Ronna Biesecker, v. 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association,

Posted on June 26, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020050-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-06-25
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs or Arizona statutes; therefore, the petition was dismissed.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Ronna Biesecker	Counsel	—
Respondent	6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1247 and CC&Rs § 10(c)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs or Arizona statutes; therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as evidence suggested the water leak was caused by the sliding glass door of the unit above, not a flaw in the common elements.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain all Common Elements (Water Leak Dispute)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent HOA failed to maintain Common Elements, leading to water leaks in her unit. Respondent denied the violation, asserting the leak originated from the upstairs unit’s sliding doors or track assemblies, which are the responsibility of that unit owner.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1247
CC&Rs § 10(c)
Article II.E, Section 1 of the Bylaws
Article C of the CC&Rs

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, maintenance dispute, common elements, water damage, burden of proof

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1247
CC&Rs § 10(c)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Powell v. Washburn
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.
Vazanno v. Superior Court

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020050-REL Decision – 802352.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:26:08 (103.2 KB)

Administrative Hearing Brief: Biesecker v. 6100 Fifth Condominium HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 20F-H2020050-REL, wherein Petitioner Ronna Biesecker alleged that the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association (HOA) failed to fulfill its maintenance responsibilities. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to substantiate her claim.

The central conflict involved recurring water leaks in Ms. Biesecker’s condominium unit (A113). The Petitioner contended that the leaks originated from cracks in the building’s exterior stucco, which are defined as “Common Elements” and are therefore the HOA’s responsibility to repair under its governing documents and Arizona state law. In contrast, the HOA argued that the source of the water was the sliding door assembly of the upstairs unit, making its maintenance the responsibility of that unit’s owner.

The final decision rested on the weight of evidence presented. Multiple expert inspections, conducted by Olander’s and another inspector retained by the HOA, concluded that the leaks were attributable to the upstairs unit’s sliding doors. This evidence was deemed more convincing than the Petitioner’s own assessment regarding the stucco. The ALJ concluded that Ms. Biesecker failed to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the damage was caused by a flaw in the common elements, leading to the dismissal of her case.

Case Overview

Case Name

Ronna Biesecker, Petitioner, vs. 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association, Respondent.

Case Number

20F-H2020050-REL

Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Hearing Date

June 5, 2020

Decision Date

June 25, 2020

Petitioner

Ronna Biesecker, owner of unit A113

Respondent

6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association, represented by Robert Eric Struse, Statutory Agent

Core Allegations and Defenses

Petitioner’s Claim (Ronna Biesecker)

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner filed a petition on March 10, 2020, alleging that the Respondent (HOA) violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 10(c) and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1247 by failing to maintain the common elements of the condominium community.

• Specifics of Claim: Ms. Biesecker asserted that persistent water leaks into her unit were caused by cracks in the exterior stucco surrounding the sliding doors.

• Basis of Responsibility: She argued that because the exterior stucco is a “common element,” the HOA was legally responsible for its repair and any subsequent damage to her unit.

• Requested Action: The Petitioner had previously requested that the HOA repair the exterior leaks and had attempted to have the HOA mediate the issue with the owner of the upstairs unit.

Respondent’s Position (6100 Fifth Condominium HOA)

• Core Defense: The HOA denied any violation of its CC&Rs or state statutes.

• Specifics of Defense: The HOA maintained that the source of the water leaks was not a common element. Instead, it attributed the leaks to the sliding doors or track assemblies of the condominium unit located directly above the Petitioner’s.

• Basis of Responsibility: According to the HOA’s governing documents and state law, the maintenance of elements belonging to an individual unit (such as a sliding door) is the responsibility of that unit’s owner, not the association.

• Actions Taken: The HOA declined to “arbitrate, mediate, or serve as a third party” in the dispute between the Petitioner and the owner of the upstairs unit. It also conducted an inspection which supported its position.

Evidentiary Timeline and Key Findings

The decision was based on a sequence of events and expert assessments presented as evidence.

• January 5, 2019: Petitioner experiences the first water leak in her unit (A113) near the sliding glass door.

• January 18, 2019: An employee from Olander’s, a door installation company contacted by the Petitioner, inspects the unit. The employee’s opinion was that “the leak was coming from the unit above Petitioner and that the sliding door above Petitioner’s unit had large gaps under the threshold which allowed water to get in.”

• February 8, 2019: Nathan’s Handyman Service repairs plaster damage in the Petitioner’s unit and notes in a report that the damage was “the result of an old leak coming from above Petitioner’s unit.” The report also identified rusted wire mesh, indicating previous repairs to the area.

• March/April 2019: The HOA’s Property Manager formally refuses the Petitioner’s request to mediate the dispute with the owner of the upstairs unit.

• May 1, 2019: Petitioner emails the HOA, proposing that new cracks in the stucco pop-out at the roof level could be the source of the leak.

• October 28, 2019: A “Roof Opinion Report” from Roof Savers Locke Roofing states that no roof repairs are needed but notes the presence of “server [sic] cracking at the stucco.” The report recommends contacting a stucco or window contractor.

• November 27, 2019: Another leak occurs in the same area of the Petitioner’s unit.

• December 9, 2019: The HOA’s Property Manager and an inspector assess the water damage in the Petitioner’s unit.

• December 23, 2019: An invoice from the inspector states: “After inspecting the shared roof and building interior/exterior it appears the water damage to the lower unit is coming from the upstairs unit sliding doors or their track assemblies.”

• June 5, 2020 (Hearing Testimony):

◦ The Petitioner stated it was “obvious” the leak originated from the stucco crack.

◦ The HOA’s Statutory Agent, Robert Eric Struse, testified that the December 2019 inspection included the interior of the upstairs unit. He argued that if the stucco crack were the cause, the upstairs unit would also show internal water damage, which it did not.

Governing Documents and Statutes

The case revolved around the interpretation of responsibility as defined by the following legal framework:

• Bylaws (Article II.E, Section 1) & CC&Rs (Article C): These documents obligate the HOA to collect assessments to meet common expenses, including the “maintenance, upkeep, care, repair, [and] reconstruction… for the common elements.”

• A.R.S. § 33-1247: This Arizona statute codifies the division of maintenance responsibility. It states that “the association is responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of the common elements and each unit owner is responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of the unit.”

Conclusions of Law and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the application of the legal standard of proof to the evidence presented.

• Burden of Proof: The ALJ established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to demonstrate, by a “preponderance of the evidence,” that the HOA violated the applicable statutes or CC&Rs. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

• Central Legal Finding: The judge determined that if the water damage was caused by a flaw in the common elements, the HOA would be responsible. However, the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof in establishing this causal link.

• Reasoning for Decision: The ruling states: “Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the water leak and damage was attributable to the condition of the common elements. Rather, the opinions of the companies that inspected the area concluded that the leak was coming from the sliding glass door of the unit above Petitioner’s.” The collective weight of the expert opinions from Olander’s and the HOA’s inspector outweighed the Petitioner’s personal theory about the stucco cracks.

• Final Order: Based on these findings, the judge issued a final order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.” This order is binding unless a rehearing is granted.

Study Guide: Biesecker v. 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 20F-H2020050-REL, concerning a dispute between condominium owner Ronna Biesecker and the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association. The case centers on determining responsibility for water leaks affecting the Petitioner’s unit. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the facts, legal arguments, and final outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, using only information provided in the case document.

1. Who were the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what was their relationship?

2. What was the central claim made by the Petitioner against the Respondent?

3. According to the Respondent, what was the source of the water leaks and who was responsible for the repair?

4. What legal standard, or “burden of proof,” did the Petitioner need to meet to win her case?

5. What two key community documents, in addition to Arizona state law, define the Respondent’s responsibility for maintaining “common elements”?

6. Summarize the findings of the two inspection reports mentioned in the evidence (from Olander’s and the December 23, 2019 invoice).

7. What was the Petitioner’s theory about the source of the leak, as stated during the hearing?

8. How did Robert Eric Struse, the Respondent’s Statutory Agent, counter the Petitioner’s theory about the stucco crack?

9. What was the final ruling, or “Order,” issued by the Administrative Law Judge?

10. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Ronna Biesecker, who owned condominium unit A113. The Respondent was the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association, of which the Petitioner was a member.

2. The Petitioner filed a petition alleging the Respondent violated its CC&Rs (§ 10(c)) and Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1247 by failing to maintain the common elements, which she believed were the source of water leaks in her unit.

3. The Respondent argued that the source of the water leaks was the upstairs unit’s sliding doors or track assemblies. Therefore, the responsibility for maintenance and repair belonged to the owner of that specific unit, not the Homeowners Association.

4. The Petitioner had the burden of proof to establish her claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This legal standard requires providing proof that convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

5. The Respondent’s responsibility is defined in Article II.E, Section 1 of the community Bylaws and Section C of the CC&Rs. Both documents state the association is responsible for the maintenance and repair of common elements using assessments paid by owners.

6. An employee from Olander’s opined that the leak was coming from the unit above Petitioner’s, specifically from large gaps under the sliding door’s threshold. Similarly, the inspector’s invoice from December 23, 2019, concluded that the water damage appeared to be coming from the upstairs unit’s sliding doors or their track assemblies.

7. During the hearing, the Petitioner stated that it was “obvious” the leak was coming from a crack in the stucco in the pop-out surrounding the sliding doors at the roof level. She posited this was a common element and therefore the Respondent’s responsibility to repair.

8. Mr. Struse testified that if water were leaking through the crack in the stucco, the upstairs unit would have also sustained internal damage. He confirmed that an inspection of the inside of the upstairs unit showed this was not happening, undermining the Petitioner’s theory.

9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be dismissed.

