Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association

Posted on July 14, 2021 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2120016-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-07-14
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Haining Xia	Counsel	—
Respondent	Dorsey Place Condominium Association	Counsel	Nick Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated its Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4. The Respondent was found to be the prevailing party, and Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, specifically failing to establish that an election was required during the years alleged.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to elect the Board at Annual Members Meetings in 2018 and 2019

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to elect the board during the 2018 and 2019 Annual Members Meetings. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to establish a violation, specifically failing to establish that an election was required during those years.

Orders: Respondent is the prevailing party, and Petitioner's appeal is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 33-1202(10)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120016-REL-RHG Decision – 895555.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:35:33 (107.4 KB)

21F-H2120016-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2120016-REL/849881.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:35:36 (109.6 KB)

Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120016-REL-RHG

Briefing Document: Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings, arguments, and legal proceedings from two Administrative Law Judge Decisions concerning a dispute between petitioner Haining Xia and the Dorsey Place Condominium Association (the Respondent). The core of the dispute revolves around Mr. Xia’s allegation that the Association violated its own bylaws by failing to conduct board elections during its 2018 and 2019 annual meetings.

The Respondent’s primary defense was a jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) could not hear the case because the Association’s condominium status was legally terminated in April 2019, prior to the filing of the petition. This termination was previously upheld by the Maricopa County Superior Court.

In the initial hearing on January 7, 2021, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof, relying solely on assertions without presenting any documentary evidence. Consequently, the petition was denied. A rehearing was granted and held on July 2, 2021, where the petitioner submitted documents but failed to provide testimony explaining their relevance or to establish that board elections were required in the years in question. The ALJ again concluded that the petitioner did not sustain his burden of proof. The final order dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and declared the Respondent the prevailing party.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 21F-H2120016-REL / 21F-H2120016-REL-RHG

• Tribunal: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

• Petitioner: Haining Xia

• Respondent: Dorsey Place Condominium Association

• Presiding Administrative Law Judge: Sondra J. Vanella

• Core Allegation: The petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated its Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4 by failing to include board elections on the agendas for the 2018 and 2019 Annual Members Meetings and by never electing a board at said meetings.

Chronology of Proceedings

September 21, 2020

Haining Xia files a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Resolution Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

November 20, 2020

The Department issues a Notice of Hearing.

January 7, 2021

The initial administrative hearing is held.

January 22, 2021

The ALJ issues a Decision denying the Petitioner’s Petition.

February 18, 2021

The Petitioner files a request for rehearing, citing errors of law and evidence.

March 23, 2021

The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate issues an Order Granting Rehearing.

July 2, 2021

The rehearing is conducted.

July 14, 2021

The ALJ issues the final Decision, declaring the Respondent the prevailing party and dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal.

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments

Haining Xia’s case rested on several key arguments presented across both hearings.

• Primary Claim: The central assertion was that the Respondent was in “direct violation of HOA Bylaws Article 3.3, Article 4.1 and Article 4.4” because board elections were not held or even placed on the agenda for the 2018 and 2019 annual meetings.

• Challenge to Condominium Termination: Mr. Xia actively disputed the validity of the Association’s termination as a condominium.

◦ He argued the “Condominium Termination Agreement” was invalid because it “does not contain valid signatures” and represented a “usurpation of corporate power.”

◦ He maintained that because he still holds the title to his unit and the sale has not been finalized, the condominium status could not be legally changed.

◦ He stated his intention to appeal a separate Maricopa County Superior Court ruling which had already upheld the termination agreement.

• Specific Meeting Grievances:

◦ 2018 Meeting: The annual meeting, scheduled for March, was delayed until August 2018. Its stated purpose was to vote on a special assessment, but Mr. Xia asserted there was “not a valid board for that meeting.”

◦ 2019 Meeting: This meeting was held to discuss the termination agreement, but Mr. Xia claimed there was “no election of board members or appointment of officers.”

• Stated Objective: The petitioner requested “a definitive answer as to whether there were valid corporate officers” and, in the rehearing, stated he “wants a finding that there was no legitimate board and no officers appointed.”

• Personal Motivation: During the rehearing, Mr. Xia asserted that he is the only homeowner “who stood up to fight,” that he is fighting “evil,” and is “looking for justice.”

Respondent’s Position and Arguments

The Dorsey Place Condominium Association’s defense was primarily procedural and jurisdictional.

• Jurisdictional Challenge: The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the OAH lacked jurisdiction over the dispute.

◦ The basis for this argument was that the Association’s status as a “Condominium” was terminated via a “Condominium Termination Agreement” recorded on April 9, 2019.

◦ As the entity no longer met the legal definition of a condominium under A.R.S. §33-1202(10), the OAH had no authority to hear a dispute between it and a unit owner.

• Superior Court Precedent: The Respondent emphasized that the validity of the termination agreement had already been adjudicated and upheld by the Maricopa County Superior Court. The ALJ noted that the OAH “does not have the authority to overturn or modify that ruling.”

• Mootness: The Respondent argued that since the termination, the property is “currently being utilized as an apartment complex,” making the petitioner’s claims moot.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The decisions issued by ALJ Sondra J. Vanella focused squarely on the legal standard of proof required of the petitioner.

The ALJ repeatedly established that the petitioner “bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

• Failure to Present Evidence: The ALJ found that Mr. Xia “failed to present any evidence at hearing, documentary or otherwise, but rather relied solely on his own assertions.”

• Conclusion: The petitioner did not meet his burden of proof to establish a violation of the specified bylaws.

• Order: The Petition was denied.

• Basis for Rehearing: The rehearing was granted based on the petitioner’s claim of “error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.”

• Evidence at Rehearing: Mr. Xia submitted several documents, including meeting notices for 2018 and 2019, an “Action by Written Consent,” and a “Board Resolution Filling Director and Officer Vacancies.” However, he “did not provide an explanation of the documents at hearing or testimony concerning the documents.”

• Final Conclusion: After reviewing all evidence from both hearings, the ALJ concluded that the petitioner “failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation.” Critically, the ALJ noted that Mr. Xia “failed to establish that an election was required during either of those years [2018 and 2019].”

• Final Order: The Respondent was declared the prevailing party, and the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. This order is binding unless appealed to the superior court within 35 days.

Relevant Bylaw Articles

The petition was based on alleged violations of the following articles from the Dorsey Place Condominium Association Bylaws:

Article

Key Provision

Annual Members Meeting

States that at each annual meeting, “the Members shall elect the Board and transact such other business as may properly be brought before the meeting.”

Election

Stipulates that the Association’s affairs are managed by the Board and that “each director shall be elected at the annual meeting of Members concurrent with the expiration of the term of the director he or she is to succeed.”

Annual Board Meetings

Requires that “within thirty (30) days after each annual meeting of Members, the newly elected directors shall meet forthwith for the purpose of organization, the election of officers, and the transaction of other business.”

Study Guide – 21F-H2120016-REL-RHG

Study Guide: Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association

This guide reviews the administrative case between Haining Xia (Petitioner) and the Dorsey Place Condominium Association (Respondent) before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. It covers the core allegations, legal arguments, procedural history, and final rulings.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.

1. Who are the primary parties in this case and what are their roles?

2. What specific violations of the association’s Bylaws did the Petitioner allege?

3. What was the Respondent’s primary legal argument for why the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction?

4. According to the case documents, what is the legal standard known as “preponderance of the evidence”?

5. What was the initial ruling by the Administrative Law Judge on January 22, 2021, and what was the key reason for this decision?

6. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing of the case?

7. What evidence did the Petitioner submit during the rehearing on July 2, 2021?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge state that the Office of Administrative Hearings could not invalidate the “Condominium Termination Agreement”?

9. What specific requirements for annual meetings are outlined in Article 3.3 of the Respondent’s Bylaws?

10. What was the final outcome of the case after the rehearing, as detailed in the order dated July 14, 2021?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Haining Xia, the Petitioner, and Dorsey Place Condominium Association, the Respondent. The Petitioner is the unit owner who filed a dispute petition, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association accused of violating its own Bylaws.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4. He claimed the Respondent never elected a board at its Annual Members Meetings for 2018 and 2019 and that board elections were not included on the agendas for those meetings.

3. The Respondent argued that the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction because the association’s condominium status was terminated in April 2019 via a “Condominium Termination Agreement.” As it was no longer legally a condominium, the Respondent claimed it did not meet the statutory requirements for OAH jurisdiction over such disputes.

4. The legal standard is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” It is also described as “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

5. The initial ruling on January 22, 2021, denied the Petitioner’s Petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof because he presented no documentary evidence and relied solely on his own assertions to support his claims.

6. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that there was an “error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted this request.

7. During the rehearing, the Petitioner submitted Annual Membership Meeting Notices for 2018 and 2019, a document titled “Action by Written Consent of a Majority of the Unit Owners,” and a November 16, 2018, Board Resolution. However, he did not provide testimony or an explanation concerning these documents.

8. The Administrative Law Judge advised the Petitioner that the validity of the termination agreement had already been adjudicated and upheld by the Maricopa County Superior Court. The Office of Administrative Hearings does not have the legal authority to overturn or modify a ruling from the Superior Court.

9. Article 3.3 states that the annual meeting of Members shall be held in March each year, though it can be delayed until May 31. The purpose of this meeting is for the Members to elect the Board and transact other business that may properly be brought before the meeting.

10. After the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge again ruled against the Petitioner, ordering that his appeal be dismissed and naming the Respondent as the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the Petitioner once again failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation of the Bylaws.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-style response. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the jurisdictional challenge raised by the Respondent. How did the “Condominium Termination Agreement” of April 2019 fundamentally alter the legal status of the property and impact the proceedings before the Office of Administrative Hearings?

2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain in detail why the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden of proof in both the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing.

3. Trace the complete procedural history of this case, beginning with the filing of the petition on September 21, 2020, and ending with the final order on July 14, 2021. Identify the key events, decisions, and legal reasonings at each stage.

