floyd (former board member)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Served on board with petitioner during self-managed period
  • Sasha Flores (bank account signer)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Wife of Rick Flores; co-signer on HOA bank account
  • Rick Flores (homeowner/delegate)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Delegated authority to wife Sasha Flores for bank account deeds

Marilyn J Fogelsong

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong Counsel
Respondent Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (A) and (F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was DENIED because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on all four issues. Issues 1, 2, and 3 lacked sufficient evidentiary support or statutory violation proof. Issue 4 was dismissed due to lack of OAH jurisdiction over ARS § 10-830.

Key Issues & Findings

The HOA failed to disclose conflicts-of-interest when hiring an HOA property manager to manage the HOA which is a violation of ARS 33-1811.

Petitioner alleged that the hiring of TRT (Tucson Realty & Trust Company, Management Services, LLC) as the HOA manager constituted an undisclosed conflict of interest because TRT also managed individual townhouses within the community.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811

The HOA has violated paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs by directing an HOA property manager to pursue an unsanctioned project for individual townhouses which is beyond the scope of HOA management for common areas.

The HOA manager solicited bids to paint the exteriors of all townhouses. Petitioner argued the HOA lacked authority to manage improvements for individual units, as Paragraph 19 limits HOA authority to common areas.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs

The board has violated the open meeting laws of ARS 33-1804 (A) and (F) by holding a private board meeting without notice; failing to provide material information, minutes, financial statements, and a budget upon request; and by failing to communicate via the designated representative.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and failing to provide requested documentation (minutes, financial statements, etc.).

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The board has violated ARS 10-830(A) by failing to act in good faith with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would act by failing to perform their duties.

Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform required duties in a timely or prudent manner, including failing to elect officers, manage the bank account, check the post office box, and schedule a backflow test.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Management, Conflict of Interest, Open Meeting Law, Jurisdiction, Planned Community, CC&Rs, Director Duty, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Park Association

Marilyn J Fogelsong vs Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC.

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

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong Counsel
Respondent Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (A) and (F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was DENIED because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on all four issues. Issues 1, 2, and 3 lacked sufficient evidentiary support or statutory violation proof. Issue 4 was dismissed due to lack of OAH jurisdiction over ARS § 10-830.

Key Issues & Findings

The HOA failed to disclose conflicts-of-interest when hiring an HOA property manager to manage the HOA which is a violation of ARS 33-1811.

Petitioner alleged that the hiring of TRT (Tucson Realty & Trust Company, Management Services, LLC) as the HOA manager constituted an undisclosed conflict of interest because TRT also managed individual townhouses within the community.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811

The HOA has violated paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs by directing an HOA property manager to pursue an unsanctioned project for individual townhouses which is beyond the scope of HOA management for common areas.

The HOA manager solicited bids to paint the exteriors of all townhouses. Petitioner argued the HOA lacked authority to manage improvements for individual units, as Paragraph 19 limits HOA authority to common areas.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs

The board has violated the open meeting laws of ARS 33-1804 (A) and (F) by holding a private board meeting without notice; failing to provide material information, minutes, financial statements, and a budget upon request; and by failing to communicate via the designated representative.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and failing to provide requested documentation (minutes, financial statements, etc.).

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The board has violated ARS 10-830(A) by failing to act in good faith with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would act by failing to perform their duties.

Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform required duties in a timely or prudent manner, including failing to elect officers, manage the bank account, check the post office box, and schedule a backflow test.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Management, Conflict of Interest, Open Meeting Law, Jurisdiction, Planned Community, CC&Rs, Director Duty, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Park Association

Michele Beauchamp V. The Villages at Rio Paseo Condominium

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H051-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-18
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michele Beauchamp Counsel
Respondent The Villages at Rio Paseo Condominium Association Counsel Beth Mulcahy, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARS 33-1213, ARS 33-1242, ARS 33-1248, ARS 33-1258

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding the alleged code of conduct violation because the code was not properly enacted when the violation occurred. The Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee and comply with community documents going forward.