10. The judge concluded the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof because the credible evidence, particularly the opinions of the companies that inspected the area, concluded the leak was coming from the sliding glass door of the unit above. The Petitioner did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the leak was attributable to the condition of the common elements.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate a detailed response for each, citing specific evidence and legal principles from the case document to support your arguments.

1. Analyze the distinction between “common elements” and an individual “unit” as defined by A.R.S. § 33-1247 and the community’s governing documents. How was this distinction central to the judge’s final decision in this case?

2. Discuss the role and weight of evidence presented during the hearing. Compare the Petitioner’s testimony and personal observations with the professional opinions from Olander’s and the inspector. Why did the judge find the professional opinions more convincing in determining the outcome?

3. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case document’s Conclusions of Law. Using specific examples from the hearing evidence, detail why Ronna Biesecker failed to meet this standard.

4. Based on the referenced community documents, what are the primary maintenance responsibilities of the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association? How did the Respondent’s stated refusal to “arbitrate, mediate, or serve as a third party” in the dispute between unit owners align with or diverge from these responsibilities?

5. Imagine you are advising the Petitioner before the hearing. What additional evidence or types of expert testimony could she have presented to potentially change the outcome of the case and successfully prove the leak was the Respondent’s responsibility?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official (Tammy L. Eigenheer) from the Office of Administrative Hearings who presides over the evidentiary hearing and issues a legally binding decision and order.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The statutes referenced (e.g., § 33-1247) govern the responsibilities of condominium associations and the legal procedures for disputes.

Bylaws

A set of rules governing the internal operations of an organization. In this case, Article II.E, Section 1 of the Bylaws obligates the Association to maintain the common elements using assessments paid by owners.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

A legal document that outlines the rights and obligations of property owners and the homeowners association. Section C of the CC&Rs required the Association to maintain, repair, and care for the common elements.

Common Elements

Areas of the condominium property for which the homeowners association is responsible for maintenance, upkeep, care, and repair, as distinguished from an individual owner’s unit.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Ronna Biesecker, the condominium owner who alleged the homeowners association violated its duties.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is established by evidence with the most convincing force.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association.

Statutory Agent

An individual designated to receive legal notices and appear on behalf of a business entity. In this case, Robert Eric Struse appeared and testified on behalf of the Respondent association.

Your HOA Isn’t Your Landlord: 3 Surprising Lessons from a Condo Water Leak Lawsuit

Introduction: The Dreaded Drip

It’s a scenario that strikes fear into the heart of any condo owner: the tell-tale stain on the ceiling, the damp spot on the wall, the dreaded drip of a mysterious water leak. The immediate anxiety is followed by a pressing question: “Who is responsible for fixing this, and who pays for the damage?” Many assume the answer is straightforward, but as a recent lawsuit involving the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association demonstrates, the lines of responsibility in a condominium community are often more complicated than they appear.

This article explores a real-life court case between a condo owner and her HOA to uncover three surprising truths about condo ownership, liability, and the true role of your HOA.

——————————————————————————–

1. It’s Not Where the Damage Is, It’s Where the Leak Starts

In the case, condo owner Ronna Biesecker experienced persistent water leaks in her unit (A113) around her sliding glass door. On May 1, 2019, after observing new cracks in the exterior stucco, she “posited that the cracks could be a source of the leak.” This became the foundation of her claim: if the water was coming from the stucco—a “Common Element”—then the HOA was responsible for the repairs.

However, a year-long trail of evidence pointed in a different direction. As early as January 18, 2019, an employee from the door installation company opined that the leak was “coming from the unit above.” On February 8, 2019, a handyman repairing plaster damage stated the issue was from “an old leak coming from above.” Even a roofing report from October 28, 2019, which noted the stucco cracking, stopped short of blaming it, instead recommending the owner contact a “stucco contractor or Window Company.”

This evidence culminated in a formal inspector’s report on December 23, 2019, which concluded the water was “coming from the upstairs unit sliding doors or their track assemblies.” Because the source of the leak originated from a part of the neighbor’s private unit, the legal responsibility shifted. Based on Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1247, the HOA was not liable. The key lesson here is unambiguous: legal responsibility follows the source of the problem, not the location of the resulting damage.

——————————————————————————–

2. “More Probably True Than Not”: The Burden of Proof Is on You

In any lawsuit, the person bringing the complaint—in this case, the homeowner—carries the “burden of proof.” This means she had to provide enough evidence to meet a specific legal standard, which the court defined as “preponderance of the evidence.” The legal decision offers a clear definition of 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.”

In simple terms, Ms. Biesecker had to convince the judge that her theory—that the leak came from the common element stucco—was more likely to be true than the HOA’s theory that it came from the neighbor’s door.

Her claim was undone by simple logic. The HOA’s Statutory Agent, Mr. Struse, provided devastating testimony, arguing that “if water was leaking through the crack in the stucco, the upstairs unit would have also had internal damage, which was not happening.” This single point made the petitioner’s theory far less probable. The judge ultimately ruled that the petitioner “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the provisions of the CC&Rs or Arizona statutes,” proving that an owner’s belief isn’t enough without convincing evidence.

——————————————————————————–

3. Your HOA Won’t (and Often Can’t) Settle Neighbor-to-Neighbor Fights

Before filing the lawsuit, the petitioner attempted to resolve the issue directly. On or about February 11, 2019, she contacted the owner of the unit above hers to request repairs but “did not receive a response.” Frustrated, she turned to the HOA for help. In March or April 2019, she asked the Property Manager to “help mediate the issue” between her and her neighbor.

The HOA’s response was direct and legally sound: the Property Manager “responded that it would not arbitrate, mediate, or serve as a third party to the dispute.” This is a crucial and often misunderstood takeaway for condo owners. While an HOA’s role is to manage common elements and enforce community-wide rules, it is not legally obligated—and often not permitted—to intervene in private disputes between two homeowners over damage originating from private property. Your HOA is not a landlord or a mediator for personal conflicts; it’s an administrative body with a specific and legally defined scope of authority.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Know Your Lines

The lessons from this case are clear: condo living involves a complex web of overlapping responsibilities. The line between what constitutes a common element, your private property, and your neighbor’s property is legally significant and determines who is ultimately responsible when things go wrong. Understanding these distinctions isn’t just helpful—it’s essential for protecting your investment and resolving issues effectively.

Before the next problem arises, have you read your community documents to know exactly where your responsibility ends and your neighbor’s begins?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Ronna Biesecker (petitioner)
Appeared and testified on her own behalf.

Respondent Side

Robert Eric Struse (statutory agent)
6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association
Appeared and presented testimony on behalf of Respondent.

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Douglas J Karolak vs. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association

Posted on May 21, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020041-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-05-21
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after establishing that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) and the community documents by improperly recording Amended CC&Rs without proper owner consent. The Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee. However, the ALJ could not grant the requested relief (rescission of the Amended CC&Rs) due to a lack of statutory authority.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Douglas J. Karolak	Counsel	—
Respondent	VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association	Counsel	David Fitzgibbons

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1); CC&Rs Part 10, Section 10.4

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after establishing that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) and the community documents by improperly recording Amended CC&Rs without proper owner consent. The Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee. However, the ALJ could not grant the requested relief (rescission of the Amended CC&Rs) due to a lack of statutory authority.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation regarding the validity of Amended CC&Rs due to lack of required owner approval.

The Petitioner alleged that the Amended CC&Rs recorded by the Board were invalid because they were not approved by two-thirds (2/3) of the lot owners as required by the CC&Rs and statute. The ALJ agreed, finding the Board acted improperly and violated the documents and statute.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00. No civil penalty was assessed. The ALJ determined she lacked the statutory authority to order the rescission of the Amended CC&Rs requested by the Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)
CC&Rs Part 10, Section 10.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Amendment, Board Authority, Filing Fee Refund, Partial Win

Additional Citations:

20F-H2020041-REL
A.R.S. § 33-1817
A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
CC&Rs Part 10, Section 10.4

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020041-REL Decision – 792824.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T09:47:41 (102.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Karolak vs. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Douglas J. Karolak vs. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association (No. 20F-H2020041-REL). The central issue was whether the HOA Board had the authority to unilaterally amend and record changes to the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) without the required homeowner vote.

The petitioner, Douglas J. Karolak, successfully argued that the HOA violated its own governing documents and Arizona state law by filing “Amended CC&Rs” on October 5, 2018, without securing the approval of two-thirds of the lot owners. The HOA contended its actions were a valid exercise of its authority to create “Association Rules.”

ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer ruled decisively in favor of the petitioner. The decision established a clear legal distinction between the Board’s power to adopt rules and the separate, more stringent process required to formally amend the CC&Rs. The judge found the Board acted improperly, declaring Karolak the prevailing party and ordering the HOA to reimburse his $500 filing fee. Notably, while the judge found the amended document was improperly recorded, she concluded she lacked the statutory authority to order its rescission, which was the remedy the petitioner had requested.

Case Overview

Case Name

Douglas J. Karolak vs. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association

Case Number

20F-H2020041-REL

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Administrative Law Judge

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Hearing Date

May 1, 2020

Decision Date

May 21, 2020

The Central Dispute

The core of the dispute revolved around the legitimacy of a document titled “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Val Vista Estates” (Amended CC&Rs), which the HOA Board recorded with the Pinal County Recorder on October 5, 2018.

• Petitioner’s Position (Douglas J. Karolak): The Amended CC&Rs are invalid because they were not approved by “owners of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Lots,” a requirement explicitly stated in Section 10.4 of the original CC&Rs and supported by Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1). Karolak argued that the Board’s action of recording an amendment is fundamentally different from its power to adopt internal “Association Rules.”