4. Evaluate the different arguments made by the Petitioner, including his claims about invalid board elections, the legitimacy of the termination agreement, and his status as a titled owner. Explain why the Office of Administrative Hearings was limited in its authority to rule on certain aspects of his claims.

5. Based on Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4, describe the prescribed process for electing the Board of Directors and conducting annual meetings. How did the Petitioner’s specific allegations in his petition directly challenge whether the Respondent had followed these procedures?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Sondra J. Vanella.

Affirmative Defense

A set of facts other than those alleged by the petitioner which, if proven by the respondent, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the respondent’s otherwise unlawful conduct. The respondent bears the burden of proof for affirmative defenses.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, the collection of laws for the state of Arizona.

Bylaws

The set of rules governing the internal management and affairs of an organization, such as a homeowners’ association. The Petitioner alleged violations of Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4 of the Respondent’s Bylaws.

Condominium Termination Agreement

A legal document recorded on April 9, 2019, that officially terminated the condominium status of Dorsey Place. The Respondent argued this action removed it from the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings for condominium disputes.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving homeowners’ associations.

Homeowners Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and residents. The Dorsey Place Condominium Association is the HOA in this case.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Respondent challenged the OAH’s jurisdiction on the basis that it was no longer legally a condominium.

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request made by a party to a court or other tribunal to dismiss a case. The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

A state agency that conducts hearings for other state agencies. In this case, the OAH conducted the hearing for the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Petition

The formal written request filed by the Petitioner to initiate the dispute resolution process with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner is Haining Xia.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The burden of proof in this civil case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” and as evidence that has “the most convincing force.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an action is brought. In this case, the Respondent is the Dorsey Place Condominium Association.

Superior Court

A state trial court of general jurisdiction. The Maricopa County Superior Court had previously issued a ruling upholding the validity of the Condominium Termination Agreement.

Blog Post – 21F-H2120016-REL-RHG

He Fought His HOA and Lost—Twice. 3 Costly Mistakes Every Homeowner Should Avoid.

The Frustration and the Fight

For many homeowners, dealing with a Homeowners Association (HOA) can be a source of immense frustration. Rules can feel arbitrary, and board decisions can seem opaque. It’s a common feeling to believe the HOA is in the wrong and to want to stand up for your rights. But what happens when that conviction meets the cold, hard reality of the legal system?

The case of Haining Xia versus the Dorsey Place Condominium Association serves as a powerful cautionary tale for any homeowner considering a legal challenge. Mr. Xia’s core complaint was straightforward and, on its face, seemed reasonable: he alleged that his HOA violated its own bylaws by failing to hold board elections during its 2018 and 2019 annual meetings.

Despite his strong convictions, he lost his case. He was then granted a rehearing—a rare second chance—and lost again. This article explores the surprising and crucial lessons from his defeat, revealing why simply being right in principle is often not enough to win in practice.

1. Conviction Is Not Evidence

The single biggest reason for Mr. Xia’s failure was his inability to provide proof for his claims. In the initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was stark: the petitioner “failed to present any evidence at hearing, documentary or otherwise, but rather relied solely on his own assertions.”

Herein lies the central mistake for any potential litigant: in a legal proceeding, the outcome isn’t determined by who feels most wronged, but by who can meet the required standard of proof. In this case, that standard was the “preponderance of the evidence.” The legal definition clarifies this standard:

“The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Think of it as the scales of justice. Your evidence doesn’t need to slam one side to the ground, but it must be strong enough to tip the scale, even slightly, in your favor. Mr. Xia arrived with only his convictions, which carry no weight on the scale.

During the rehearing, his testimony was filled with passionate statements, asserting that he was the only homeowner “who stood up to fight,” that he was fighting “evil,” and was simply “looking for justice.” These heartfelt convictions, however, were met with the judge’s blunt conclusion that he failed to meet his evidentiary burden. This reveals a critical lesson: in a legal setting, the passion of one’s convictions is irrelevant without factual, documentary proof to back them up.

2. Fight the Right Battle in the Right Courtroom

A significant portion of Mr. Xia’s case was derailed by a fundamental strategic error. The HOA’s attorney argued that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)—the body hearing the dispute—had no power over the case because the property had ceased to be a condominium in 2019 pursuant to a “Condominium Termination Agreement.”

In response, Mr. Xia tried to argue that this termination agreement was invalid, claiming it “does not contain valid signatures” and was a “usurpation of corporate power.” This was the wrong argument to make in the wrong place.

The Administrative Law Judge explicitly advised him that the validity of the termination agreement had already been decided by a higher court, the Maricopa County Superior Court. The judge stated plainly that the OAH “does not have the authority to overturn or modify that ruling.”

This wasn’t just a procedural mistake; it was a credibility-damaging tactical blunder. By focusing on an issue the court had no power to address, he appeared unprepared and distracted from the one claim he was actually there to prove. This strategic error likely damaged his credibility with the judge from the outset, underscoring the importance of understanding a court’s specific jurisdiction before you ever step foot inside.

3. A Second Chance Requires a New Strategy, Not Just New Documents

Being granted a rehearing is a significant opportunity in any legal dispute. Mr. Xia was granted this second chance after citing a specific “error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” This wasn’t a general appeal to fairness; it was a procedural opening that offered a rare chance to correct the flaws of his first attempt.

Unfortunately, he failed to capitalize on it. While he did submit documents in the second hearing, the judge noted a fatal flaw in his presentation: he “did not provide an explanation of the documents at hearing or testimony concerning the documents.”

Submitting a stack of papers is not the same as building a case. Evidence doesn’t speak for itself. Each document needed a narrative. Mr. Xia should have walked the judge through each paper, explaining: “This is the notice for the 2018 meeting. As you can see, an election is not on the agenda, which violates Bylaw 3.3. This document proves my specific claim.” Without that narrative, he just presented a puzzle with no solution.

The final, unambiguous conclusion from the second hearing was that the “Petitioner failed to establish that an election was required during either of those years.” The key takeaway is clear: a procedural victory like a rehearing is meaningless if the fundamental flaws in your case—in this instance, a lack of compelling, well-explained evidence—are not corrected.

From Principle to Proof

Mr. Xia’s journey shows a fatal progression: he began with a case built on feeling instead of fact, tried to fight it in the wrong court over a settled issue, and when given a rare chance to fix these fundamental errors, he failed to change his approach. It’s a story of how a lack of preparation can doom a case from start to finish.

This case is a stark reminder that in the eyes of the law, a right that cannot be proven does not exist. Before you begin your fight, ask yourself: are you prepared to prove your case, not just believe in it?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Haining Xia (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf,

Respondent Side

Nick Nogami (attorney)
Represented Respondent Dorsey Place Condominium Association,
Edith Rudder (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Recipient of electronic transmission/mail

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presiding Administrative Law Judge for original hearing and rehearing,,
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Received transmission of decisions; issued Order Granting Rehearing,,
Daniel Martin (ALJ)
Referenced as the Judge who issued a previous Minute Entry regarding a motion to dismiss

Daniel J Coe v. Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association

Posted on June 24, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2120029-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-10-12
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Daniel J Coe	Counsel	—
Respondent	Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association	Counsel	Edith Rudder

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Outcome Summary

The Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order vacating the scheduled hearing and remanding the matter to the Department of Real Estate, based on the Petitioner's motion to withdraw the rehearing petition.

Why this result: Petitioner withdrew the rehearing petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Motion to Withdraw Rehearing Petition

Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Rehearing Petition, advising that the scheduled hearing was not necessary.

Orders: Hearing vacated and matter remanded to the Department of Real Estate.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: procedural_closure

Analytics Highlights

Topics: withdrawal, procedural, remand

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120029-REL Decision – 890760.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:06:39 (151.9 KB)

21F-H2120029-REL Decision – 916851.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:41 (51.8 KB)

Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120029-REL

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “21F-H2120029-REL”,
“case_title”: “Daniel J. Coe, vs. Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association”,
“decision_date”: “June 24, 2021”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Daniel J. Coe”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Also a candidate for Board Member Elect”
},
{
“name”: “Ed O\u2019Brien”,
“role”: “attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Jenna Clark”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “Issued Administrative Law Judge Decision”
},
{
“name”: “Michael LaPoint”,
“role”: “witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Randy Eilts”,
“role”: “board member candidate”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Also listed as an observer”
},
{
“name”: “Summer Wierth”,
“role”: “board member candidate”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Also listed as an observer”
},
{
“name”: “Andrea Chin”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Alicia Chin”,
“role”: “board member candidate”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Albert Barnes”,
“role”: “board member candidate”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “ADRE Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “DGardner”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier”,
“role”: “attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen LLP”,
“notes”: “Counsel for Respondent”
},
{
“name”: “Adam D. Stone”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “Issued Order Vacating Hearing”
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Edith Rudder”,
“role”: “attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC”,
“notes”: “Counsel for Respondent in later filing”
},
{
“name”: “c. serrano”,
“role”: “OAH staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “Transmitting staff”
}
]
}

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Daniel J. Coe (petitioner)
Also a candidate for Board Member Elect
Randy Eilts (board member candidate)
Also listed as an observer
Summer Wierth (board member candidate)
Also listed as an observer
Alicia Chin (board member candidate)
Albert Barnes (board member candidate)

Respondent Side

Ed O’Brien (attorney)
Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association
Michael LaPoint (witness)
Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
Counsel for Respondent
Edith Rudder (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Counsel for Respondent in later filing

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH
Issued Administrative Law Judge Decision
Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
OAH
Issued Order Vacating Hearing
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
c. serrano (OAH staff)
OAH
Transmitting staff

Other Participants

Andrea Chin (observer)

Gregory L Smith v. Mountain Bridge Community Association

Posted on June 11, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121037-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-06-11
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Gregory L. Smith	Counsel	—
Respondent	Mountain Bridge Community Association	Counsel	Nicole Payne, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811
CC&R Article 11.3.2

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner prevailed on the claim of violating CC&R Article 11.3.2 (failure to negotiate in good faith) but was denied relief on the claim of violating A.R.S. § 33-1811 (conflict of interest). Petitioner was ordered reimbursed $500.00 for the filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the A.R.S. § 33-1811 violation because the statute was interpreted by the Tribunal to require the action to involve compensation.