Key Issues & Findings

Petitioner's alleged violation of the Respondent’s code of conducted based on Petitioner’s conduct at a board meeting on December 14, 2020

Whether the violation and associated fine issued to the Petitioner based on her conduct at a December 14, 2020 board meeting were proper, given that the code of conduct governing the violation was not properly enacted at that time.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00 and directed to comply with the requirements of its Community Documents going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 32-2199
  • 32-2199.01
  • 32-2199.02
  • 41-1092.09
  • 33-1213
  • 33-1242
  • 33-1248
  • 33-1258

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Code of Conduct, Violation, Procedural Compliance, Condominium Law, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • 32-2199
  • 32-2199.01
  • 32-2199.02
  • 33-1213
  • 33-1242
  • 33-1248
  • 33-1258
  • 41-1092.09

Decision Documents

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1189617.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:03:49 (74.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192167.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:03:54 (2402.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192172.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:03:59 (90.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192173.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:04:07 (69.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192174.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:04:13 (133.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192175.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:04:18 (42.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192176.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:04:23 (207.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192177.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:04:27 (40.1 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192178.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:04:32 (37.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192179.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:04:36 (40.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192180.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:04:45 (155.3 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192181.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:04:51 (88.1 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192182.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:04:55 (28.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192183.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:04:58 (37.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192184.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:05:02 (40.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192185.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:05:09 (1554.1 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192186.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:05:14 (55.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192187.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:05:18 (102.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192188.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:05:24 (780.1 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192189.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:05:28 (42.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192190.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:05:32 (61.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192191.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:05:41 (46.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192192.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:05:50 (304.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192193.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:05:58 (3981.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192194.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:06:06 (919.1 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192195.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:06:14 (8560.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192196.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:06:25 (1908.3 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192197.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:06:32 (9856.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192198.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:06:37 (101.1 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192199.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:06:42 (75.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192200.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:06:48 (248.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192202.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:06:53 (1402.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192203.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:07:01 (4285.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192204.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:07:10 (1907.0 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192205.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:07:15 (1345.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192206.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:07:19 (415.0 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192207.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:07:24 (1700.6 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192209.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:07:29 (9241.6 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192210.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:07:34 (7660.3 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192211.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:07:41 (139.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192214.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:07:49 (322.1 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192215.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:07:57 (1053.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192216.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:08:01 (331.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192219.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:08:05 (237.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192220.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:08:12 (389.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192221.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:08:16 (3580.1 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192222.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:08:21 (2003.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192223.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:08:27 (4417.3 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192224.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:08:35 (4684.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192225.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:08:40 (3281.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192226.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:08:45 (799.1 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192227.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:08:50 (740.6 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192228.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:08:55 (615.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192230.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:02 (8763.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192231.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:09 (4316.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192232.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:13 (6908.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192233.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:16 (3676.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192234.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:19 (3094.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192235.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:21 (604.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192236.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:23 (104.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192237.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:26 (127.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192238.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:28 (125.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192239.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:30 (1737.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192241.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:33 (1384.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192242.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:35 (414.0 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192243.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:37 (2619.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192246.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:41 (585.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192247.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:43 (210.6 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192248.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:45 (2871.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192250.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:48 (82.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192251.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:50 (76.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192252.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:52 (79.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192254.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:55 (1979.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192255.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:09:57 (1579.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192256.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:10:00 (2239.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192257.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:10:03 (1712.6 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192258.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:10:08 (7744.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192259.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:10:10 (123.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192260.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:10:14 (27.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192261.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:10:17 (45.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192262.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:10:19 (177.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192263.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:10:21 (63.3 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192264.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:10:28 (1723.3 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192265.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:10:31 (1908.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192266.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:10:34 (166.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192268.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:10:36 (2096.0 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192269.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:10:43 (2778.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192270.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:10:48 (763.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192271.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:10:50 (134.0 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192273.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:10:54 (3606.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192274_part_001.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:10:57 (692.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192275.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:11:06 (1901.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192276.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:11:09 (919.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192277.