• Respondent’s Position (VVE – Casa Grande HOA): The Board argued that its actions were a valid exercise of the authority granted to it under the CC&Rs. It claimed that because the only changes were to Part 7 (Use Restrictions), they fell under the Board’s power to “adopt, amend, or repeal such rules and regulations as it deems reasonable and appropriate” (Section 3.4) and to “modify or waive the foregoing restrictions… by reasonable rules and regulations” (Section 7.43). The Respondent’s counsel did, however, concede that “perhaps the Amended CC&Rs should not have been recorded.”

Factual Background and Chronology

• The VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association is a 56-lot community in Casa Grande, Arizona, with 19 lots remaining vacant at the time of the hearing.

• April 30, 1999: The original “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for VVE” (CC&Rs) was recorded.

• 2014 and 2015: The HOA Board made unsuccessful attempts to amend the CC&Rs through membership votes.

• 2018: Following the failed votes, the Board determined it would make changes to the “rules section” of the CC&Rs under the authority it believed was granted by Section 3.4.

• October 5, 2018: The Board recorded the Amended CC&Rs with the Pinal County Recorder. The HOA acknowledged that these amendments had not been approved by the required two-thirds of lot owners.

Legal Analysis and Key Provisions

The decision rested on the interpretation of specific sections of the community’s CC&Rs and Arizona state law. The judge concluded that the document’s structure clearly separates the process of rulemaking from the process of formal amendment.

Provision

Source

Summary of Stipulation

Amendment Process

CC&Rs Section 10.4

Requires an instrument “executed by the Owners of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Lots” and recorded to become effective.

Rulemaking Authority

CC&Rs Section 3.4

Empowers the Board to adopt, amend, or repeal “Association Rules” governing the use of the property. States rules have the “same force and effect as if they were set forth in” the CC&Rs.

Statutory Requirement

A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)

Provides that a declaration may be amended by the association via an affirmative vote or written consent of the number of owners specified in the declaration.

The judge’s rationale emphasized that the distinct sections for rulemaking (3.4) and amendments (10.4) demonstrate that the original drafters did not intend for the Board to have the power to unilaterally amend the CC&Rs. The judge stated, “The fact that the two topics are covered as separate topics in the CC&Rs leads to the conclusion that the original drafters of the CC&Rs did not contemplate that the Board had the authority to, on its own, amend the CC&Rs.”

The Court’s Decision and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the petitioner, Douglas J. Karolak, had successfully proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent HOA had acted improperly.

Key Findings:

• The HOA Board did not have the authority to amend the CC&Rs without the approval of two-thirds of the lot owners.

• The Board’s action of recording the Amended CC&Rs on October 5, 2018, was a violation of the community’s governing documents (Section 10.4) and Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)).

• The Board’s ability to create “Association Rules” is a separate and distinct process from the formal procedure required to amend the Declaration.

Final Order:

• The petitioner, Douglas J. Karolak, was deemed the prevailing party.

• The respondent HOA was ordered to pay the petitioner his $500.00 filing fee within thirty days of the order.

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

• Critically, the judge determined that under the applicable statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.02), the Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority to order the Amended CC&Rs rescinded, despite this being the remedy requested by the petitioner.

The order is binding on both parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the decision.

Study Guide: Karolak v. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association

This guide is designed to review the key facts, legal arguments, and outcomes of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Douglas J. Karolak vs. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association (No. 20F-H2020041-REL).

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided legal decision.

1. Who were the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and what was the petitioner’s core allegation?

2. What specific statute and section of the community documents did the petitioner claim the respondent violated?

3. According to Section 10.4 of the original CC&Rs, what was the required procedure for amending the Declaration?

4. Under what authority did the VVE – Casa Grande HOA Board claim it could make changes to the community documents without a membership vote?

5. What key event occurred on or about October 5, 2018, that became the central point of the dispute?

6. What was the respondent’s primary argument for why their actions were valid?

7. What is the “preponderance of the evidence,” and which party bears the burden of proof to establish a violation?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the Board’s authority to create “Association Rules” was a separate process from amending the CC&Rs?

9. What remedy did the petitioner request, and why was it not granted by the Administrative Law Judge?

10. What was the final order issued by the Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Douglas J. Karolak, a homeowner. The respondent was the VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association. Karolak’s core allegation was that the HOA had improperly amended the community’s governing documents.

2. The petitioner alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1817(A)(1). He also claimed a violation of Part 10, Section 10.4 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

3. Section 10.4 of the CC&Rs stipulated that the Declaration could be amended by an instrument executed by the owners of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the lots. The amendment would not be effective until that instrument was officially recorded.

4. The HOA Board claimed it had the authority to make the changes under Section 3.4 of the CC&Rs. This section empowered the Board to adopt, amend, or repeal “Association Rules” as it deemed reasonable and appropriate.

5. On or about October 5, 2018, the Board recorded a document titled “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Val Vista Estates” (Amended CC&Rs) with the Pinal County Recorder. This was done without the required two-thirds vote from the lot owners.

6. The respondent argued that because the only changes made were to Part 7 (Use Restrictions), which fell under the type of rules the Board was authorized to adopt, the Amended CC&Rs were a valid exercise of the Board’s authority. Their counsel did acknowledge, however, that perhaps the document should not have been recorded.

7. A “preponderance of the evidence” is proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that the respondent committed the alleged violations by this standard.

8. The Judge concluded they were separate processes because the CC&Rs cover the topics in different sections. This separation led the Judge to believe the original drafters did not intend for the Board to have the authority to amend the CC&Rs on its own.

9. The petitioner requested that the improperly recorded Amended CC&Rs be rescinded. This remedy was not granted because the applicable statute, A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, does not give the Administrative Law Judge the specific authority to order a document rescinded.

10. The final order deemed the petitioner the prevailing party. It further ordered the respondent to repay the petitioner his $500.00 filing fee within thirty days, but found that no civil penalty was appropriate.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to promote deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, using only the information presented in the legal decision.

1. Analyze the distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge between the Board’s authority to create “Association Rules” under Section 3.4 and the process for amending the Declaration under Section 10.4. Why was this distinction critical to the case’s outcome?

2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decision. How did the petitioner successfully meet this burden of proof to establish the respondent’s violation, and what specific facts supported this conclusion?

3. Examine the respondent’s (HOA’s) argument regarding its authority to amend the CC&Rs. What were the fundamental flaws in this argument, and how did their counsel’s acknowledgment about the recording of the Amended CC&Rs potentially weaken their position?

4. Explain the legal framework governing this dispute, citing the specific Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) mentioned in the decision. Detail the roles of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Administrative Law Judge in resolving this type of HOA conflict.

5. Evaluate the final Order of the Administrative Law Judge. While the petitioner was deemed the prevailing party, why was their requested remedy (rescission of the Amended CC&Rs) denied? What does this reveal about the specific limits of the Administrative Law Judge’s authority in such cases under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer of the Office of Administrative Hearings made the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and issued the final order.

A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)

The specific Arizona Revised Statute cited by the petitioner. It states that a declaration may be amended by the association with an affirmative vote or written consent of the number of owners specified in the declaration.

Amended CC&Rs

The document titled “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Val Vista Estates,” which the HOA Board recorded on October 5, 2018, without the required two-thirds owner approval.

Association Rules

Rules and regulations that the HOA Board is empowered to adopt, amend, or repeal under Section 3.4 of the CC&Rs to govern the use of Common Areas and other parts of the Project. The Board argued their changes fell under this authority.

Burden of Proof

The obligation to prove one’s assertion. In this case, the petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish the respondent’s violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

An acronym for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents for a planned community. The original “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for VVE” was recorded on April 30, 1999.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the agency with which the petitioner filed his Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition.

An acronym for Homeowners Association. In this case, the VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association, an association of 56 lot owners in Casa Grande, Arizona.

Office of Administrative Hearings

The office responsible for conducting hearings for disputes filed with state agencies like the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, homeowner Douglas J. Karolak.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required to win the case, defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association.

Your HOA Just Changed the Rules? Why This Homeowner’s $500 Victory is a Warning to Everyone

For millions of Americans, living in a planned community means living under the authority of a Homeowners Association (HOA). While intended to protect property values, these relationships can often feel one-sided, with boards issuing mandates and homeowners feeling powerless to push back. It’s a common frustration, but it’s rare to see a single homeowner challenge their board and force a legal reckoning.

A recent case from Arizona, Douglas J. Karolak versus the VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association, provides a critical case study in board overreach and the surprising limits of legal victory. Karolak alleged his HOA board violated its own governing documents and state law by improperly changing the community’s core rules.

He took his case to an administrative law judge and, in a significant ruling, he won. But the outcome of this seemingly straightforward dispute was far from simple. The final decision reveals a shocking twist that holds critical lessons for every homeowner about the difference between being right on paper and getting the remedy you actually want.

There’s a Huge Difference Between a ‘Rule Change’ and a ‘Declaration Amendment’

The first lesson from this case is a critical one for every homeowner: understand the constitutional hierarchy of your community’s documents. The core of the dispute was the HOA Board’s attempt to amend its foundational document, the CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions), without getting the required approval from the homeowners.

Here are the key facts of the case:

• The Original Rule: The community’s CC&Rs explicitly stated in Section 10.4 that any amendment required a vote and execution by “at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Lots.” This is the highest level of authority in a planned community, akin to a constitution.

• The Failed Attempts: The Board had tried to get this two-thirds vote in both 2014 and 2015, but was unsuccessful.

• The Workaround: In 2018, the Board decided to bypass the homeowners. It used a separate power granted in Section 3.4 of the CC&Rs—the authority to create day-to-day “Association Rules”—to make what it called changes to the “‘rules section’ of the CC&Rs, specifically targeting the Use Restrictions in Part 7.”