Key Issues & Findings

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 because the HOA President failed to disclose a conflict of interest during the approval of his own flagpole. The Tribunal found the statute requires the decision to involve compensation, and Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Orders: Petition denied as to a violation of A.R.S. 33-1811. Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Failure to Negotiate Claim Resolution in Good Faith

Petitioner claimed Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate a resolution in good faith after he filed a claim notice. Mountain Bridge failed to communicate until approximately 35 days after the claim was noticed. The Tribunal found Respondent failed to negotiate in good faith.

Orders: Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party as to his claim of an Article 11 violation. Respondent must reimburse the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days. Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

CC&R Article 11.3.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Conflict of Interest, Failure to Negotiate, Flagpole, Filing Fee

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1811
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121037-REL Decision – 887461.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:47 (121.4 KB)

Remedies
Fees
Reimbursement

Case

Docket No: 21F-H2121037-REL
Case Title: Gregory L. Smith vs. Mountain Bridge Community Association
Decision Date: 2021-06-11
Alj Name: Adam D. Stone
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Communication
Delays
Good Faith

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 3.1 by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

Legal Procedure
Burden of Proof
Evidence

Question

Can I claim the HOA violated a definition in the CC&Rs, such as 'Visible from Neighboring Property'?

Short Answer

No. You cannot violate a definition; you can only violate the rules that use the definition.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Further, because “Visible from Neighboring Property” as mentioned in Article 1 is a definition, it is impossible for Mountain Bridge to violate the same.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

CC&R Interpretation
Definitions
Legal Standards

Question

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

Short Answer

Yes, if you prevail on a claim, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Thus, Petitioner is entitled to his filing fee of $500.00 and Respondent must reimburse the same with 30 days.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

Remedies
Fees
Reimbursement

Case

Docket No: 21F-H2121037-REL
Case Title: Gregory L. Smith vs. Mountain Bridge Community Association
Decision Date: 2021-06-11
Alj Name: Adam D. Stone
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Gregory L. Smith (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf
Christa Smith (witness)
Called by Petitioner

Respondent Side

Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
Carpenter Hazlewood
Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Amber Martin (community manager)
Mountain Bridge Community Association
Also testified as a witness
Jim Rayment (ARC Chair)
Mountain Bridge Community Association
Approved the flagpole; also testified as a witness
Mr. Riggs (HOA President)
Mountain Bridge Community Association
Petitioner's backyard neighbor

Neutral Parties

Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision transmission

Keith D Smith v. Sierra Foothills Condominium Association

Posted on June 3, 2021 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2120003-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-06-03
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Keith D Smith	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sierra Foothills Condominium Association	Counsel	Stuart Rayburn

Alleged Violations

CC&R section 7.1(C)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1248

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed as the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated CC&R section 7.1(C) or ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1248. The rule limiting sign use was deemed reasonable.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof on both issues.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged unreasonable discrimination in adopting rules regarding common elements (monument sign)

Petitioner alleged the Association violated CC&R 7.1(C) by adopting a rule limiting the use of the common element monument sign to only owners in Building B, arguing this was unreasonable discrimination against Building A owners.

Orders: Petition dismissed for this issue.

Filing fee: $250.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

CC&R section 7.1(C)
CC&R section 6.26(a)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1217

Alleged open meeting law violation at the June 10, 2020 Board meeting

Petitioner alleged the Board violated open meeting laws by communicating via email and reaching a decision prior to the June 10, 2020 meeting, claiming the President called for a vote without discussion.

Orders: Petition dismissed for this issue.

Filing fee: $250.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1248

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Condominium, Commercial HOA, Signage rules, Open meeting law, Discrimination

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1248
CC&R section 7.1(C)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)

Video Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120003-REL-RHG Decision – 885949.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:33 (143.3 KB)

21F-H2120003-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2120003-REL/837073.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:35 (103.9 KB)

Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120003-REL-RHG

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Smith v. Sierra Foothills Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This briefing summarizes the administrative legal proceedings between Keith D. Smith (Petitioner) and the Sierra Foothills Condominium Association (Respondent) regarding Case No. 21F-H2120003-REL and its subsequent rehearing. The dispute centered on two primary allegations: that the Association’s Board of Directors established an unreasonable and discriminatory rule regarding a common-element monument sign, and that the Board violated Arizona’s open meeting laws during the adoption of said rule.

Following an initial hearing on October 26, 2020, and a subsequent rehearing considered on June 3, 2021, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the petition in its entirety. The rulings established that the Association acted within its authority under the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to create rules for common elements, provided those rules are reasonable. The ALJ found that limiting sign usage to specific buildings was a reasonable exercise of power based on the physical layout of the property. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to provide substantial evidence to support claims of illegal pre-meeting communications by the Board.

——————————————————————————–

Core Dispute: Monument Sign Usage

The central conflict involved a monument sign located on the common elements of a commercial condominium consisting of two buildings, Building A and Building B.

The Challenged Rule

On June 10, 2020, the Association Board adopted a policy limiting the use of the monument sign exclusively to Unit owners in Building B. The monument sign contains only five advertising spaces.

Association Justification

The Association argued that the rule was necessary due to the physical limitations of the property:

• Space Scarcity: The sign has a finite capacity (five spaces) that cannot accommodate all owners.

• Building Frontage: Building A has direct street frontage, allowing its owners to hang signs directly on the building wall.

• Lack of Frontage: Building B does not have street frontage, significantly limiting the utility and visibility of any signs hung on its walls.

• Zoning Restrictions: Under the City of Phoenix Sign Code, businesses cannot post signs on buildings they do not occupy. Therefore, Building B owners are prohibited from hanging signs on Building A, making the monument sign their only viable external advertising option.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Mr. Smith, a Unit owner in Building A, challenged the rule based on the following:

• Common Interest: He asserted that his deed grants him an undivided interest in common elements, meaning no owner should have exclusive use of the sign.

• Disparate Treatment: He argued the rule violated CC&R section 6.26(a), which prohibits treating owners differently regarding occupancy and use restrictions.

• Alternative Solutions: Mr. Smith proposed altering the sign to increase capacity or reducing existing sign sizes by half (which he offered to fund).

——————————————————————————–

Legal Analysis of CC&R Provisions

The ALJ’s decision hinged on the interpretation of specific articles within the Association’s governing documents.

CC&R Section 7.1(C): Board Authority

This section grants the Board the power to adopt, amend, and repeal Rules and Regulations to restrict and govern the use of any area.

• Condition: Rules must not “unreasonably discriminate” and must be consistent with the Declaration and the Act.

• Ruling: The ALJ concluded that discriminating among owners is permitted under 7.1(c) as long as it is not unreasonable. Given the lack of street frontage for Building B, the restriction was deemed a reasonable management of limited resources.

CC&R Section 6.26(a): Use Restrictions

The Petitioner argued that this section required all limitations to be applicable to all occupants equally.

• Scope Limitation: The ALJ found that section 6.26(a) explicitly applies only to “occupancy and use restrictions contained in this Article 6.”

• Ruling: Because the sign rule was promulgated under Article 7, the restrictive language of Article 6.26(a) did not apply.

Common Element Status and Partition

During the proceedings, the Association initially argued the sign was not a common element but later waived this argument. The Petitioner argued that common elements cannot be partitioned under A.R.S. § 33-1217. However, the ALJ found no evidence that the monument sign had been “partitioned” in a legal sense, merely that its use was regulated.

——————————————————————————–

Open Meeting Law Allegations

Mr. Smith alleged that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1248 regarding the conduct of the June 10, 2020, meeting.

Claims of Pre-Meeting Deliberation

The Petitioner asserted that Board members had “obviously” communicated via email and reached a decision before the meeting. His evidence for this was:

• The Board President called for a vote immediately without initiating discussion.

• The Board members appeared to have their minds made up.

Evidence and Testimony

The ALJ rejected these claims based on the following:

• Lack of Proof: The Petitioner admitted he had no emails or physical evidence to support the claim of private deliberation.

• Conflicting Testimony: Association witnesses provided “credible testimony” that a protracted discussion took place, lasting approximately 90 minutes. Mr. Smith himself spoke for 20 minutes during this period.

• New Evidence Barred: During the rehearing, Mr. Smith claimed to possess an email supporting his position. The ALJ refused to consider it, citing Arizona Administrative Code § R2-19-115, which requires all evidence to be presented at the original hearing.

——————————————————————————–

Procedural Findings and Rehearing

The rehearing (Case No. 21F-H2120003-REL-RHG) addressed the Petitioner’s claims of administrative error and “arbitrary” findings.

ALJ Determination

Number of Issues

The hearing was limited to two issues because the Petitioner only paid the fee for a two-issue hearing. Claims of other meeting deficiencies were excluded.

Sufficiency of Evidence

The ALJ found that the original decision was supported by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence as required by A.R.S. § 41-1092.07.

Reasonableness of Rule

The ALJ reaffirmed that the unequal access to the monument sign was not “unreasonable discrimination” given the objective differences in building locations.

Sign Modification

The Association argued that modifying the sign would require rescinding previous approvals granted to other businesses, a position the ALJ did not find unreasonable.

Final Conclusion

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition in both the original hearing and the rehearing. The final order, dated June 3, 2021, is binding. The Association’s rule limiting monument sign access to Building B was upheld as a reasonable exercise of Board authority, and the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding violations of Arizona’s open meeting laws.

Study Guide – 21F-H2120003-REL-RHG

Study Guide: Keith D. Smith vs. Sierra Foothills Condominium Association

This study guide examines the administrative proceedings and legal conclusions regarding the dispute between Keith D. Smith and the Sierra Foothills Condominium Association. The guide covers the original hearing (October 26, 2020) and the subsequent rehearing (March 21, 2021), focusing on the interpretation of CC&Rs, open meeting laws, and the standards of evidence in administrative hearings.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided source context.

1. What were the two primary issues the Petitioner was permitted to raise during the hearings?

2. Why did the Association Board decide to limit the use of the monument sign specifically to owners of units in Building B?