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:11:11 (907.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192278.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:11:14 (1150.0 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192279.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:11:17 (1041.3 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192280_part_001.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:11:21 (3993.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192281_part_001.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:11:23 (1175.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192282.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:11:27 (6521.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192283.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:11:31 (5329.6 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192284.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:11:33 (520.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192285.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:11:36 (2323.3 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192286.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:11:39 (4067.6 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192308.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:11:41 (4489.0 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192309.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:11:57 (3882.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192310.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:00 (476.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192311.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:05 (226.6 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192317.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:08 (2590.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192318.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:11 (6340.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192320.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:13 (5635.0 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1192321.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:17 (9268.3 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1205546.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:20 (49.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1205998.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:22 (47.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209327.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:24 (322.1 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209328.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:27 (1053.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209329.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:30 (331.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209332.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:33 (4684.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209333.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:36 (3281.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:38 (799.1 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209335.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:40 (740.6 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209336.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:42 (237.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209337.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:44 (389.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209338.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:47 (3580.1 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209339.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:49 (2003.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209340.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:52 (4417.3 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209341.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:56 (8763.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209342.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:12:59 (615.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209345.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:13:07 (604.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209346.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:13:12 (104.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209347.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:13:17 (127.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209348.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:13:20 (125.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209349.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:13:24 (4316.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209350.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:13:28 (6908.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209351.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:13:31 (3676.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209352.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:13:35 (3094.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209353.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:13:38 (125.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209355.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:13:41 (1737.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209356.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:13:44 (1384.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209357.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:13:46 (414.0 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209358.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:13:48 (2619.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209361.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:13:50 (585.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209362.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:13:53 (210.6 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209363.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:13:57 (2871.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209365.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:00 (1979.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209366.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:03 (1579.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209367.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:05 (2181.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209368.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:08 (82.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209369.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:10 (76.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209370.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:13 (79.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209372.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:15 (63.3 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209373.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:18 (1723.3 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209374.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:22 (1908.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209375.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:24 (128.0 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209376.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:27 (1712.6 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209377.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:32 (7744.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209378.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:34 (123.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209379.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:36 (27.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209380.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:38 (45.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209381.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:41 (177.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209383.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:45 (2096.0 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209384.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:49 (3606.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209385.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:55 (2778.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209386.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:14:58 (763.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209387.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:15:00 (134.0 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209388.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:15:09 (1901.9 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209389.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:15:12 (919.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209390.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:15:16 (907.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209391.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:15:17 (1120.0 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209392.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:15:20 (1041.3 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209393.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:15:23 (6380.8 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209394.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:15:26 (5329.6 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209395.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:15:30 (520.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209396.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:15:33 (2323.3 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209397.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:15:39 (4067.6 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209413.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:15:41 (4489.0 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209414.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:15:49 (3882.2 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209415.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:15:52 (476.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209416.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:15:57 (9268.3 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209417.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:16:00 (6340.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209418.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:16:03 (2590.5 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1209420.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:16:06 (6340.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1238387.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:16:08 (50.0 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1277266.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:16:13 (49.0 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1277274.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:16:15 (6.1 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1287179.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:16:17 (47.1 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1287181.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:16:19 (6.0 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1308714.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:16:22 (248.7 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1315077.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:16:24 (36.4 KB)

24F-H051-REL Decision – 1330177.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:16:26 (98.2 KB)

Michele Beauchamp V. The Villages at Rio Paseo Condominium Association

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H051-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-18
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michele Beauchamp Counsel
Respondent The Villages at Rio Paseo Condominium Association Counsel Madeline Gegg

Alleged Violations

ARS 33-1242; ARS 33-1248; CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Respondent's Code of Conduct was not properly enacted at the time of the alleged violation in December 2020. Consequently, the notice of violation was inappropriately issued. The ALJ rejected the Respondent's argument that the matter was moot because the fine had been removed, stating a violation is not nullified by the removal of a fine.