The judge’s conclusion was crystal clear: The CC&Rs were drafted to treat the power to create “rules” and the power to “amend” the declaration as two entirely separate processes. This separation acts as a crucial check on the board’s power, preventing a small group from unilaterally changing the fundamental property rights of all owners. As the judge noted, “the original drafters of the CC&Rs did not contemplate that the Board had the authority to, on its own, amend the CC&Rs.”

Recording a Document Doesn’t Magically Make It Valid

To make their changes appear official, the HOA Board took a significant step. On October 5, 2018, they filed a document titled “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Val Vista Estates (Amended CC&Rs)” with the Pinal County Recorder.

For the average homeowner, a formally recorded document filed with the county looks final, official, and legally binding. It’s an intimidating piece of paper that suggests any challenge would be futile.

However, the judge’s ruling highlights a critical legal truth: procedural legitimacy is paramount. An official-looking document, even one filed with the county, is invalid if the legal process required to create it was ignored. The judge found that because the Board did not follow the correct internal procedure—securing the two-thirds vote from homeowners—the very act of recording the document was improper. Even the HOA’s own lawyer seemed to concede this point during the hearing, acknowledging that “perhaps the Amended CC&Rs should not have been recorded.”

The Winner’s Paradox: You Can Be Right and Still Not Get Your Desired Fix

The final order from the Administrative Law Judge was unambiguous: Douglas Karolak, the petitioner, was officially deemed the “prevailing party.” The judge concluded that the HOA had acted in violation of its own community documents and Arizona state law. This was a clear-cut victory for the homeowner.

But here is the shocking twist. Karolak’s requested remedy was for the illegally filed “Amended CC&Rs” to be rescinded—in other words, to have them officially nullified and removed. This seems like the logical and necessary fix to the problem.

The judge, however, was bound by the limits of her authority. The final decision states plainly: “The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the applicable statute to order the Amended CC&Rs rescinded.” This highlights a critical jurisdictional gap. The Administrative Law Judge’s role in this venue is to determine if a violation occurred and assign limited penalties, not to perform the function of a higher court, which might have the power to void a recorded document.

So, what was the actual remedy for this clear violation? The judge ordered the HOA to repay Karolak his $500 filing fee. No other civil penalty was issued. The homeowner won the argument but did not get the one thing he asked for to correct the board’s improper action.

A Victory on Paper, A Question in Practice

The case of Douglas J. Karolak is a powerful real-world lesson. It proves that a single homeowner, armed with a thorough understanding of their community’s governing documents, can successfully challenge an overreaching HOA board and win. It confirms that procedural shortcuts, even when filed and recorded, do not make an illegal action legal.

But it also reveals the frustrating limitations that can exist within the legal process. The homeowner was proven right, but the improperly filed document remains on the books, unable to be rescinded in this specific venue. It raises a crucial question for homeowners everywhere: How do you ensure your victory has real teeth?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Douglas J. Karolak (petitioner)

Respondent Side

David A. Fitzgibbons III (HOA attorney)
Fitzgibbons Law Offices PLC
Represented VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
CV Mathai (witness)
VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
John Kelsey (witness)
VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
Kristi Kelsey (witness)
VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
William Findley (witness)
VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
Kay Niemi (witness)
VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
Mark Korte (witness)
VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
Felicia Del Sol (property manager rep)
Norris Management

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Richard P Quinn vs. Homestead North Homeowners Association

Posted on May 5, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2019040-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-05-05
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The ALJ dismissed the petition. The ruling clarified that while the Bylaws mention automatic resignation for delinquency, it is only effective upon Board acceptance. The Petitioner's attempt to accept the resignation via email did not constitute a valid Board action/vote.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Richard P. Quinn	Counsel	—
Respondent	Homestead North Homeowners Association	Counsel	Quinten T. Cupps

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article III, Section III, Item 4

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition. The ruling clarified that while the Bylaws mention automatic resignation for delinquency, it is only effective upon Board acceptance. The Petitioner's attempt to accept the resignation via email did not constitute a valid Board action/vote.

Why this result: The Bylaws explicitly state resignation is effective when the Board accepts it. The Petitioner's email action was not a valid Board act under the Bylaws regarding meetings and quorums.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to accept automatic resignation of delinquent director

Petitioner alleged that a Board member's delinquency constituted an automatic resignation under the Bylaws and that he, as a Board member, accepted it via email. The ALJ determined that the Bylaws require the Board to accept the resignation for it to be effective. The Petitioner's email did not constitute an act of the Board as it was not done at a duly held meeting with a quorum.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Bylaws Article III, Section 4
Bylaws Article III, Section 9

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019040-REL Decision – 787679.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:24:58 (108.8 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Quinn v. Homestead North Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative decision in the matter of Richard P. Quinn v. Homestead North Homeowners Association (Case No. 20F-H2019040-REL). The case centered on a dispute regarding whether a member of the Association’s Board of Directors, Karen Igo, had effectively resigned due to a financial delinquency under the Association's Bylaws.

The Petitioner, Richard P. Quinn, alleged that a "Wall Charge" of $3,925.00 applied to Ms. Igo’s account constituted a delinquent assessment that should have triggered an automatic resignation. The Respondent, Homestead North Homeowners Association, argued that even if a delinquency existed, the Board never formally accepted any resignation as required by the Bylaws. Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Board had legally accepted the resignation, a necessary condition for the resignation to take effect.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Interpretation of "Automatic Resignation" Clauses

The case turned significantly on the specific language of the Association’s Bylaws, Article III, Section 4. While the Bylaws state that a delinquency of more than 30 days "shall automatically constitute a resignation," this phrase is immediately qualified by the clause "effective when the Board of Directors accepts such resignation."

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that regardless of whether the debt was a delinquent assessment, the "automatic" resignation was not self-executing. It required an affirmative act of the Board to become effective. This interpretation underscores the principle that qualifying clauses in community documents can prevent immediate, unilateral changes in Board composition.

2. Quorum and Valid Board Actions

A central theme of the dispute was what constitutes a valid act of the Board. The Petitioner attempted to "accept" the resignation via email, claiming that as a Board member, his sole vote in favor (with no other responses) constituted a majority.

The ALJ rejected this based on Article III, Section 9 of the Bylaws, which defines a quorum and the requirements for a "duly held meeting." The ruling clarified two critical procedural standards:

Email is not a meeting: Correspondence via email does not satisfy the requirement for a duly held meeting.
Individual action is not Board action: A single member cannot constitute a quorum or take a "majority" vote in the absence of other participating members at a formal meeting.

3. Classification of Financial Obligations

The dispute highlighted the distinction between "Assessments" and other charges, such as "Wall Charges" or "Self-Help" codes. Ms. Igo’s account showed a $3,925.00 charge listed under "Self-Help" rather than "Assessment."

While the Petitioner argued this debt triggered the resignation clause, the Respondent noted that Ms. Igo had cleared the balance in full before the petition was filed. Ultimately, the ALJ found the classification of the debt moot because the procedural requirement for Board acceptance of the resignation had not been met.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote	Context	Significance
"Any delinquency or violation shall automatically constitute a resignation effective when the Board of Directors accepts such resignation."	Found in Article III, Section 4 of the Association Bylaws.	This is the "pivot point" of the case; it established that resignation is not final until the Board acts.
"Every act or decision done or made by a majority of the directors present at a duly held meeting at which a quorum is present shall be regarded as the act of the Board."	Found in Article III, Section 9 of the Association Bylaws regarding Quorum.	This established the legal standard for what counts as an official HOA decision.
"An email correspondence does not constitute a duly held meeting of the Board."	Conclusion of Law #5 by ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer.	This clarifies that electronic messaging between members cannot bypass the formal meeting requirements of the Bylaws.
"Petitioner’s purported 'vote' could not be considered a majority of the Board voting on the matter."	Conclusion of Law #5 regarding Petitioner’s email to other Board members.	This emphasizes that one person cannot create a "majority" by being the only one to respond to an email.

Actionable Insights

Procedural Rigor in Governance

The decision emphasizes that Board members must adhere strictly to the procedural requirements outlined in their community documents. Unilateral actions—such as one member attempting to accept a resignation on behalf of the whole Board—are legally insufficient and will likely be overturned in administrative hearings.

The Limitation of Email in HOA Business

HOA Boards should be cautious about conducting official business via email. As demonstrated in this case, email lacks the legal standing of a "duly held meeting" unless specifically permitted and structured under state law or community bylaws. Official acts, particularly those involving the removal or resignation of directors, must occur within the framework of a meeting where a quorum is present.

Burden of Proof for Petitioners

In HOA disputes, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish a violation by a "preponderance of the evidence." This case serves as a reminder that even if a violation seems apparent (such as a delinquency), the Petitioner must also prove that all conditions for a remedy (such as the effective date of a resignation) have been met according to the plain language of the Bylaws.

Drafting and Reviewing Bylaws

For community associations, the wording of "automatic" triggers is critical. The inclusion of the phrase "effective when the Board of Directors accepts such resignation" provides a safeguard for the Board to maintain stability, but it also creates a procedural hurdle that must be cleared before a seat can be declared vacant.

Case Study: Quinn v. Homestead North Homeowners Association (Administrative Decision 20F-H2019040-REL)

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Richard P. Quinn and the Homestead North Homeowners Association. It explores the interpretation of community bylaws, the legal requirements for board actions, and the evidentiary standards applied in Arizona administrative law.

Key Concepts and Legal Principles

1. The HOA Dispute Process (A.R.S. § 32-2199)

Under Arizona law, homeowners or planned community organizations may file a petition with the Department of Real Estate to resolve disputes regarding violations of community documents or state statutes. These cases are adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

2. Automatic Resignation vs. Effective Resignation

The case centers on Article III, Section 4 of the Association's Bylaws. While a director’s delinquency in paying assessments for more than 30 days "automatically" constitutes a resignation, that resignation is not legally final or operational until it is formally accepted by the Board of Directors.