3. What was the Petitioner’s argument regarding his “undivided interest” in the common elements of the condominium?

4. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) interpret the scope of CC&R section 6.26(a)?

5. What specific evidence did the Petitioner provide to support his allegation that Board members had communicated via email prior to the June 10, 2020, meeting?

6. How did the testimony of Stuart Rayburn and Harold Bordelon contradict the Petitioner’s claim regarding the lack of discussion at the June 10 meeting?

7. What were the two physical alterations to the monument sign suggested by the Petitioner to allow for more advertising space?

8. Why did the ALJ refuse to consider certain City of Phoenix zoning ordinance arguments and new email evidence during the rehearing?

9. According to the “Conclusions of Law,” what is the definition of a “preponderance of the evidence”?

10. What is the final recourse for a party wishing to appeal the order issued following the rehearing?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was limited to whether the Association violated CC&R section 7.1(C) regarding the Board’s authority to make rules for the monument sign and whether the Association violated open meeting laws under ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1248. These limitations were enforced because the Petitioner only paid the required fees for a two-issue hearing.

2. The Board limited the sign to Building B because the monument sign has space for only five businesses, and unlike Building A, Building B does not have street frontage for advertising. Building A owners have the option to hang signs on their own building walls, a utility not available to Building B owners under city ordinances.

3. The Petitioner argued that his deed grants him an undivided interest in the common elements, which he interpreted to mean that no owner should have exclusive use of the monument sign. He contended that the Association’s common elements cannot be partitioned and that all owners should have access to the advertising space.

4. The ALJ ruled that section 6.26(a), which prohibits disparate treatment of owners, is expressly limited to the occupancy and use restrictions contained within Article 6. Because the rule in question was adopted under the authority of Article 7, the non-discrimination requirements of 6.26(a) did not apply.

5. The Petitioner admitted during the hearing that he had no emails or physical evidence to support his allegation of prior communication among Board members. He relied on the reasoning that because the President called for a vote immediately, they must have “obviously” reached a decision beforehand.

6. The Association’s witnesses provided credible testimony that a protracted discussion took place before the vote, lasting approximately 90 minutes. They noted that the Petitioner himself spoke for twenty minutes and that research on city ordinances and governing documents was presented before the board took action.

7. The Petitioner proposed either reducing the size of existing signs by one-half to create more slots—which he offered to pay for—or increasing the overall size of the monument sign. The Association resisted these plans, arguing they would require rescinding prior approvals and might not meet city codes.

8. The ALJ excluded this information because administrative findings must be based exclusively on evidence and issues raised in the original petition. New evidence or legal theories (such as ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1217) not presented at the original hearing cannot be introduced during a rehearing.

9. A “preponderance of the evidence” is defined as the greater weight of the evidence that possesses the most convincing force. It is evidence sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind toward one side of an issue rather than the other, even if it does not eliminate all reasonable doubt.

10. The order following a rehearing is binding; however, a party may seek judicial review as prescribed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 12, Chapter 7, Article 6. This appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the provided documents to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Balance of Equity in Association Governance: Discuss how the Board justified a rule that seemingly treats Building A and Building B owners differently. In your answer, evaluate the ALJ’s conclusion that this “discrimination” was not unreasonable given the physical layout of the property.

2. Statutory Interpretation of CC&Rs: Analyze the conflict between reading the CC&Rs as a “continuous document” versus the ALJ’s strict adherence to the express terms of specific sections (Article 6 vs. Article 7). How does the wording “subject to the provisions of this Declaration” in section 7.1(c) impact this interpretation?

3. Procedural Rigidity in Administrative Hearings: Explain the impact of the Petitioner’s decision to only pay for two issues. How did this choice limit his ability to introduce alternative legal arguments, such as the non-partition of common elements or additional open meeting law violations?

4. The Role of Testimony vs. Allegation: Compare the Petitioner’s reliance on “rhetorical questions” and “obvious” conclusions with the Respondent’s use of witness testimony. How does this case demonstrate the burden of proof required to establish a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1248?

5. Impact of Local Ordinances on Private Governance: Assess how the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance (Section 705) and Sign Code influenced the Board’s policy and the ALJ’s final decision. Why was the distinction between “contiguous” signage and “flexible” placement critical to the reasonableness of the Association’s rule?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding officer who conducts hearings and issues decisions on disputes involving state agency regulations or statutes.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1248

The Arizona state statute governing open meeting laws for condominiums, requiring transparency in Board deliberations.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and operations of a common interest development.

Common Elements

Portions of a condominium project other than the individual units, managed by the Association and intended for common use.

Monument Sign

A ground-level sign, typically located near a property entrance, used to identify the businesses or residents within a complex.

Partition

The act of dividing a property into separate parts or to sever the unity of possession; in this context, the Petitioner argued common elements cannot be partitioned.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The legal standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning the evidence on one side is more convincing than the other.

Rehearing

A second consideration of a case, usually based on specific grounds such as an irregularity in the original proceeding or an error of law.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, the Sierra Foothills Condominium Association.

Substantial Evidence

Evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; a requirement for the validity of an ALJ decision.

Undivided Interest

The legal right of each owner to use the whole of the common property, rather than a specific, physically divided portion.

Blog Post – 21F-H2120003-REL-RHG

The Monument Sign Mystery: 4 Surprising Lessons in HOA Power and “Reasonable” Fairness

1. Introduction: The Paradox of Undivided Interest

In the world of commercial real estate, few phrases carry as much weight—or cause as much confusion—as “undivided interest.” When Keith D. Smith purchased a unit in the Sierra Foothills Condominium Association, his deed granted him an interest in the common elements. To many owners, this implies a fundamental right to equal use of every square inch of the property, including high-visibility signage.

However, a recent dispute between Mr. Smith and his Association highlights a complex legal paradox: an owner can have an undivided interest in a common element while being legally barred from using it. The conflict arose when the Board restricted a five-space monument sign to a specific subset of owners, sparking a claim of “unreasonable discrimination.”

Does fairness require a Board to grant every owner a “slice of the pie,” or can they prioritize certain owners for the functional benefit of the whole? The ruling in this case provides a masterclass in how administrative courts define “reasonableness” and “fairness” within a shared property.

2. Takeaway 1: When Equality Isn’t “Reasonable”

At first glance, the Association’s rule seemed blatantly unfair. The Board enacted a policy that limited the use of the monument sign exclusively to owners in Building B, completely barring Building A owners like Mr. Smith.

However, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) looked beyond the surface-level exclusion to the “functional reality” of the property. Building A enjoys direct street frontage, allowing its owners to hang signs directly on their building. Building B, situated behind Building A, has no such visibility.

The “legal knot” that sealed the decision was a City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. While Building A owners had their own signage options, the ordinance prohibited Building B owners from hanging signs on Building A—the only building visible from the street. Because Building B owners were effectively invisible without the monument sign, the Board’s “discrimination” was deemed a logical, functional necessity rather than an arbitrary act.

CC&R section 7.1(c) grants the Board broad authority to manage common areas:

The Board … subject to the provisions of this Declaration, may adopt, amend and repeal Rules and Regulations. The Rules and Regulations may … restrict and govern the use of any area by any Owner or Occupant…; provided however that the Rules and Regulations shall not unreasonably discriminate among Owners and Occupants.

Because the rule addressed a specific geographical disadvantage, the court found the Board’s decision was reasonable and consistent with its governing authority.

3. Takeaway 2: The “Fine Print” Trap of Article Silos

Mr. Smith argued that the sign rule violated CC&R section 6.26(a), which requires that use restrictions be “applicable to all Occupants.” It is a compelling argument for any property owner: if the rules say everyone must be treated the same, how can the Board pick favorites?

The legal reality, however, comes down to the structural logic of the CC&Rs—what we might call “Article Silos.” The ALJ pointed out that the “equality clause” Mr. Smith cited was explicitly limited to the confines of Article 6 (Occupancy and Use). The Board, however, enacted the sign rule under the powers granted in Article 7 (Association Powers).

In legal interpretation, the specific placement of a rule dictates its reach. The decision emphasized this “smoking gun” phrasing:

…although CC&R section 6.26 does prohibit disparate treatment of Owners, by its express terms, CC&R section 6.26 applies only to CC&R Article 6, and not Article 7.

This serves as a critical warning for property professionals: a protection in one article of a governing document does not necessarily limit the powers granted in another.

4. Takeaway 3: The Burden of Proof and the “Pre-Meeting” Myth

Property owners often suspect that by the time a public meeting begins, the “real” decision has already been made in secret. Mr. Smith alleged that the Board violated Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1248) by reaching a consensus via email before the official vote on June 10, 2020.

His evidence was purely circumstantial; he posed a rhetorical question asking how the Board could call for a vote so quickly if they hadn’t already decided. The court, however, requires “substantial evidence” to overturn a Board action.

Testimony revealed that the meeting was far from a “rubber stamp” event. It involved a “protracted” discussion lasting an hour and a half, during which Mr. Smith himself was allowed to speak for 20 minutes. The ALJ applied the standard of the “Preponderance of the Evidence,” which favors the side with the most convincing weight of facts:

The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

5. Takeaway 4: The “Pay-to-Play” Reality of Administrative Hearings

The final lesson is a procedural one that every petitioner must understand: administrative law is a “one-shot” game governed by fees and strict paperwork.

When Mr. Smith filed his petition with the Department of Real Estate, he paid the fee for a two-issue hearing. Consequently, when he attempted to raise a new legal argument during his rehearing—citing A.R.S. § 33-1217 regarding the partition of common elements—the court flatly rejected it. Because the issue wasn’t in the original petition and he hadn’t paid for it to be heard, it simply didn’t exist in the eyes of the court.

The same “closed-door” policy applied to new evidence. During the rehearing, Mr. Smith claimed he finally had an email to prove the Board’s secret communications. The court refused to look at it, noting that because it wasn’t presented at the original hearing, it could not be considered later. In these proceedings, you must bring every issue and every piece of evidence to the table at the very beginning; there are no “add-ons” in the middle of the process.