Key Issues & Findings

Improper Enactment of Code of Conduct and Subsequent Violation Notice

Petitioner challenged a violation notice and fine issued regarding her conduct at a board meeting. The parties stipulated that the Code of Conduct used as the basis for the violation was not properly enacted until January 2025. Respondent argued the issue was moot because the fine was waived. The ALJ ruled the violation was not nullified by the removal of the fine.

Orders: Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00 within 30 days. Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of its Community Documents going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 3480
  • 3482
  • 3483
  • 3487
  • 3488




Briefing Doc – 24F-H051-REL


Synthesis of Operations, Governance, and Legal Compliance for The Village at Rio Paseo Condominium Association

This briefing document provides a comprehensive analysis of the operational, financial, and legal landscape of The Village at Rio Paseo Condominium Association, based on internal board communications, meeting transcripts, financial reports, and regulatory guidelines.

Executive Summary

The Association is currently navigating a complex transition in management and governance, characterized by significant administrative cleanup and internal conflict. Key takeaways include:

Management Transition Hurdles: The shift from previous management to AAM, LLC has revealed substantial “messes,” including unorganized contracts, utility billing errors, and a lack of transparency regarding vendor relationships.

Financial Discrepancies: Audits of recent financials have identified over $7,000 in misallocated electrical payments for individual units and highly inconsistent fire monitoring fees across different buildings.

Infrastructure Priorities: Critical focus is required for fire safety inspections to prevent insurance lapses, addressing recurring sewage backups in specific units, and resolving community-wide issues such as pigeon infestations and parking shortages.

Governance and Conduct: The Board has formally adopted a Code of Conduct to address professional lapses during meetings. Legal mediation is currently underway between a resident/board member and the Association through the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Legal Compliance: Adherence to the Fair Housing Act (FHA) regarding reasonable accommodations is a core requirement, emphasizing the Association’s duty to provide equal opportunity for residents with disabilities without imposing undue financial burdens.

——————————————————————————–

I. Governance and Internal Conflict

Adoption of the Code of Conduct

On December 14, 2020, the Board of Directors unanimously adopted a formal Code of Conduct pursuant to Section 15.4 of the CC&Rs and Arizona Revised Statutes Section 10-3821. This resolution aims to:

• Govern the personal conduct of Members, Board Members, and invitees at all Association meetings.

• Establish reasonable rules for expediting Association business.

• Ensure participants treat others with courtesy and respect and behave in a professional, businesslike manner.

Allegations of Misconduct

Immediately following the adoption of the Code of Conduct, the Board President, Charlotte Morgan, issued a verbal warning via email to a fellow board member, Michelle. The warning cited several violations during a Zoom meeting held on December 14, 2020:

Lack of Engagement: The member was observed texting, speaking with others in her home while on mute, and appearing uninterested during a Reserve Study vote.

Disruptive Behavior: Recurring interruptions of other speakers and a condescending tone toward the Board during parking discussions.

Potential Sanctions: The President noted that failure to correct this behavior would lead to formal fines and noted the member’s right to appeal as established in the Code.

Ongoing Litigation

As of August 2024, the matter of Michele Beauchamp v. The Villages at Rio Paseo Condominium Association (No. 24F-H051-REL) is pending before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The parties have requested mediation, and a previously scheduled status update for November 2024 has been vacated pending those results.

——————————————————————————–

II. Operational and Financial Management

Transition from Previous Management

The Board has expressed significant frustration with the “mess” left by previous property management (specifically citing an individual named “Sam”). Critical issues identified during the transition to AAM, LLC include:

Missing Documentation: The Board lacked copies of active vendor contracts, forcing them to conduct an “email blast” to vendors to identify existing agreements and account codes.

Inconsistent Monitoring Fees: Board members discovered that one building was being charged $236 for monitoring while others ranged from $26 to $42. There were also concerns about being billed for a building that was no longer being constructed.

Financial Audits and Utility Errors

In-depth reviews of invoices revealed substantial financial mismanagement:

Electrical Overpayments: The Association paid over $7,000 for electricity for two individual units because the accounts were mistakenly left in the Association’s name and categorized as “street lights.”