3. Board Quorum and Official Acts

Pursuant to Article III, Section 9 of the Bylaws:

Quorum: A majority of the directors must be present to transact business.
Act of the Board: An official decision or act of the Board requires a majority vote of the directors present at a "duly held meeting" where a quorum exists.

4. Evidentiary Standards: Preponderance of the Evidence

In administrative hearings, the Petitioner carries the burden of proof. They must establish the violation by a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not. This is defined as the "greater weight of the evidence" or evidence with the "most convincing force."

Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. What specific provision of the community documents did the Petitioner allege was violated? The Petitioner asserted a violation of Bylaws Article III, Section III, Item 4 (later referenced as Article III, Section 4).

2. What was the "Wall Charge" and how did it differ from a standard assessment? The Board posted a charge of $3,925.00 to Karen Igo’s account on March 13, 2019. It was categorized under the code type "Self-Help" rather than "Assessment."

3. According to the Bylaws, what circumstances besides delinquency can lead to the removal of a director? A director may be removed for more than three consecutive absences from regular Board meetings (unless due to injury or illness) or if they cease to be an owner of a lot or have an interest therein.

4. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reject the Petitioner's email "vote" as a valid Board action? The ALJ ruled that email correspondence does not constitute a "duly held meeting" of the Board. Furthermore, a single member’s email cannot constitute a quorum, meaning the individual vote was not a majority act of the Board.

5. What was the outcome of the October 30, 2019, Executive Session regarding this matter? The Petitioner attempted to raise the topic of the resignation, but the President of the Board "shut down" the Executive Session at that point.

6. What is the filing fee for an HOA Dispute Process Petition according to the document? The Petitioner paid a $500.00 filing fee.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The Interplay of Automaticity and Board Discretion

Analyze the language of Article III, Section 4: "said delinquency or violation shall automatically constitute a resignation effective when the Board of Directors accepts such resignation." Discuss the potential conflict between the word "automatically" and the requirement for Board acceptance. Does this requirement give the Board the power to shield a delinquent member from removal?

2. Procedural Validity in Corporate Governance

Using the ALJ's findings regarding Article III, Section 9, argue the importance of "duly held meetings" and "quorums" in preventing unilateral actions by individual board members. Why is the Petitioner's reliance on Robert’s Rules of Order insufficient to overcome the specific requirements of the Association's Bylaws?

3. Definition of Debt in Homeowners Associations

The case bifurcated two questions: whether the "Wall Charge" was an "Assessment" and whether the Board accepted the resignation. Given that the charge was labeled "Self-Help," discuss how the classification of a debt impacts the rights and standing of board members under community governing documents.

Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	A presiding officer who hears evidence and issues decisions in administrative law cases.
Assessment	Periodic fees paid by homeowners to the HOA; delinquency in these may trigger board member disqualification.
Bifurcation	The legal process of dividing a trial or hearing into two parts to address specific issues separately.
Duly Held Meeting	A formal gathering of the Board conducted according to the rules set forth in the Bylaws.
Moot	A point or question that is no longer relevant or has no practical legal effect; in this case, Respondent argued the issue was moot because the debt was paid.
Petitioner	The party who files the petition or claim (Richard P. Quinn).
Preponderance of the Evidence	The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases; proof that a contention is more likely true than not.
Quorum	The minimum number of board members (a majority) required to be present to make the proceedings of a meeting valid.
Respondent	The party against whom a petition is filed (Homestead North Homeowners Association).
Self-Help	A specific code type used by the Association to categorize the "Wall Charge" debt, distinct from standard assessments.

HOA Resignations and the Power of Board Acceptance: A Case Study from Homestead North

Introduction: When Does a Board Resignation Actually Count?

In the battle between “automatic” rules and board process, process almost always wins. For many Homeowners Association (HOA) board members, the governing documents feel like a series of tripwires: miss a meeting, fall behind on dues, or violate a rule, and you’re out. But as a recent case from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings demonstrates, the law favors stability and formal procedure over the “gotcha” moments individual members might try to manufacture.

The case of Richard P. Quinn vs. Homestead North Homeowners Association (No. 20F-H2019040-REL) centers on a fundamental question of HOA governance: Can a board member be forced out the moment they become financially delinquent, or is the exit only final once the board officially “accepts” it? As we will see, even when a bylaw uses the word “automatic,” the procedural fine print often tells a different story.

The "Wall Charge" Controversy: Background of the Dispute

The conflict at Homestead North began with a significant charge on the account of board member Karen Igo. Petitioner Richard P. Quinn argued that this debt triggered an automatic resignation under the community’s bylaws, claiming Ms. Igo was ineligible to serve.

The financial timeline is essential to understanding the dispute:

March 13, 2019: The Association posted a "Wall Charge" of $3,925.00 to Ms. Igo’s account.
The "Self-Help" Distinction: Crucially, the Board categorized this as "Self-Help" rather than a standard "Assessment." In HOA governance, "Self-Help" typically refers to costs incurred by the association to repair or maintain an owner's property when the owner has failed to do so.
Payment History: From April through September 2019, Ms. Igo made monthly payments of $100.00. This covered her $48.50 monthly assessment and applied the remainder to the "Wall Charge."
Final Resolution: On October 21, 2019, Ms. Igo paid the remaining balance of $3,600.00 in full, resulting in a credit on her account.

Quinn’s argument was straightforward: Because the debt existed for more than 30 days, Ms. Igo had effectively resigned from the board by default. He contended that the moment the delinquency crossed the 30-day threshold, the seat became vacant.

Decoding the Bylaws: The "Effective When" Clause

To determine if Ms. Igo was actually ousted, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) scrutinized Article III, Section 4 of the Homestead North Bylaws. This section serves as the "Rule of Law" for director disqualification.

The Bylaws state:

"No director shall continue to serve on the Board if such director is more than thirty (30) days delinquent in the payment of an Assessment or in violation of Declaration or Architectural Guidelines and said delinquency or violation shall automatically constitute a resignation effective when the Board of Directors accepts such resignation."

As a governance specialist, I cannot overemphasize the importance of that final phrase. While Quinn focused on the word "automatically," the ALJ focused on the procedural gatekeeper: the resignation is only effective when the Board accepts it. This wording prevents "automatic" rules from being weaponized to decapitate a board without the remaining directors’ knowledge or consent. It transforms a self-executing event into one that requires formal board action.

The Procedural Pitfall: Why an Email Isn't a Meeting

In an attempt to force the issue, Quinn took matters into his own hands. On October 18, 2019, he sent an email to the board stating that he, as a director, accepted Ms. Igo’s resignation. When no other directors responded, Quinn argued that under Robert’s Rules of Order, his single "vote" constituted a majority of one to zero.

The reality of board governance is rarely that simple. The "messy reality" of this dispute peaked on October 30, 2019, during an Executive Session. When Quinn attempted to raise the issue of Ms. Igo’s resignation, the Board President "shut down" the session entirely, refusing to entertain the unilateral move.

The ALJ’s reasoning for rejecting Quinn’s email "acceptance" rested on two foundational pillars of HOA law found in Article III, Section 9:

The Quorum Rule: Official board acts require a majority of directors to be present to constitute a quorum. One director acting alone via email never meets the legal threshold for a quorum.
The Meeting Requirement: An "act of the Board" must occur at a "duly held meeting." The judge ruled that an email chain is not a meeting. Governance cannot be conducted through one-sided digital correspondence; it requires a formal forum where the body can deliberate and vote.

The ALJ's Final Verdict: A Lesson in Governance

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Association, dismissing the petition. The decision hinged on the preponderance of the evidence—the legal standard requiring the Petitioner to prove that his claims were more likely true than not.

The ALJ concluded that Quinn failed to prove the Board ever formally accepted the resignation at a duly held meeting. Because the "procedural gate" of board acceptance was never passed, the underlying question—whether the "Wall Charge" technically qualified as an "Assessment"—became moot. In legal terms, since the board hadn't accepted the resignation, the nature of the debt was irrelevant; Ms. Igo remained on the board regardless.

Key Takeaways for HOA Boards and Members

This case is a masterclass in why process matters as much as—if not more than—the rules themselves. Board members and directors should take note of these three pillars:

Language Matters—Look for the "Hook": Pro-tip: Always look for phrases like "effective when the board accepts." These hooks are designed to protect the board from being destabilized by minor accounting errors or weaponized bylaws. They ensure that the board maintains control over its own composition.
Process Over Emotion: Even if a violation seems black-and-white, individual board members cannot act unilaterally. Whether it is an email or an unscheduled outburst in an executive session, efforts to bypass formal agendas will almost always fail in court.
Know Your Quorum: To be legally defensible, a board decision must be a collective act. This means notice, a quorum, and a formal vote at a "duly held meeting." Private emails and "votes of one" are not just bad practice; they are legally void.

By adhering strictly to procedural bylaws, HOAs can avoid the high costs and headaches of administrative hearings, ensuring that community leadership remains stable and legally sound.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Richard P. Quinn (Petitioner)
Homestead North Homeowners Association (Board Member)
Appeared on his own behalf; member of the Board

Respondent Side

Quinten T. Cupps (Respondent Attorney)
Represented Homestead North Homeowners Association
Karen Igo (Board member)
Homestead North Homeowners Association
Subject of the resignation dispute; had delinquent 'Wall Charge'

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of the order

Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Posted on May 5, 2020 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-H2019005-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-05-05
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the controversy was not ripe. The Petitioner admitted that he had denied the HOA permission to enter his property to perform the maintenance he was suing them for not performing.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Michael J. Stoltenberg	Counsel	—
Respondent	Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association	Counsel	Nicole Payne

Alleged Violations

Governing Documents

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the controversy was not ripe. The Petitioner admitted that he had denied the HOA permission to enter his property to perform the maintenance he was suing them for not performing.