6. Conclusion: A New Perspective on Common Ground

The dismissal of all claims against the Sierra Foothills Condominium Association clarifies that “common elements” are not always equally shared in practice. Instead, they are managed for the functional benefit of the whole community. In this instance, providing visibility to the “hidden” units in Building B was a reasonable use of limited space, even if it meant Building A owners had to rely on their own street frontage.

This case leaves property owners with a challenging question: If your “undivided interest” doesn’t guarantee you a spot on the sign, what exactly are you entitled to? The answer is rarely found in the spirit of “fairness,” but rather in the specific, siloed mechanics of your Association’s CC&Rs.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Keith D Smith (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Sierra Foothills Condominium Association (respondent)
Stuart Rayburn (president)
Sierra Foothills Condominium Association
Appeared for Respondent
Harold Bordelon (witness)
Testified for the Association

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

LDettorre (staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen (staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones (staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner (staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
ncano (staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners

Posted on May 18, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2120020-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-02-02
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes	Counsel	Kristin Roebuck Bethell, Esq.
Respondent	Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association	Counsel	Samantha Cote, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 regarding the availability of voting records.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the HOA violated the statute through its NDA request or its method of providing the records (redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes) and failed to prove the records were not made reasonably available within the required statutory time frame.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to comply with voting records request (regarding assessment and cumulative voting records)

Petitioners alleged the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by requiring an NDA and providing redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes, which prevented Petitioners from cross-referencing votes with voters. Respondent argued it timely provided the totality of the requested information and that the manner of delivery did not violate the statute.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Governance, Statute Violation, Voting Records, Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 881665.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:06:27 (167.3 KB)

21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 944169.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:22 (184.1 KB)

21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 944171.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:22 (184.1 KB)

Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120020-REL

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG, a dispute between homeowners Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes (“Petitioners”) and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was whether the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805 by its handling of the Petitioners’ request for voting records.

The final order, issued on February 2, 2022, denied the petition. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that a statutory violation occurred. The decision found that the Association’s method of providing the requested documents—redacted ballots in one stack and unredacted envelopes in another—was a “reasonable” approach that balanced the Petitioners’ right to examination with the Association’s duty to protect member privacy. While acknowledging this methodology was “not ideal,” the ALJ determined it made the totality of the requested information “reasonably available” as required by law and was not a violation. The ruling also established that the Association’s initial request for the Petitioners to sign a non-disclosure agreement did not constitute a statutory violation.

Case Overview

Entity

Details

Case Number

21F-H2120020-REL-RHG

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Administrative Law Judge

Jenna Clark

Petitioners

Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes

Respondent

Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association

Central Allegation

Respondent failed to comply with a January 16, 2020, voting records request, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Final Order Date

February 2, 2022

Outcome

Petition Denied.

Chronology of Key Events

• October 4, 2017: The Association’s Board of Directors adopts the “Rule Requiring Secret Ballots” for votes on special assessments.

• October 28, 2019 (approx.): A vote occurs regarding an increase in association dues.

• December 2019: A vote occurs regarding a proposed CC&R amendment to prohibit cumulative voting.

• January 6, 2020: Petitioners submit a written request to view the votes for the cumulative voting amendment.

• January 13, 2020: The Association’s Board votes 8:1 to require Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the ballots, citing member privacy concerns. Petitioners decline to sign the NDA.

• January 16, 2020: Counsel for Petitioners submits a formal written request for all ballots and related documents for both the dues increase vote and the cumulative voting amendment.

• January 30, 2020: The Association’s counsel responds, stating the Association must “balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners” and that the records will be made available for inspection.

• February 7, 2020: Petitioners inspect documents at the office of the Association’s counsel. They are provided with two stacks of documents: redacted ballots and unredacted envelopes. They review the cumulative voting records for approximately 3.5 hours but cannot match specific ballots to specific voter envelopes.

• August 5, 2020: Petitioners issue a new demand for “unredacted ballots” and all related documents. No additional documentation is provided.

• September 22, 2020: Petitioners file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initiating the formal dispute process.

• May 17, 2021: An initial ALJ Decision is issued.

• June 22, 2021: Petitioners file a request for a rehearing on the grounds that the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”

• July 15, 2021: The rehearing request is granted.

• January 13, 2022: The evidentiary rehearing is held before the OAH.

• February 2, 2022: The final ALJ Decision is issued, again denying the Petitioners’ petition.

Central Legal Arguments

The rehearing focused on oral arguments from both parties regarding the interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, which mandates that association records be made “reasonably available” for member examination.

Petitioners’ Position

• Unredacted Records Required: The statute requires the production of unredacted copies of requested documents, and the Association’s failure to provide original, unaltered documents was a violation.

• Methodology Impeded Access: By providing redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes, the Respondent prevented the Petitioners from cross-referencing votes with voters. This action meant the documents were not made “reasonably available.”

• NDA Was an Unlawful Barrier: The Association’s demand for an NDA was not supported by any enumerated exception in the statute and constituted an unlawful barrier to accessing records.

• No Expectation of Privacy: Petitioners argued that the ballots were not truly “secret ballots” because some had names or signatures on them, meaning voters “could not have reasonably held an expectation of privacy.”

Respondent’s Position

• Statute is Silent on Method: The statute does not specify how records must be made available, only that they must be. Respondent argued it had complied by providing the “totality of records” requested in a timely fashion.

• Balancing of Duties: The Association devised a method to satisfy its dual obligations: complying with the records request and protecting its members’ privacy and safety. This concern was heightened by complaints from other homeowners about “harassing” behaviors by the Petitioners.

• Information Was Provided: The two sets of documents (redacted ballots, unredacted envelopes) amounted to one complete set of unredacted records, allowing Petitioners to “cross reference and discern the information they sought.”

• NDA Was Reasonable: The NDA was proposed to protect member privacy regarding their secret ballot votes. Respondent argued it was ultimately irrelevant to the case, as the records were provided even after Petitioners declined to sign it.

Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Final Order

The ALJ’s decision rested on a direct interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 and a finding that the Petitioners did not meet their evidentiary burden.

Key Rulings and Conclusions of Law

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association violated the statute. The ALJ concluded they failed to do so.

2. On the NDA: The Judge explicitly held that “Respondent’s request that Petitioners sign an NDA does not constitute a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

3. On Timeliness: The Association’s response on January 30, 2020, to the January 16, 2020, request was within the 10-business-day statutory deadline (which ended January 31, 2020). The Petitioners did not establish that the documents were unavailable for review prior to the February 7 inspection date.

4. On the Method of Disclosure: This was the central finding. The decision states that the manner in which the documents were provided did not violate the statute. The ALJ found that the record reflected that “Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s).” Because there was no evidence that the documents were not made “reasonably available,” a violation could not be concluded.

5. Reasonableness of Association’s Actions: The ALJ offered a final assessment of the Association’s methodology: “While Respondent’s methodology of document delivery to Petitioners may have not been ideal, under the totality of underlying circumstances the decision reasonable and within the requirements of the applicable statute(s).”

Final Order

Based on the finding that the Petitioners did not sustain their burden of proof, the final order was unambiguous: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”

The order is binding on the parties, who were notified of their right to seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the Superior Court within 35 days from the date of service.

Study Guide – 21F-H2120020-REL

Study Guide: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG. It is designed to test and reinforce understanding of the key parties, events, arguments, and legal principles outlined in the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what are their respective roles?

2. What specific statute did the Petitioners allege the Respondent violated, and what is the core requirement of that statute?

3. What two specific sets of voting records did the Petitioners request from the Association in their January 16, 2020 letter?

4. What action did the Association’s Board of Directors take on January 13, 2020, in response to the Petitioners’ initial request, and what was their stated reason for doing so?

5. Describe the method the Association used to provide the requested voting records to the Petitioners on February 7, 2020.

6. What was the Petitioners’ main argument for why the Association’s method of providing the documents failed to comply with the law?

7. What was the Association’s primary defense for the way it provided the records and for its overall actions?

8. According to the “Conclusions of Law,” who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, and what is the standard required to meet that burden?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the Association’s request that the Petitioners sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA)?

10. What was the ultimate outcome of the case as determined by the Administrative Law Judge in the final order issued on February 2, 2022?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes, who are the “Petitioners,” and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association, which is the “Respondent.” The Petitioners are property owners and members of the Association who filed a complaint against it. The Association is the governing body for the residential development, managed by Vision Community Management, LLC.

2. The Petitioners alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805. The core requirement of this statute is that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association must be made “reasonably available” for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.

3. The January 16, 2020 letter requested all ballots and related documents from the vote regarding the increase in dues that occurred around October 28, 2019. It also requested all written consent forms and ballots for the Proposed Declaration Amendment regarding cumulative voting, which occurred in December 2019.

4. On January 13, 2020, the Board of Directors voted 8 to 1 to require the Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the ballots. Their stated reason was a concern for members’ expectation of privacy regarding non-public information and a fear that members could be harassed based on their votes.

5. The Association provided the Petitioners with two separate stacks of documents. One stack contained redacted ballots, and the other stack contained unredacted envelopes that the ballots had been mailed in. This method separated the vote from the identity of the voter.

6. The Petitioners argued that by providing redacted copies and separate envelopes, the Respondent had not made the documents “reasonably available” as required by statute. They contended this method created an unlawful barrier because they were unable to cross-reference the ballots with the purported voters to verify the vote.

7. The Association defended its actions by arguing that the statute does not specify the how records should be produced, only that they be made available. It contended that it provided the totality of the information requested in a timely manner while also fulfilling its duty to protect the privacy and safety of its members from potential harassment.

8. The Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent’s request for the Petitioners to sign an NDA did not constitute a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. The judge also noted the NDA was ultimately irrelevant to the outcome because the Association provided the documents even though the Petitioners declined to sign it.

10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners’ petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioners did not sustain their burden of proof to show that the Association had committed a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, finding the Association’s actions to be reasonable under the circumstances.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each prompt, citing specific facts and arguments from the case documents.