Billing Delays: Previous management reportedly failed to pay bills on time or in full, leading to deficits in certain months.

Budgetary Surpluses: Despite these errors, the November 2020 Budget Comparison Statement showed a Year-to-Date (YTD) surplus of $42,635.54 in the operating fund and $54,714.84 in the reserve fund.

Reserve Study Analysis

The Association evaluated multiple proposals for a required Reserve Study update in late 2020/early 2021:

Vendor

Proposed Fee

Association Reserves

$2,230

Recommended by AAM; 15-week turnaround; specialized in HOAs.

Reserve Advisors

$3,950

Includes a cloud-based software solution (ForeSite).

Advanced Reserve Solutions

$1,400 – $3,000

Previous vendor; AAM warned of potential errors/missing components in their work.

——————————————————————————–

III. Infrastructure, Maintenance, and Safety

Fire Safety and Insurance

A critical deadline was identified for September 24 (likely 2021), by which fire safety inspections must be completed to prevent Farmers Insurance from dropping the fire hazard policy. The Board is working to ensure they do not pay for “re-inspections” of systems that already have valid certificates.

Plumbing and Sewer Issues

A November 2020 inspection by Schroeder Plumbing LLC revealed systemic issues following a sewage backup in a unit. Key findings included:

Design Flaws: All units in the building share a common sewer line.

Physical Obstructions: A “major lip on fittings” just outside the building was identified as a likely cause of backups.

Damage: Evidence showed water and sewage backing up through kitchen sinks and into dishwashers, causing dried water stains and debris.

Pigeons and Community Feedback

A community survey revealed that residents consider the pigeon infestation a major issue, with some describing it as “beyond reflectors and spikes.” Residents have reported that pigeon droppings make outdoor spaces unusable. The Board is considering various control methods, including shock strips and nest removal.

Parking and Striping

The Fire Marshal for the City of Goodyear clarified that all streets within the community are considered “fire apparatus access roads.” Because the streets are 26 feet wide or less, parking must be restricted on both sides at all times.

Enforcement: Since the streets are private, the HOA is responsible for enforcement.

Maintenance: The Association received bids for parking re-striping ranging from $750 (Cactus Asphalt) to $3,900 (Associated Contracting Resources).

——————————————————————————–

IV. Legal Frameworks: Reasonable Accommodations

The Association is bound by the Fair Housing Act regarding “Reasonable Accommodations” for persons with disabilities. According to joint statements from the DOJ and HUD:

Definition: A reasonable accommodation is a change or adjustment to a rule, policy, or service necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

The Interactive Process: When a request is made, providers should engage in an interactive process to discuss the need and potential alternatives if the initial request is deemed an “undue financial and administrative burden” or a “fundamental alteration” of operations.

Verification: If a disability is not obvious, providers may request reliable disability-related information to verify the need for the accommodation but may not inquire into the specific nature or severity of the disability.

No Extra Fees: Associations may not charge extra fees or deposits as a condition of granting a reasonable accommodation (e.g., waiving a “no pets” policy for an assistance animal).

——————————————————————————–

V. Key Perspectives and Insights

“I want what I asked for back in October. I want to see the contracts… because it’s going to be a learning experience on what a mess this association is in.” — Michelle, Board Member

“Our community has been really hurt very bad… they were sold a bill of goods that wasn’t true. Our assessments were supposed to be at 236 and now they’re at 310 and our property doesn’t look like it.” — Monique, Board President

“A current, reliable Reserve Study is a hallmark of well-managed associations, and an important part of a homeowner board’s fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of their association members.” — Association Reserves Proposal






Study Guide – 24F-H051-REL


Comprehensive Study Guide: The Village at Rio Paseo Condominium Association and Fair Housing Compliance

This study guide provides an in-depth review of the governance, financial management, and legal obligations of The Village at Rio Paseo Condominium Association, alongside federal guidelines for reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions based on the provided source context. Each response should be between 2 and 3 sentences.