Why this result: The matter was not ripe for determination because the Petitioner had denied the Respondent access to the property.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide landscaping maintenance

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to maintain landscaping. Petitioner admitted he had notified Respondent it was not allowed to enter his property until January 2020.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

20F-H2019005-REL-RHG Decision – 787446.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:17:24 (77.6 KB)

20F-H2019005-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2019005-REL/752939.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:17:25 (58.3 KB)

**Case Summary: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Case No. 20F-H2019005-REL-RHG Date of Rehearing Decision:** May 5, 2020

Overview This summary details the proceedings of an administrative rehearing before the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The matter involves a dispute regarding landscaping maintenance obligations. It is crucial to distinguish between the original decision (dismissed for lack of ripeness) and the subsequent rehearing (which affirmed the dismissal).

Procedural History: The Original Decision In the initial proceeding (Case No. 20F-H2019005-REL), Petitioner Michael J. Stoltenberg alleged that the Respondent, Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA), failed to comply with a prior ruling requiring it to provide landscaping maintenance.

During the original hearing on October 30, 2019, the Petitioner admitted to the following facts:

In 2013, he notified the HOA it was not allowed to enter his property.
In April 2019, he notified the HOA that he expected maintenance to resume in January 2020.
At the time of the 2019 hearing, the HOA still did not have permission to enter the property.

On November 14, 2019, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Tammy L. Eigenheer dismissed the petition. The ALJ ruled that because the HOA was barred from the property at the time of filing, the allegation that the HOA was violating governing documents was "not ripe for determination".

The Rehearing: Case No. 20F-H2019005-REL-RHG The Petitioner requested a rehearing, arguing he was being "proactive" in seeking a resolution before the anticipated January 2020 violation. He further argued that by the time a rehearing occurred, the HOA would be in violation. The rehearing was granted and held on May 5, 2020.

Key Arguments at Rehearing

Petitioner’s Admissions: The Petitioner reiterated that he had denied the HOA access until January 2020.
New Claims: The Petitioner attempted to expand the scope of the dispute by arguing the HOA failed to maintain his neighbors’ properties.
Current Controversy: The Petitioner argued that the HOA’s ongoing failure to maintain the landscaping after January 2020 created a present controversy.

**Legal Analysis and

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Michael J. Stoltenberg (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Nicole Payne (Respondent Attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
Represented Respondent at hearing
Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (Respondent Attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
Listed on distribution list for the rehearing order

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed on distribution list

Kenneth E Kassa v. Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association,

Posted on April 28, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2019035-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-04-28
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	The ALJ denied the petition, finding that the HOA complied with requirements to hold annual meetings and the Petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof regarding alleged violations involving closed meetings.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Kenneth E. Kassa	Counsel	—
Respondent	Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association, Inc.	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, finding that the HOA complied with requirements to hold annual meetings and the Petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof regarding alleged violations involving closed meetings.

Why this result: Burden of proof not met; Petitioner provided no evidence that specific private meetings violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Open Meeting Law

Petitioner alleged the Association violated open meeting laws by holding closed meetings that should have been public and failing to properly notice meetings.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner's petition be denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019035-REL Decision – 785528.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:24:50 (146.6 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Kenneth E. Kassa vs. Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document details the administrative hearing and subsequent decision regarding a dispute between Kenneth E. Kassa (Petitioner) and the Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association, Inc. (Respondent/Association). The case, presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark, centered on allegations that the Association violated Arizona’s Open Meeting Law, specifically A.R.S. § 33-1804.

The Petitioner contended that the Board of Directors improperly held private meetings and failed to provide adequate notice or transparency regarding their deliberations between 2017 and 2019. The Association maintained that it complied with its Bylaws by holding one annual public meeting and conducting Board business within its vested powers.

Following an evidentiary hearing on April 8, 2020, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof. The ALJ found no evidence that the Board’s private sessions addressed matters required by law to be open to the public. Consequently, the petition was denied, and no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 was found.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Compliance vs. Association Bylaws

The crux of the dispute involved the interplay between the Association’s governing documents and state statutes.

Association Bylaws: The Bylaws (Sections 4.01 and 6.01) require at least one annual meeting of the members and one annual meeting of the Board. The Association relied on these provisions to justify its practice of holding a single public annual meeting.
A.R.S. § 33-1804: This statute mandates that all meetings of the members' association and the board of directors be open to all members, regardless of contrary provisions in a declaration or bylaws. It allows for closed sessions only under five specific circumstances (e.g., legal advice, litigation, or personal employee information).

2. Notice and Transparency Requirements

The hearing revealed a discrepancy between the Association’s notification practices and statutory requirements:

Association Practice: The Association provided notice for meetings solely by placing flyers in common areas. Meeting minutes were not proactively distributed but were made available upon written request.
Legal Requirements (A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)): The statute requires that notice of member meetings be hand-delivered or sent via prepaid U.S. mail to each owner 10 to 50 days in advance, stating the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting.

3. Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings

The decision highlights the "preponderance of the evidence" standard required in these proceedings. The Petitioner was responsible for proving it was "more probably true than not" that the Association violated the law. While the Petitioner opined that closed meetings should have been open, the ALJ noted a lack of specific evidence regarding the content of those meetings that would prove a statutory violation.

Key Entities and Legal Framework

Entity/Element	Description
Kenneth E. Kassa	Petitioner; a property owner and member of Queen Creek Ranchettes Phase I.
Queen Creek Ranchettes HOA	Respondent; a residential real estate development association in Queen Creek, AZ.
A.R.S. § 33-1804	The Arizona statute regulating open meetings for planned communities.
The Board of Directors	The governing body of the Association, vested with all rights, powers, and duties of the Association.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)	The independent state agency responsible for conducting the evidentiary hearing.

Important Quotes with Context

On the Open Meeting Requirement

"Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members' association and the board of directors… are open to all members of the association."

— A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Context: This statute serves as the primary legal standard for the case, overriding any Association Bylaws that might suggest meetings could be closed by default.

On the Definition of Proof

"A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not."

— ALJ Decision, Conclusions of Law ¶ 4 (referencing Morris K. Udall)

Context: The ALJ used this definition to explain why the Petitioner’s arguments failed; the Petitioner offered opinions and beliefs rather than the "superior evidentiary weight" required to win the case.

On the Burden of Evidence

"Petitioner provided no evidence to suggest that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 based on what was discussed in private Board meetings held between 2017 and 2019."

— ALJ Decision, Conclusions of Law ¶ 11

Context: This quote captures the primary reason for the denial of the petition. The Petitioner failed to provide factual evidence of what occurred in the closed sessions.

Actionable Insights

For Association Boards

Statutory Overrides: Associations must recognize that state statutes regarding open meetings (A.R.S. § 33-1804) take precedence over internal CC&Rs or Bylaws. Relying solely on Bylaws that conflict with state law can lead to litigation.
Closed Session Justification: Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(C), a Board must identify the specific statutory paragraph (e.g., legal advice, pending litigation) that authorizes them to close a meeting before entering a executive session.
Formal Notice Procedures: To ensure compliance, associations should follow the statutory requirement of hand-delivering or mailing notices 10 to 50 days in advance, rather than relying exclusively on flyers in common areas.

For Association Members

Evidence-Based Petitions: When alleging violations of the Open Meeting Law, members must provide specific evidence of the topics discussed in closed sessions or the failure of the Board to cite a statutory reason for closing a meeting. Mere suspicion or opinion is insufficient to meet the burden of proof.
Accessing Records: Members have the right to request meeting minutes in writing, a practice confirmed as valid in this case.
Jurisdiction Limits: Administrative Law Judges are limited to the issues raised in the petition. Secondary arguments regarding the "appropriateness" of meeting content may be deemed outside the tribunal's scope if they are not directly tied to the specific statutory violation alleged.

Study Guide: Kassa v. Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Kenneth E. Kassa (Petitioner) and the Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association, Inc. (Respondent/Association). It explores the legal frameworks governing Arizona homeowners' associations, the specifics of the Open Meeting Law, and the standards of proof required in administrative disputes.

Key Concepts and Legal Framework

1. Statutory Authority and Jurisdiction

The Arizona Department of Real Estate is authorized by statute to decide petitions regarding disputes between homeowners and associations. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an independent state agency, conducts evidentiary hearings to resolve these contested cases. In this matter, the authority to hear the case is derived from ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D) and 41-1092.

2. Arizona Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804)

This statute serves as the primary regulation for association transparency. Its key provisions include:

Open Access: All meetings of the members' association, the board of directors, and regularly scheduled committee meetings must be open to all members or their designated representatives.
Member Participation: Members must be permitted to attend and speak at appropriate times during deliberations.
Supremacy of Law: The statute applies notwithstanding any contrary provisions in an association's declaration, bylaws, or other documents.

3. Exceptions for Closed Meetings

Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), a meeting or portion thereof may only be closed to consider:

Legal advice from an attorney for the board or association.
Pending or contemplated litigation.
Personal, health, or financial information about an individual member, employee, or contractor.
Matters relating to job performance, compensation, or specific complaints against employees or contractors.
Discussion of a member's appeal of a violation or penalty (unless the member requests an open session).

4. Notice and Documentation Requirements

Notice (Statutory): For member meetings, notice must be hand-delivered or mailed 10 to 50 days in advance, stating the date, time, place, and purpose.
Notice (Bylaws): The Association's specific bylaws required notice at least 5 but no more than 30 days before a meeting.
Meeting Minutes: While the Association in this case did not distribute minutes automatically, they were made available to members upon written request.

5. Burden of Proof

In administrative proceedings of this nature, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof. They must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the evidence must show that the contention is "more probably true than not."