1. Analyze the central legal conflict over the interpretation of the phrase “reasonably available” in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Contrast the arguments made by the Petitioners and the Respondent, and explain how the Administrative Law Judge ultimately resolved this conflict in the decision.

2. Discuss the competing interests the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association attempted to balance in its response to the records request. Evaluate the measures it took, including the proposed NDA and the method of document delivery, in light of its duties to both the Petitioners and its general membership.

3. Trace the procedural history of the case from the initial petition filing on September 22, 2020, to the final order on February 2, 2022. What does this timeline reveal about the administrative hearing and appeals process for HOA disputes in Arizona?

4. The Petitioners argued that the ballots in question were not truly “secret ballots” and that voters could not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Based on the evidence presented, construct an argument supporting this position and a counter-argument defending the Association’s stance on member privacy.

5. Examine the legal reasoning employed by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Conclusions of Law.” How did principles of statutory construction and the “preponderance of the evidence” standard directly influence the final order denying the Petitioners’ petition?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition in the Context of the Document

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision based on findings of fact and conclusions of law.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

The specific Arizona statute at the heart of the dispute, which mandates that a homeowners’ association’s records be made “reasonably available” for member examination within ten business days of a request.

Association / Respondent

The Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association, the governing body for the residential development and the party against whom the petition was filed.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The group that oversees the Association and is responsible for its governance. The Board voted to require an NDA before releasing voting records.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a trial (in this case, the Petitioners) to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents for the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings involving homeowners’ associations.

Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA)

A legal contract proposed by the Association’s Board that would have required the Petitioners to keep the voting information confidential. The Petitioners declined to sign it.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency to which the Department refers HOA dispute cases for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

Petitioners

Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes, members of the Association who filed the petition alleging a violation of state law by the Association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioners to win their case. It is defined as proof that convinces the judge that a contention is more probably true than not.

Redacted

Edited to remove or black out confidential or private information. The Association provided redacted ballots to the Petitioners to protect member privacy.

Vision Community Management, LLC (Vision)

The management company hired by and acting on behalf of the Association.

Blog Post – 21F-H2120020-REL

Your HOA Can Legally Keep Secrets From You. Here’s How.

Introduction: The Fight for Transparency

As a homeowner in an association, you assume a right to see the records. Transparency, after all, is the bedrock of accountability. But a recent legal dispute in Arizona offers a masterclass in how the gap between a right to information and the reality of obtaining it can be vast. The case demonstrates how a determined HOA, armed with a nuanced legal strategy and a literal interpretation of the law, can fulfill its obligation to provide records while ensuring they reveal almost nothing. It’s a story of escalation that began not with redacted documents, but with a demand for a nondisclosure agreement, setting the stage for a battle over what it truly means for records to be “available.”

1. The Two-Pile Shuffle: How “Access” Doesn’t Always Mean “Answers”

The conflict began with a standard request from a group of homeowners (the Petitioners) to examine their HOA’s voting records. The Board’s response, however, was anything but standard. Citing privacy concerns, the Board voted 8-to-1 on a crucial first move: it would require the homeowners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before they could view the ballots. The homeowners refused, creating a standoff.

Forced to provide access but unwilling to yield on its privacy stance, the HOA (the Respondent) devised a clever workaround. When the homeowners arrived to inspect the approximately 122 pages of records, they weren’t handed a coherent set of documents. Instead, after spending roughly three and a half hours sifting through the materials, they discovered they had been given two separate stacks: one containing redacted ballots with the votes visible but the names blacked out, and another containing the unredacted envelopes they arrived in.

This “two-pile shuffle” made it impossible to match a ballot to a voter, effectively neutralizing the homeowners’ ability to verify the vote. They argued that this method failed to make the documents “reasonably available” as required by Arizona statute. The HOA’s strategy proved legally astute, leading to a court case that hinged on the very definition of access.

2. The Privacy Shield: A Proactive Defense

The HOA’s justification for its actions was a proactive and layered defense rooted in protecting its members. The Board’s initial demand for an NDA was not a retroactive excuse, but its opening move, signaling a deep-seated concern that releasing the voting information could lead to conflict within the community.

This concern was not merely abstract. Faced with multiple homeowner complaints labeling the Petitioners’ behavior as “harassing,” the Board first attempted to manage the information release by requiring the nondisclosure agreement. When that failed, it developed the two-pile system. The HOA’s legal position was that it had a duty to balance the homeowners’ request against the “privacy and safety of all Owners.” In a letter, the association’s counsel articulated this position clearly:

The Association’s position is that it has to balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners within the Association. The Board is concerned with the personal information contained on the written consent forms or other documents and fears that individual members will be retaliated against or harassed based on a member’s decision to support, or not support, the matters up for a decision.

This defense, framed as a duty to protect the community from internal strife, became the cornerstone of the HOA’s successful legal argument.

3. The “Reasonably Available” Loophole

The entire legal battle was ultimately decided by the interpretation of a single phrase in Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, which requires an association to make its records “reasonably available.” The case exposed a critical ambiguity in the law.

• The Homeowners’ View: They argued that “reasonably available” implies usability. To be meaningful, the records had to be provided in a way that allowed them to cross-reference votes with voters. A deliberately disorganized release, they contended, was not reasonable.

• The HOA’s View: The association countered with a brilliant legal distinction: the statute dictates what records must be produced, not how they must be presented. By providing all the components—the ballots and the envelopes—they had fulfilled their duty, even if they were separated.

In a decision that highlights the judiciary’s deference to the literal text of a statute, the Administrative Law Judge sided with the HOA. The judge’s ruling found no violation because, in the end, the homeowners had received everything they asked for. The legal linchpin of the decision was the finding that “the record reflects that Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s).” This interpretation effectively created a loophole, allowing the HOA to comply with the letter of the law while completely withholding the context the homeowners sought.

Conclusion: When “Legal” Isn’t the Whole Story

This case is a stark reminder that a legally defensible action can still feel like an affront to the spirit of community governance. The HOA’s victory demonstrates that in a dispute over transparency, the side with the more precise reading of the law, rather than the more open approach, may prevail. It reveals the profound tension between a homeowner’s right to know, an association’s duty to protect its members from potential harassment, and the powerful ambiguities hidden in legal statutes. An HOA can, with careful legal maneuvering, use privacy as a shield to deliver information in a way that obscures more than it reveals—and do so without breaking the law.

In a community governed by rules, what’s more important: absolute transparency, or the protection of every member’s privacy?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Sandra Swanson (petitioner)
Robert Barnes (petitioner)
Kristin Roebuck Bethell (petitioner attorney)
Horne Siaton, PLLC
Also listed as Kristin Roebuck, Esq.,

Respondent Side

Jeremy Johnson (respondent attorney)
Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
Samantha Cote (respondent attorney)
Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
Also listed as Sam Cote, Esq.,
Patricia Ahler (witness)
Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
Amanda Stewart (witness)
Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
Jennifer Amundson (witness)
Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
Regis Salazar (witness)
Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
Clint Goodman (HOA attorney)
Vision Community Management, LLC
Attorney for Vision, the HOA's property manager,

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Commissioner during initial decision phase
Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Commissioner during final/rehearing decision phase,
Dan Gardner (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
ADRE contact c/o Commissioner,,

John D Klemmer v. Caribbean Gardens Association

Posted on April 28, 2021 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2120009-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-04-28
Administrative Law Judge	Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John D. Klemmer	Counsel	—
Respondent	Caribbean Gardens Association	Counsel	Nicole D. Payne, Esq., Lydia A. Pierce Linsmeier, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article 1, Sections 1.5 and 1.8; Article 3, Section 3.4; Article 4, Section 4.1; Article 8, Section 8.1; and Article 12, Section 12.4

Outcome Summary

The ALJ affirmed the initial decision upon rehearing, dismissing the homeowner's petition because the disputed space qualifies as a limited common element for exclusive use by one unit under state statute, rather than a general common area the HOA is required to maintain.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the space was a general common element. Statutory provisions override the ambiguity in the Plat and designate the fixture serving a single unit as a limited common element.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to manage, operate, maintain and administer common area

Petitioner claimed a specific area exclusively occupied by Unit 207 was a common element owned by all 40 unit owners and that the HOA had a duty to claim ownership and maintain it. The HOA argued the area was a balcony and a limited common element.

Orders: Petition is dismissed. Petitioner continues to bear his $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1212
A.R.S. § 33-1218
A.R.S. § 33-551

Decision Documents

21F-H2120009-REL-RHG Decision – 876384.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-28T18:23:09 (124.8 KB)

21F-H2120009-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2120009-REL/843358.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-28T18:23:10 (129.8 KB)

**Case Title:** 21F-H2120009-REL-RHG

**Procedural History & Introduction**
This matter involves a rehearing of an administrative dispute between Petitioner John D. Klemmer and Respondent Caribbean Gardens Association, a condominium HOA. It is important to explicitly distinguish the two proceedings: the original hearing (Case No. 21F-H2120009-REL) resulted in a December 17, 2020 decision dismissing the petition. The Petitioner subsequently filed a dispute rehearing request, which was granted by the Department of Real Estate, leading to the April 28, 2021 rehearing decision (Case No. 21F-H2120009-REL-RHG).

**Key Facts & Main Issues**
The core dispute centers on an unmapped, outdoor space located on the second level between Units 206 and 207. This area consists of a concrete slab fenced off by exterior iron railings and is accessible exclusively through a door from inside Unit 207.

* **Petitioner's Argument:** The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to manage, maintain, and claim ownership of this specific area. He argued that because the area is left completely blank on the community's Plat document, it must be considered a general "common area" or "common element" owned by all 40 unit owners, and that the HOA improperly allowed Unit 207 to exclusively possess it.
* **Respondent's Argument:** The HOA argued the disputed space is not a general common element, but rather a "limited common element" (functioning as a balcony) that serves only Unit 207, which the HOA has no duty to maintain.

**Original Case Decision (December 2020)**
In the original hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) evaluated the CC&Rs and Arizona property law. The ALJ determined that under A.R.S. § 33-1212(4), exterior fixtures such as balconies designed to serve a single unit but located outside the unit's boundaries are "limited common elements" allocated exclusively to that unit. Concluding that the disputed area was a balcony exclusively serving Unit 207, the ALJ found the HOA did not violate the CC&Rs and dismissed the petition.