1. What specific behaviors were cited as violations of the Code of Conduct during the December 14, 2020, Board meeting?

2. Under the Fair Housing Act, what constitutes a “reasonable accommodation”?

3. According to the Association’s resolution, who is responsible for the cost of repairs if damage occurs solely to a single Lot and the amount is less than the insurance deductible?

4. What are the four criteria required for an item to be considered a “Reserve Component” in a Reserve Study?

5. How does the Goodyear Fire Marshal define “fire apparatus access roads,” and what are the associated parking restrictions?

6. What legal process is required for the Association to decrease the number of Board members from five to three?

7. What is a “fundamental alteration” in the context of a housing provider’s operations under the Fair Housing Act?

8. What did the Schroeder Plumbing leak detection report conclude regarding the sewage backup at the condo?

9. According to the Joint Statement from HUD and the DOJ, what must a housing provider do before excluding an individual with a disability who is perceived as a “direct threat”?

10. What was the outcome of the August 2, 2024, Order from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding the matter of Michele Beauchamp v. The Villages at Rio Paseo?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. Code of Conduct Violations: A Board member was cited for lack of engagement, specifically for muting audio to speak with others at home and texting or using a phone during the meeting. Additionally, the member was accused of interrupting others, missing votes on proposals, and displaying condescension toward the Board.

2. Reasonable Accommodation: A reasonable accommodation is a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service necessary to provide a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. This includes adjustments to public and common use spaces, such as allowing assistance animals in “no pets” buildings or assigning specific parking spaces.

3. Insurance Deductible Responsibility: If damage occurs solely to one Lot and the cost is less than the Association’s deductible, the individual Lot Owner is responsible for the full cost of repair or restoration. While the Board reserves the right to determine if the Association will make repairs to certain portions like roofs, the financial burden remains with the Owner.

4. Reserve Component Criteria: To be included in a Reserve Study, a component must be the association’s responsibility and have a limited useful life. It must also have a predictable remaining useful life and a cost that exceeds a specific “threshold cost.”

5. Fire Marshal Restrictions: Fire apparatus access roads include public and private streets, fire lanes, and parking lot lanes used by fire stations to access buildings. On streets that are 26 feet wide or less, parking must be restricted on both sides at all times to maintain required clear width.

6. Decreasing Board Size: According to the Association’s attorney, the bylaws require approval from 75% of the membership (homeowners) to decrease the Board size from five to three. This change must be placed on the ballot for a vote during an annual meeting.

7. Fundamental Alteration: A fundamental alteration is a modification that changes the essential nature of a housing provider’s operations. For example, a provider is not required to provide transportation or grocery shopping services if such services are not part of their standard business model.

8. Plumbing Report Conclusion: The technician found no sign of a pressurized or drain leak on the plumbing system but observed that all units in the building share a common sewer line. The report indicated a sewage backup from the kitchen sink into the dishwasher, likely caused by a major lip on fittings just outside the building.

9. Direct Threat Assessment: A housing provider must perform an individualized assessment based on reliable objective evidence, such as recent overt acts, rather than stereotypes or fear. The assessment must consider the nature and severity of the risk, the probability of injury, and whether any reasonable accommodation could eliminate the threat.

10. OAH Order Outcome: The Administrative Law Judge vacated the Status Update originally scheduled for November 22, 2024, because the parties had requested mediation. Additionally, the Respondent’s Motion to Continue was denied, and the office planned to contact parties with mediation session details.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the source context to develop comprehensive responses for the following five topics.

1. The Intersection of Fiduciary Duty and Board Conduct: Discuss how the expectations of professional behavior outlined in the Code of Conduct relate to a Board member’s fiduciary duty to the community.

2. Navigating Financial Transparency and Stewardship: Analyze the challenges faced by the Board regarding utility billing errors, contract management, and the importance of regular Reserve Studies in maintaining property values.

3. Balance of Rights in Fair Housing: Evaluate the “interactive process” between housing providers and residents. Discuss how providers can balance the needs of disabled residents with the limitations of “undue financial burden” and “fundamental alteration.”