Short-Answer Practice Questions

What was the core issue Kenneth E. Kassa alleged in his petition?

Answer: Petitioner alleged that the Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association, Inc. violated Arizona Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804).

According to the Association's Bylaws, how often must regular meetings of the Board be held?

Answer: Bylaws Article VI, Section 6.01 states regular Board meetings shall be held at least annually.

What method did the Association use to provide notice for the meetings held between 2017 and 2019?

Answer: Notice was provided by placing flyers in common areas; no other form of notice was provided to members.

What is the legal definition of "preponderance of the evidence" used in this decision?

Answer: It is proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not, representing the "greater weight of the evidence" with the most convincing force.

Before entering a closed session, what must a Board of Directors do according to A.R.S. § 33-1804(C)?

Answer: The board must identify the specific statutory paragraph (under subsection A) that authorizes the closure of the meeting.

Under the Association's Bylaws, who is authorized to call a special meeting?

Answer: The President of the Association or the Board upon written request of Members entitled to cast one-fourth (1/4) of Class A membership votes, or the Class B Member (if any).

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

The Conflict of Governing Documents: Analyze the hierarchy of authority between an HOA’s Bylaws/CC&Rs and state statutes like A.R.S. § 33-1804. How does the "notwithstanding" clause in the statute affect the enforceability of Association documents that might seek to limit member access to meetings?

Transparency vs. Privacy: Discuss the five statutory exceptions that allow an HOA board to hold a closed meeting. Why is it necessary to balance the membership's right to an open meeting with the need for privacy in matters of legal advice or personnel performance?

The Burden of Evidence in Administrative Hearings: In this case, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof. Evaluate the challenges a member faces when alleging that "private" meetings should have been "public." What kind of evidence would be required to prove that a closed session was used for an unauthorized purpose?

Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	A judge who presides over hearings and makes findings of fact and conclusions of law for administrative agencies.
Bylaws	The rules adopted by an organization for its internal governance.
CC&Rs	Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; an enforceable contract between an association and property owners regarding property use.
Class A/B Membership	Specific categories of membership within an association, often defining different voting rights or roles.
Declaration	A legal document that establishes the homeowner's association and its governance; in conflicts, the Declaration typically controls over Bylaws.
OAH	Office of Administrative Hearings; an independent Arizona state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings.
Petitioner	The party who files a petition or complaint (in this case, Kenneth E. Kassa).
Preponderance of the Evidence	The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases where the evidence must show a claim is more likely to be true than not.
Respondent	The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, the Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association).
A.R.S. § 33-1804	The specific section of the Arizona Revised Statutes known as the Open Meeting Law for planned communities.

Understanding HOA Open Meeting Laws: Lessons from the Queen Creek Ranchettes Ruling

1. Introduction: The Tension Between Privacy and Transparency

In the management of Arizona homeowners associations, few issues generate as much friction as the balance between a board’s operational privacy and a homeowner’s right to transparency. Boards often feel the need to discuss sensitive matters behind closed doors to protect the association, while homeowners may view any non-public discussion with skepticism. This tension frequently leads to formal disputes regarding the "Open Meeting Law."

The case of Kenneth E. Kassa vs. Queen Creek Ranchettes HOA serves as a critical case study for both boards and members. It illustrates how the Arizona Department of Real Estate and Administrative Law Judges interpret the law when a homeowner alleges that their board is operating in the shadows. As a consultant, my goal is to help you navigate these rulings so you can ensure your association remains compliant and avoids the costs of administrative litigation.

2. The Legal Foundation: Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804)

The bedrock of HOA transparency in Arizona is A.R.S. § 33-1804. This statute is unique because it explicitly states that its requirements apply notwithstanding any provision in the bylaws or declarations to the contrary. This means that even if your association’s older bylaws say one thing, state law is the final authority.

Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), all meetings of the association and the board of directors must be open to all members. However, the law provides five—and only five—specific conditions under which a board is legally permitted to move into a closed executive session:

Legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association.
Pending or contemplated litigation.
Personal, health, or financial information regarding an individual member, an association employee, or a contractor's employee.
Matters relating to job performance, compensation, or specific complaints against an association employee or contractor.
A member’s appeal of a violation or penalty, unless that member specifically requests the meeting be held in an open session.

Beyond the content of the meetings, A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) sets strict procedural requirements for member meeting notices. The law requires notice to be hand-delivered or sent via prepaid U.S. mail not fewer than 10 nor more than 50 days before the meeting. It is vital to note that in the Kassa case, the association’s bylaws suggested a 5-to-30-day window. As your consultant, I must remind you: the statutory 10-to-50-day window overrides your bylaws every time.

3. Case Breakdown: The Petitioner’s Allegations vs. HOA Practices

In the Kassa proceeding, the Petitioner challenged the board’s habit of conducting the majority of its business in private. The conflict highlights a significant gap between what a homeowner perceives as "secrecy" and what an association views as "standard practice."

The Petitioner’s Arguments:

Board meetings were held privately throughout the year without legal justification or proper notice.
The single annual public meeting was merely a summary of "closed-door" decisions rather than a place for true deliberation.
There was a lack of evidence that the board was sharing or posting meeting minutes with the community.

The Association’s Practices:

The Association held only one annual public meeting for members in 2017, 2018, and 2019, while holding all other monthly board meetings privately.
Notice for these meetings was provided exclusively through flyers placed in common areas.
Meeting minutes were not proactively distributed but were made available to any member who submitted a written request.

4. The Verdict: Why the Burden of Proof Matters

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petition, but the reasoning was procedural rather than a full endorsement of the board’s methods. The decision turned on the "Preponderance of the Evidence."

In legal terms, this standard means that the Petitioner must prove that their claim is "more probably true than not." The judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden for two reasons:

Failure to Prove Improper Content: While the Petitioner proved the meetings were private, he provided "no evidence" to suggest that the topics discussed were outside the five legal exceptions.
Procedural Limitations: The judge noted that the tribunal could not rule on the "appropriateness" of private meetings without specific evidence of a statutory violation regarding the meeting's subject matter.

Essentially, the Board was saved by the Petitioner's lack of documentation. The judge did not rule that the Board's transparency was perfect; rather, she ruled that the Petitioner didn't prove it was illegal.

5. Essential Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

This ruling offers several actionable lessons for navigating HOA governance.

For Homeowners: Maintain an Evidence Log. A mere suspicion that a board is discussing non-exempt topics in private is not enough to win a case. If you believe a board is violating the Open Meeting Law, you must provide specific evidence of the topics discussed. Proactive inquiry and documenting board responses are essential.
For Boards: Audit Your Notice Procedures Immediately. While the Queen Creek Ranchettes HOA survived this challenge, their use of "common area flyers" for notice is a significant legal risk. A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) specifically requires notice to be mailed or hand-delivered. Do not rely on flyers or signs as a substitute for the statutory mailing requirements, as a more prepared petitioner could use that procedural failure to invalidate board actions.
The Right to Minutes. This ruling confirms that associations are not legally required to proactively "broadcast" minutes to the entire community. However, you must provide them upon written request. Boards should ensure they have a clear, documented process for responding to these requests to demonstrate transparency.

6. Conclusion: Navigating Future Governance

The Kassa vs. Queen Creek Ranchettes case is a reminder that transparency is not just a best practice—it is a legal framework. For homeowners, it highlights that the "burden of proof" is a high bar that requires more than just frustration; it requires evidence. For boards, it serves as a warning that relying on outdated bylaws or informal notice methods (like flyers) puts the association in a position of unnecessary vulnerability.

Ultimately, adherence to the 10-to-50-day statutory notice requirement and maintaining clear records of what is discussed in executive sessions are your best defenses. By aligning your procedures with state law rather than just your bylaws, you can prevent costly administrative hearings and build a culture of trust within your community.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Kenneth E. Kassa (petitioner)
Queen Creek Ranchettes Phase I subdivision property owner
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Jody Augustin (board member)
Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association, Inc.
Represented the Association; called as a witness

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of the transmitted order

Other Participants

Dean McDaniels (observer)
Listed under Appearances as observing
Kelly Kassa (observer)
Listed under Appearances as observing
Kimberly Timm (observer)
Listed under Appearances as observing
Sonya Foster (observer)
Listed under Appearances as observing
Colleen Kaul (observer)
Listed under Appearances as observing

Steven D. Stienstra v. Cedar Ridge Homeowners Association

Posted on April 2, 2020 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	19F-H1918033-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-04-01
Administrative Law Judge	Kay Abramsohn
Outcome	The Petitioner was the prevailing party. The ALJ affirmed that the HOA violated its CC&Rs regarding enforcement procedures, particularly by failing to adhere to Section 18 requirements and incorrectly applying Section 1.1 against the owner, rendering the legal fee demands improper. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee,.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Steven D. Stienstra	Counsel	—
Respondent	Cedar Ridge Homeowners Association	Counsel	Michelle Molinario, Diana J. Elston, Keith D. Collett

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1806.01; CC&Rs Section 1.1; CC&Rs Section 18

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner was the prevailing party. The ALJ affirmed that the HOA violated its CC&Rs regarding enforcement procedures, particularly by failing to adhere to Section 18 requirements and incorrectly applying Section 1.1 against the owner, rendering the legal fee demands improper. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee,.

Why this result: The HOA failed to follow the explicit due process requirements (written notice and 30 days to appear) mandated by CC&Rs Section 18 for enforcement against the owner, and incorrectly relied on Section 1.1 to justify its demand for unauthorized flat fees,,,,.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA enforcement action regarding CC&R violations and asserted legal fees

Petitioner challenged the HOA's enforcement actions regarding short-term rentals and leasing less than the entire lot. The ALJ found the HOA proceeded inappropriately under Section 1.1 (intended for action against occupants on the owner's behalf) and failed to follow the mandatory enforcement requirements of Section 18, thus violating its own CC&Rs. Consequently, the asserted legal fees were not assigned to Petitioner,,,.