**Rehearing Arguments and Legal Points (April 2021)**
The Petitioner requested a rehearing, arguing the original decision misapplied A.R.S. § 33-1212[A](4). He contended that the statute begins with the phrase "Except as provided by the Declaration," and because the community's Declaration and Plat do not explicitly draw or define the disputed area as an "Apartment," "patio," or "balcony

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John D. Klemmer (petitioner)
Represented himself

Respondent Side

Nicole D. Payne (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Lydia A. Pierce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Alex Gonzalez (board member)
Caribbean Gardens Association
Erroneously referred to as Alex Gomez in the initial decision

Neutral Parties

Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Posted on April 27, 2021 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Charles P Mandela	Counsel	—
Respondent	Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association	Counsel	Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article X; CC&R Section 10.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge, following a rehearing, affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article X regarding the denial of an architectural modification request for a patio shade. The Respondent was found to have acted in compliance with the community documents, and the appeal was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&R's and failed to follow the procedural requirements necessary to appeal a deemed disapproval under CC&R Section 10.3.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request for patio shade structure and alleged violation of response timeline

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of his application for a patio shade, arguing the denial was improper because the shade would be attached (not a separate structure) and that the HOA missed the 30-day response deadline. The ALJ determined that the HOA's denial based on the 'only one structure other than the residence' rule (since a shed already existed) complied with the non-exhaustive Architectural Committee Standards (Article X, 10.2). Regarding the delayed response, the ALJ noted that Section 10.3 mandated that a late response results in the request being 'deemed disapproved,' and the Petitioner failed to subsequently request the required appeal meeting.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent violated Article X of the CC&R’s. The Respondent was declared the prevailing party, and the Petitioner's appeal (rehearing) was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
CC&R Article X
CC&R Section 10.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Review, Denial, Rehearing, Burden of Proof, Deemed Disapproved

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – 876009.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:30 (118.9 KB)

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020042-REL/850032.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:33 (113.4 KB)

Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG

Briefing on Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association (“Blue Ridge”). The core issue was Blue Ridge’s denial of Mr. Mandela’s request to build a patio shade structure.

In the initial hearing on January 13, 2021, Mr. Mandela argued the denial was erroneous because the shade would be attached to his house, not a separate structure, and that similar structures existed in the community. Blue Ridge defended its decision based on Article X of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which limits properties to one structure besides the main residence. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, finding that Blue Ridge acted within the authority granted by its CC&Rs, as its architectural standards were not exhaustive and it provided a reasonably detailed written reason for the denial.

Following this decision, Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing, which took place on April 16, 2021. During this second hearing, he introduced a new argument that Blue Ridge had violated Article 10.3 of the CC&Rs by failing to respond to his request within the stipulated 30-day timeframe. However, the ALJ found that the same article specifies that a failure to respond results in the request being “deemed disapproved.” The ALJ concluded that Mr. Mandela had failed to follow the subsequent appeal procedures outlined in the CC&Rs and again failed to meet his burden of proof. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Blue Ridge was declared the prevailing party. Notably, during the rehearing, Mr. Mandela testified that his request for the patio shade had since been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

Initial Hearing and Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL)

The first evidentiary hearing was held on January 13, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone to address Mr. Mandela’s petition alleging Blue Ridge violated its CC&Rs.

The Core Dispute

• Petitioner’s Request: On August 28, 2019, Charles P. Mandela submitted a request to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet,” described as a four-post structure he intended to attach to the east wall of his residence.

• Respondent’s Denial: On October 25, 2019, Blue Ridge denied the request, stating: “Only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property. The site plan that was given for review shows the residence and also a shed on property already existing, this would be the allowable limit per the Architectural Standards.”

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Argued passionately that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was to be attached to the house, not a separate, stand-alone structure.

◦ Presented photographs of other properties within Blue Ridge Estates that had multiple structures and stand-alone patio shades similar to his proposal.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Contended it properly followed Article X of the CC&Rs in its denial.

◦ At the hearing, Blue Ridge pointed to Article III of the CC&Rs as justification, classifying the proposed shade as an additional structure on the property.

Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, concluding he had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Blue Ridge violated Article X of the CC&Rs.

• Interpretation of CC&R Section 10.2: The judge found that the architectural standards listed in this section were explicitly not exhaustive. The text states standards “may include, without limitation, provisions regarding” aspects like size, design, and placement. This allowed the architectural committee to deny the request based on the “one additional structure” rule, even if not explicitly listed.

• Compliance with CC&R Section 10.3: This section requires the committee to provide “reasonably detailed written reasons for such disapproval.” The judge found that the denial email of October 25, 2019, fulfilled this requirement. The email did not need to cite a specific CC&R section, only to provide an explanation.

• On Precedent and Fairness: The ALJ acknowledged Mr. Mandela’s evidence of similar structures on other properties. However, the decision noted: “While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.”

• Final Ruling: The petition was denied in a decision dated January 29, 2021.

Rehearing and Final Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG)

Mr. Mandela filed for a rehearing on February 5, 2021, on the grounds that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence. The Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner granted the request, and a new hearing was held on April 16, 2021.

New Testimony and Arguments

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Subsequent Approval: Testified that since the January 29, 2021 decision, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

◦ Procedural Violation: Argued that Blue Ridge violated CC&R Section 10.3 by failing to respond to his August 28, 2019, request within the required 30-day period, as the denial was not issued until October 25, 2019.

◦ History of Denials: Stated he had made several previous requests in 2018 and 2019 that were either denied or ignored.

◦ Discrimination: Claimed he had been discriminated against due to the previous denials.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Interpretation of Section 10.3: Argued that while the section may be “confusingly drafted,” it stipulates that if the committee fails to respond within 30 days, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the board acted within its authority.

◦ Failure to Appeal: Contended that Mr. Mandela failed to follow the proper appeal procedure outlined in the CC&Rs, as he never specifically requested a meeting to discuss the denial.

Judge’s Final Findings and Conclusions

The ALJ affirmed the original decision, finding for the Respondent as the prevailing party and dismissing Mr. Mandela’s appeal.

• Scope of Rehearing: The judge determined that the rehearing was limited to the August 28, 2019, request and its subsequent denial, as that was the sole focus of the original petition. Mr. Mandela’s arguments about prior denials were not considered new evidence relevant to the specific violation alleged.

• Interpretation of the 30-Day Rule: The ALJ sided with the HOA’s interpretation of Section 10.3. While acknowledging that Blue Ridge took more than thirty days to issue a written denial, the judge ruled that the CC&R’s provision for a “deemed disapproved” status meant the request was properly denied under the rules.

• Petitioner’s Failure to Follow Procedure: The judge noted that Mr. Mandela admitted he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee after the denial, which was the required next step in the appeal process under Section 10.3.

• Final Ruling: The final decision, dated April 27, 2021, concluded that Mr. Mandela failed to sustain his burden of proof. The HOA was found to have acted in compliance with the CC&Rs, and the appeal was dismissed. This order was declared binding on the parties.

Timeline of Key Events

August 28, 2019

Charles Mandela submits his request to build a patio shade.

October 25, 2019

Blue Ridge HOA denies the request via email, citing the one-additional-structure limit.

January 13, 2020

Mandela files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

January 13, 2021

The first evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

January 29, 2021

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision denying Mandela’s petition.

February 5, 2021

Mandela files a request for a rehearing.

March 15, 2021

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.

April 16, 2021

The rehearing is conducted.

April 27, 2021

The ALJ issues a final decision, finding for the HOA and dismissing Mandela’s appeal.

Central CC&R Provision: Article X, Section 10.3

The most heavily debated provision was Section 10.3 of the Blue Ridge Estates CC&Rs, which outlines the procedure for architectural requests. Its language was central to the outcome of the rehearing.

Key text from Section 10.3:

“The Architectural Committee shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of such plans, specifications, and elevations to approve or disapprove of the proposed construction… In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved and the Owner can then request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for such disapproval…”

This clause was interpreted by the ALJ to mean that the HOA’s failure to provide a written response within 30 days automatically constituted a denial, shifting the burden to the homeowner to request a follow-up meeting, a step Mr. Mandela did not take.

Study Guide – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG

Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association, as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decisions from January 29, 2021, and April 27, 2021. The case centers on the denial of an architectural request and the interpretation of the association’s governing documents (CC&Rs).

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Key Facts and Arguments

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided legal decisions.

1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what were their roles?

2. What specific structure did Charles P. Mandela request approval to build on August 28, 2019?

3. What was the initial reason given by the Blue Ridge Estates HOA for denying Mr. Mandela’s request on October 25, 2019?

4. What was Mr. Mandela’s central argument during the first hearing on January 13, 2021?

5. According to the decision from the first hearing, why did the Administrative Law Judge rule that the HOA’s denial was in compliance with Section 10.2 of the CC&Rs?

6. On what grounds did Mr. Mandela file his Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Dispute Rehearing Request on February 5, 2021?

7. During the rehearing, what new argument did Mr. Mandela raise concerning the timeline of the HOA’s denial of his August 28, 2019 request?

8. How did the HOA’s legal counsel counter Mr. Mandela’s argument regarding the 30-day response time outlined in Section 10.3?

9. What procedural step, outlined in Section 10.3, did Mr. Mandela admit he failed to take after his request was deemed denied?

10. What was the final outcome of the rehearing on April 16, 2021, and what was the judge’s conclusion regarding the HOA’s actions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner, and Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association of Coconino County. Mr. Mandela filed the petition against the HOA after it denied his request to build a patio shade.

2. On August 28, 2019, Mr. Mandela requested approval to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet.” The structure was a four-post shade that he intended to attach to the east side wall of his residence.

3. The HOA denied the request based on Architectural Committee Standards Article X. The denial stated that only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property, and Mr. Mandela already had a residence and a shed.

4. Mr. Mandela’s central argument was that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was not a separate stand-alone structure. He planned to attach it to his house, and he presented photographs of other properties with similar structures.