4. Infrastructure and Safety Management: Examine the complexities of managing fire safety compliance, including the roles of the Fire Marshal, insurance providers, and specialized vendors in an HOA setting.

5. Community Governance and Membership Participation: Reflect on the survey results regarding pigeons and parking. How should a Board integrate varied (and sometimes conflicting) homeowner opinions into formal resolutions and enforcement policies?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

ARS (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The laws enacted by the Arizona State Legislature; specifically referenced regarding non-profit corporation actions (Section 10-3821) and HOA open meetings (Section 33-1804).

Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that outline the rules for the Association and the responsibilities of the Board and members.

Common Elements

Areas of the condominium project intended for the use and enjoyment of all owners, which the Association is typically responsible for maintaining.

Fair Housing Act (FHA)

Federal legislation prohibiting discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and disability.

Fundamental Alteration

A requested modification to a housing provider’s rules or services that would significantly change the essential nature of the provider’s business.

Interactive Process

The dialogue between a housing provider and a resident to discuss a disability-related need and identify effective, reasonable accommodations.

Major Life Activity

Functions of central importance to daily life, such as walking, seeing, hearing, breathing, learning, and performing manual tasks.

Physical or Mental Impairment

A broad range of conditions—including orthopedic, visual, speech, and hearing impairments, as well as chronic diseases and emotional illness—that may qualify an individual for protection under the FHA.

Reasonable Accommodation

A necessary adjustment to a rule or policy that allows a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their home.

Reserve Study

A long-term financial planning document used to forecast and fund major repair and replacement projects for an association’s common components.

Undue Financial and Administrative Burden

A situation where a requested accommodation is too costly or complex for a provider to implement, determined by a case-by-case analysis of resources and benefits.

Working Capital Fees

Fees typically collected at the time of a home sale to ensure the association has sufficient funds for initial or ongoing operations.






Blog Post – 24F-H051-REL


The HOA Paradox: 5 Impactful Lessons from the Front Lines of Community Governance

1. Introduction

The “HOA horror story” is a staple of suburban lore, typically featuring overzealous boards issuing fines for a non-compliant shade of beige or a wayward blade of grass. Yet, this caricature ignores a far more complex reality: Homeowners Associations are essentially micro-governments. They manage multi-million dollar asset portfolios, oversee critical infrastructure, and navigate a labyrinth of federal and state statutory mandates—all while being led by volunteers.

The friction occurs when professional standards and legal compliance collide with the informal nature of residential living. Using the governance challenges at The Village at Rio Paseo as a case study, we can distill five critical lessons in fiduciary duty, administrative forensics, and the high cost of failing to bridge the “professionalism gap.”

2. The Digital Professionalism Gap: A Failure of Deliberate Governance

The transition to digital board meetings has birthed a dangerous informality. Because directors join from their living rooms, there is a tendency to treat official proceedings with the casualness of a family Zoom call. However, a domestic environment does not relax a director’s fiduciary obligations.

In December 2020, Charlotte Morgan, President of the Rio Paseo board, issued a formal verbal warning to a fellow director, Michelle, regarding her conduct during a recorded session. This was not merely a breach of etiquette; it was a failure to maintain a record of deliberate governance. Michelle was cited for muting her audio to engage in private household discussions and texting on camera. Most critically, these distractions led her to miss a key vote on the Reserve Study proposal and caused her to repeatedly interrupt other speakers, including a specific individual named Sean.

“The members expect the Board of Directors to focus on the meeting and be fully engaged as items on the agenda are discussed.”

The professionalism gap also surfaced as condescension during technical discussions regarding parking—a bridge to the community’s larger infrastructure challenges. For a senior consultant, this behavior represents a “Code of Conduct” violation that risks financial penalties for the individual director and potential liability for the Association. When a board operates without decorum, it risks making uninformed decisions that jeopardize the community’s legal standing.