5. The judge ruled the denial complied with Section 10.2 because the list of standards the Architectural Committee could enforce was “not an exhaustive one.” This meant the committee could properly deny the request based on the one-structure limit, even if it wasn’t explicitly enumerated.

6. Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing on the grounds that the findings of fact were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. He also claimed the decision was not supported by the evidence or was contrary to law.

7. During the rehearing, Mr. Mandela argued that the Board violated Section 10.3 of the CC&Rs. He contended that since he made his request on August 28, 2019, and the Board did not respond until October 25, 2019, it had failed to provide a written response within the required 30-day period.

8. The HOA’s counsel argued that while Section 10.3 may be “confusingly drafted,” it specifies that if the committee fails to approve or disapprove within the 30-day period, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the Board was within its authority.

9. Mr. Mandela admitted that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for the disapproval. This is the procedural step required by Section 10.3 after a request is deemed denied.

10. The final outcome was that the petition was dismissed, and the Respondent (HOA) was declared the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the HOA had not violated the CC&Rs and had acted in compliance with its governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Further Study

The following questions are designed to promote a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, citing specific details from the legal decisions.

1. Analyze the interpretation of CC&R Section 10.3, specifically the “deemed disapproved” clause. Discuss how this clause functioned as a key legal defense for the HOA and ultimately shaped the outcome of the rehearing.

2. The legal standard in this case was “a preponderance of the evidence.” Define this standard as described in the legal text and evaluate the evidence Mr. Mandela presented in both hearings. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that Mr. Mandela failed to meet his burden of proof?

3. Compare and contrast the arguments presented by the Petitioner and Respondent in the initial hearing (January 13, 2021) versus the rehearing (April 16, 2021). How did the focus of the legal arguments shift between the two proceedings?

4. Examine the authority and jurisdiction of the Architectural Committee as outlined in CC&R Section 10.2. Discuss the significance of the phrase “Such standards and procedures may include, without limitation, provisions regarding…” in the judge’s initial decision.

5. Trace the procedural history of this case, from Mr. Mandela’s initial request in August 2019 to the final order in April 2021. Identify at least four key procedural milestones and explain their significance to the case’s progression and ultimate resolution.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge, in this case Adam D. Stone, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes decisions on petitions concerning disputes regulated by state agencies.

Architectural Committee

A body within the Blue Ridge Estates HOA established by Article X of the CC&Rs, with jurisdiction over all original construction and any modifications, additions, or alterations to the exterior of homes or properties.

Arizona Department of Real Estate

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and the associations themselves in Arizona.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to produce evidence that proves the facts it claims are true. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Mandela) bore the burden of proof.

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community like Blue Ridge Estates. This case centered on the interpretation of Article X of the Blue Ridge CC&Rs.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The governing organization for a planned community. In this case, the Respondent was the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County.

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request filed by a party asking for a lawsuit or petition to be dismissed. The Blue Ridge HOA filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied on October 7, 2020, allowing the case to proceed.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona where petitions related to disputes with HOAs are sent for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Charles P. Mandela was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” representing the greater weight of evidence.

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to review a legal decision. Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing after the initial decision, based on his claim that the findings were arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association was the Respondent.

Tribunal

A term used in the documents to refer to the judicial body hearing the case, specifically the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

Blog Post – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG

He Fought the HOA Over a Patio and Lost. Here Are 5 Shocking Lessons Every Homeowner Needs to Learn.

Introduction: The Perils of a Simple Home Improvement Project

For any homeowner, the excitement of a new project—a deck, a fence, or a simple patio shade—can quickly turn to frustration when it collides with the dense rulebook of a Homeowners’ Association (HOA). What seems like a straightforward improvement can become a complex battle of bylaws and procedures.

This was the reality for Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner in the Blue Ridge Estates community. His plan to build a simple patio shade was denied by his HOA, sparking a legal challenge that went before an Administrative Law Judge. While Mr. Mandela ultimately lost his case on its legal merits, the details of his fight offer a masterclass in the surprising and often counter-intuitive world of HOA governance. This article distills the most shocking lessons from his case, providing critical insights for any homeowner living under an HOA.

——————————————————————————–

1. The “Deemed Disapproved” Clause: How an HOA’s Silence Becomes a Legal “No”

Mr. Mandela submitted his request to build a patio shade on August 28, 2019. He argued that the HOA, Blue Ridge Estates, violated its own rules, which required a response within 30 days. The HOA didn’t send its formal denial until October 25, 2019, well past the deadline. On the surface, it seemed like a clear procedural violation by the HOA.

However, a bizarre and “unartfully drafted” clause hidden in the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs) turned this logic on its head. The rule stated:

In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved…

Contrary to common sense, the rule meant that the HOA’s failure to respond on time resulted in an automatic denial, not a pending approval. The Administrative Law Judge was bound by this text, concluding that because the 30-day period had passed without a formal approval, the request was “properly deemed denied.”

2. The “My Neighbor Has One” Argument Is Weaker Than You Think

To support his case, Mr. Mandela presented photographs showing that “similar shades exist on other properties with additional structures.” He argued that the HOA was engaging in selective enforcement by denying his project while having approved others like it. This is one of the most frequent arguments homeowners make when they feel singled out by their HOA board.

The judge’s conclusion was a stunning reality check. The legal decision stated:

While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.

The legal reasoning here is crucial for homeowners to understand. Architectural committees are not static; members change, and so can their interpretation of aesthetic standards. Each application is legally considered a distinct request, evaluated under the rules in place at that moment. A previous committee’s approval—which may have even been a mistake or a variance granted under different circumstances—does not create a binding legal precedent that forces the current committee to repeat it.

3. Procedure is Everything: A Missed Step Can Cost You the Case

The HOA’s rules contained a specific process for appealing a denial. After a project is “deemed disapproved” because the 30-day clock ran out, the homeowner must then formally request a meeting with the committee to discuss the denial.

The judge found that Mr. Mandela had failed to take this critical next step. This procedural misstep, however small it might seem, became a key factor in the case against him. The decision hinged on this procedural failure, stating:

Further, Petitioner admitted that in his several email responses that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee, thus he failed to follow the procedures in Section 10.3.

This highlights a crucial lesson: meticulously follow every single procedural step outlined in your HOA’s documents. Failure to do so, such as not using the correct language to request a meeting, can be used to dismiss your claim, regardless of its other merits.

4. “Unartfully Drafted” Rules Can Still Be Legally Binding

Even the Administrative Law Judge acknowledged the poor quality of the HOA’s rulebook. In the decision, the judge offered a candid assessment of the rule regarding the 30-day response time, stating, “Admittedly this section is unartfully drafted…”

Despite this observation, the rule was enforced exactly as written. The judge was bound by the text, however confusing, and concluded that “from the evidence presented, the request was properly deemed denied.”

This is perhaps the most sobering lesson. Homeowners often assume that a rule that is confusing or seems illogical won’t hold up under scrutiny. This case proves that the literal text of the governing documents possesses immense power. What a rule literally says is far more important than what one might assume it should mean.

5. The Final Twist: He Lost the Case But Got His Patio Anyway

After the initial decision was made against him, Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing. During this second hearing, a surprising fact emerged. Mr. Mandela testified that “since the decision on January 29, 2021, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Board.”

This outcome highlights a crucial dynamic: while Mr. Mandela lost the legal argument based on procedural history, his persistent engagement in the process—including filing a formal appeal—likely created enough administrative and community pressure to compel the Board to find a practical, non-legal solution. It’s a powerful reminder that a legal loss on a technicality does not always foreclose a real-world victory.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Do You Really Know Your HOA’s Rules?

The case of Charles Mandela serves as a powerful cautionary tale. It reveals that HOA disputes are rarely won on appeals to fairness or common sense. Instead, they are won or lost in the fine print of the governing documents—documents that can contain counter-intuitive clauses, procedural traps, and “unartfully drafted” rules that are nonetheless legally binding.

A homeowner’s best defense is not passion or conviction, but a deep and thorough understanding of the specific rules and procedures they agreed to live by. This case forces every homeowner to ask: Are you prepared to navigate the literal text of your community’s rules, where silence can mean “no” and a neighbor’s precedent is no precedent at all?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Charles P Mandela (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Nicholas Nogami (HOA attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP

Neutral Parties

Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Posted on April 27, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Charles P Mandela	Counsel	—
Respondent	Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association	Counsel	Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article X; CC&R Section 10.3

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request for patio shade structure and alleged violation of response timeline

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
CC&R Article X
CC&R Section 10.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Review, Denial, Rehearing, Burden of Proof, Deemed Disapproved

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Decision Documents

20F-H2020042-REL Decision – 850032.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-17T18:18:33 (113.4 KB)

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Charles P Mandela (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf via Google Meet

Respondent Side

Nicholas Nogami (HOA attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Appeared on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Issued the decision for the original hearing and the rehearing
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Issued an Order Granting Rehearing

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Posted on April 27, 2021 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Charles P Mandela	Counsel	—
Respondent	Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association	Counsel	Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article X; A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated Article X of the CC&R’s regarding the denial of an architectural modification request (patio shade). The Respondent was found to be the prevailing party, and the appeal (rehearing) was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of the CC&R's by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ concluded the Respondent acted in compliance with the CC&R’s Section 10.2 and 10.3 when denying the request, and Petitioner failed to follow the requisite procedures in Section 10.3 to appeal the denial.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request for patio shade structure

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of his application to build a patio shade. The HOA denied the request stating that 'Only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property,' and a shed already existed. Petitioner argued the shade, being attached, was not a stand-alone structure. The ALJ upheld the denial, finding the HOA acted in compliance with CC&Rs Article X, Sections 10.2 and 10.3, and that Petitioner failed to follow appeal procedures outlined in Section 10.3.

Orders: Petitioner's appeal (rehearing request) was dismissed, and Respondent was declared the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
CC&R Article X
CC&R Section 10.3
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Review, Denial, Rehearing, Burden of proof

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – 876009.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:51 (118.9 KB)

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020042-REL/850032.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:55:35 (113.4 KB)