3. The Legal Nuance of “Reasonable”: The Interactive Process as a Safe Harbor

Navigating the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) is a high-stakes exercise in statutory compliance. Boards often view “Reasonable Accommodations” as an erosion of their authority, but the joint statements from HUD and the DOJ reveal a different perspective: the “Interactive Process” is actually a safe harbor for the board.

Three critical takeaways define this legal landscape:

1. Legal Equivalence: Under federal law, “disability” and “handicap” are legally interchangeable. The FHA protects individuals with physical or mental impairments that substantially limit major life activities.

2. Individualized Assessment vs. Stereotype: A board cannot exclude a resident based on a “direct threat” if that threat is rooted in fear or speculation. Any exclusion must be supported by reliable objective evidence (e.g., recent overt acts) and an assessment of whether an accommodation can mitigate that threat.

3. The Interactive Process: This is the legal pivot point. When a resident requests an exception to a “no pets” policy for an assistance animal, the board must engage in a documented dialogue. This process allows the board to find solutions that avoid “undue financial and administrative burdens.”

The ultimate factor is the “nexus”—the identifiable relationship between the disability and the requested change. By focusing on the nexus, boards can avoid HUD complaints while maintaining the integrity of their governing documents.

4. The Infrastructure Trap: Developer Legacies and Fire Safety

HOA boards are frequently left to play the “villain” in enforcement scenarios that are actually the result of developer-designed infrastructure. At Rio Paseo, the conflict between resident convenience and municipal safety code reached a head over visitor parking.

Correspondence from the Goodyear Fire Marshal, Michael Brune, clarified the technical reality: any street 26 feet wide or less—specifically measured from face of curb to face of curb—must prohibit parking on both sides to serve as a “fire apparatus access road.” At Rio Paseo, the main loop was exactly 26 feet wide, and common drives were 25 feet wide.

This is the infrastructure trap: the HOA can be cited for fire code violations even on private streets. The burden of enforcement shifts from the city to the Association. While residents may clamor for street parking, the board’s fiduciary duty to ensure emergency vehicle access overrides resident convenience. Failure to enforce these restrictions isn’t just a neighborly dispute; it is a liability risk that could lead to the loss of hazard insurance coverage.

5. Financial Forensics: The High Cost of Management Transitions

A transition between management companies—in this case, moving from the previous entity, Americanade (managed by “Sam”), to AAM—often exposes significant fiduciary dereliction. The audit process at Rio Paseo revealed a series of administrative “messes” that carried a heavy price tag.

The forensic discovery included:

Utility Mismanagement: The Association discovered it had paid over $7,000 in electricity bills for two private units. The previous manager had mislabeled these private accounts as “streetlights,” and a lack of board oversight allowed these invoices to be paid without review.

The “Value vs. Price” Dilemma: During the search for a new Reserve Study, the board faced a bid from ARS for $1,400. However, the Association’s budget analyst, Ann Salas, recommended against them, noting their previous work contained “too many errors and missing components.” The board opted for the $2,230 bid from Association Reserves, choosing capital reserve health over a lower price point.

Contract Redundancy: Discovered confusion over fire monitoring and backflow inspection contracts led to fears of double-billing and lapsed certifications.

The human impact of these discoveries was stark: resident assessments rose from $236 to $310 to stabilize the budget. As Michelle reflected during the transition:

“It’s going to be a learning experience on what a mess this association is in.”

The lesson for any board is clear: total delegation to a management company is not a substitute for oversight. Boards must perform their own regular audits of invoices and contracts to prevent systemic financial leakage.

6. Conclusion: The Fiduciary Future

Successful community governance requires a delicate balance between “passion” and “process.” As the Village at Rio Paseo demonstrates, the long-term health of a community depends on transparency, technical rigor, and a proactive approach to statutory compliance. When a board prioritizes the “process” of governance—adhering to a strict Code of Conduct and performing financial due diligence—it protects the property values and peace of mind of every stakeholder.

In a community where every neighbor is a stakeholder, is your board operating as a professional entity or just a group of people in a Zoom room?