Orders: The Petition was granted. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee,. The asserted legal fees of $1,500 and $2,600 sought by the HOA were determined not to be assignable to the Petitioner,.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1806.01
CC&Rs Section 1.1
CC&Rs Section 18

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, CC&R Violation, Legal Fees, Due Process, Rental Restriction

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1806.01
CC&Rs Section 1.1
CC&Rs Section 18
A.R.S. § 10-3830

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918033-REL-RHG Decision – 779896.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:27:52 (210.6 KB)

19F-H1918033-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918033-REL/753362.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:27:56 (169.0 KB)

Briefing Document: Stienstra v. Cedar Ridge Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Steven D. Stienstra (Petitioner) and the Cedar Ridge Homeowners Association (HOA/Respondent). The core conflict centered on the HOA’s enforcement actions and subsequent demand for attorney’s fees related to alleged violations of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) prohibiting short-term rentals.

The ALJ ultimately ruled in favor of the Petitioner in both the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The decisions established that the HOA violated its own CC&Rs by employing an incorrect and unreasonable enforcement procedure. Specifically, the HOA misapplied Section 1.1 of the CC&Rs, which governs an owner’s failure to take action against a non-compliant tenant, instead of following the prescribed due process for owner violations outlined in Section 18. Consequently, the ALJ concluded that the attorney’s fees demanded by the HOA were not assignable to the Petitioner. The final order required the HOA to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee, affirming that the HOA’s actions, including a series of escalating cease and desist letters, were procedurally flawed and unreasonable given the circumstances.

Case Overview and Core Dispute

The case, No. 19F-H1918033-REL, involved a petition filed by Steven D. Stienstra in November 2018 with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. Mr. Stienstra alleged that the Cedar Ridge Homeowners Association, a voluntary board in Sedona, Arizona, violated A.R.S. § 33-1806.01 and Sections 1.1 and 18 of its own CC&Rs.

The dispute originated from short-term rental activity at Mr. Stienstra’s property, which he purchased in August 2017. While the Petitioner admitted to the initial violations, he contended that he ceased the activity immediately after a phone call from the HOA President in April 2018. Despite his assurances, the HOA, acting on legal advice, pursued enforcement through a series of cease and desist letters, culminating in a demand for $2,600 in attorney’s fees.

The central issue before the Office of Administrative Hearings was whether the HOA’s enforcement process was proper under its governing documents and, consequently, whether Mr. Stienstra was liable for the legal fees incurred by the HOA.

Chronology of the Dispute

Details

Aug 2017

Property Purchase

Steven D. Stienstra purchases the residence. He acknowledges the CC&R restrictions on short-term rentals.

Jan-Apr 2018

Rental Activity

Stienstra’s son uses VRBO to manage stays for friends and family, which expands to produce some revenue from rentals of less than 30 days.

Apr 3, 2018

Motor Home Incident

HOA Secretary Vic Burolla calls Stienstra about a motor home parked in the driveway, a separate CC&R violation.

April 2018

Ferguson’s Phone Call

HOA President Bill Ferguson calls Stienstra about the short-term rentals. Recollections vary, but Stienstra claims he agreed to cease the activity. Ferguson’s impression was that Stienstra was not going to stop.

Apr 26, 2018

HOA Retains Counsel

The first noted contact between the HOA and its law firm occurs after the phone call with Stienstra.

May 11, 2018

First Cease & Desist Letter

The HOA’s attorney sends a letter demanding Stienstra cease all rentals of less than 30 days and rentals of less than the entire property within ten days, threatening a lawsuit under Section 1.1 of the CC&Rs.

June 1, 2018

Second Cease & Desist Letter

The HOA rejects Stienstra’s explanation of compliance. The letter demands payment of $1,500.00 by July 2, 2018, described as a “flat amount to resolve the matter.”

June 17, 2018

Third Cease & Desist Letter

Citing a new Facebook Marketplace post by Stienstra’s son (offering to lease bedrooms separately), the HOA sends another letter. The demand for attorney’s fees increases to $2,600.00.

Sep 4, 2018

Informal Meeting

At Stienstra’s request, three HOA board members meet with him in an unofficial capacity to discuss the dispute. The meeting transcript reflects a tense relationship.

Nov 2018

Petition Filed

Stienstra files his petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Oct 7, 2019

Initial Hearing

The Office of Administrative Hearings conducts a hearing on the matter.

Nov 15, 2019

Initial Decision

ALJ Kay Abramsohn issues a decision finding the HOA violated its CC&Rs and grants Stienstra’s petition.

Dec 19, 2019

Rehearing Request

The HOA requests a rehearing, arguing the ALJ’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.”

Mar 12, 2020

Rehearing

A rehearing is conducted where the HOA introduces new arguments, including that its board acted in good faith on legal advice.

Apr 1, 2020

Rehearing Decision

The ALJ issues a final decision affirming the original order, finding Stienstra to be the prevailing party and ordering the HOA to reimburse his $500 filing fee.

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Steven D. Stienstra)

• Compliance: Stienstra argued that he and his son ceased all short-term rental activity immediately following the April 2018 phone call from HOA President Bill Ferguson.

• Improper Procedure: The core of his argument was that the HOA failed to follow the enforcement procedures mandated by Section 18 of the CC&Rs. This section requires the Board to provide written notice of a breach, a 30-day period for the owner to appear before the Board, and a reasonable time (up to 60 days) to remedy the breach before levying fines.

• Misapplication of CC&Rs: Stienstra contended the HOA incorrectly proceeded under Section 1.1, which he argued applies to an owner’s failure to take legal action against a non-compliant tenant, not direct violations by the owner themselves.

• Unjustified Fees: Because the HOA did not provide due process and followed an improper enforcement path, Stienstra argued he should be released from any liability for the attorney’s fees the HOA incurred.

Respondent’s Position (Cedar Ridge HOA)

• Reasonable Belief of Violation: The HOA argued it had reason to believe violations were ongoing. It cited the continued presence of a VRBO listing (which Stienstra’s son claimed was inactive for booking) and observations of “multiple cars parked there daily” as evidence.

• Reliance on Legal Counsel: The HOA maintained that its actions were reasonable because it sought and followed the advice of its attorney. At the rehearing, it cited A.R.S. § 10-3830, arguing it discharged its duties in good faith.

• Discretion in Enforcement: The Board believed it had the discretion to enforce the CC&Rs under either Section 1.1 or Section 18. Board Secretary Vic Burolla testified at the rehearing that Section 1.1 was chosen because it “seemed more expeditious, to be able to collect” legal fees.

• “Unclean Hands” Doctrine: At the rehearing, the HOA argued for the first time that because Stienstra had admittedly violated the CC&Rs initially, he had “unclean hands” and was not entitled to seek relief regarding the HOA’s subsequent actions.

Key Evidence Presented

• CC&Rs: The text of Section 1.1 (“Leasing”) and Section 18 (“Enforcement of Covenants”) were central to the case.

• Cease & Desist Letters: The series of three letters from the HOA’s attorney documented the escalating demands and the HOA’s legal strategy.

• Testimony of Board Members: Testimony from Bill Ferguson and Vic Burolla provided insight into the Board’s decision-making process, including their impression of the April 2018 phone call and their justification for hiring an attorney. Vic Burolla provided conflicting testimony, stating in the initial hearing he was “not aware of any specific instructions in the CC&Rs” for notifications, but stating in the rehearing that the Board had discussed the benefits of proceeding under either Section 1.1 or Section 18.

• VRBO and Facebook Listings: Printouts of the online rental listings were used as evidence by the HOA to demonstrate ongoing or attempted violations.

• Meeting Transcript: A transcript of the informal September 4, 2018 meeting revealed the “tense relationship” and communication breakdown between the parties. When asked who was in the house if not tenants, Stienstra replied, “It’s not anybody’s business who’s in our house, really.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Rulings

The ALJ’s conclusions were consistent across both the initial decision and the rehearing decision, ultimately finding that the Petitioner had proven his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Interpretation of Governing CC&Rs

• Section 1.1 vs. Section 18: The ALJ decisively concluded that the two sections govern different circumstances.

◦ Section 1.1 applies when an occupant or lessee violates the CC&Rs. It requires the owner to take legal action against that occupant within 10 days of a written demand from the Board. If the owner fails, the Board may act “on behalf of such owner against owner’s occupant.” The ALJ found these were “not the circumstances in this case.”

◦ Section 1.8 is the proper procedure for violations committed directly by the owner. It provides a clear due process framework: written notice, an opportunity to be heard by the Board, and a period to cure the breach.

• Conclusion: The ALJ ruled that the “appropriate action that was required to be taken by Respondent was set forth in Section 18 of the CC&Rs.” By using Section 1.1, the HOA committed a procedural violation.

Assessment of HOA Enforcement Actions

• Verbal Warning: The ALJ characterized the April 2018 phone call from Mr. Ferguson as “appropriate in the nature of education” but clarified it “is not an ‘enforcement’ action under the CC&Rs.”

• Unreasonable Continuation: The Judge found the HOA’s continued actions after the May 11 letter to be unreasonable. The decision notes that the HOA’s characterization of Stienstra “intentionally” continuing to violate the CC&Rs “simply demonstrates that the Board members did not and were not going to believe Petitioner or his son no matter what information they provided.”

• Distrust: The decision highlights the Board’s fundamental distrust, quoting Mr. Burolla’s testimony that even if the HOA had called to clarify the situation, “there’s no reason to suspect we would have been told the truth.”

Ruling on Attorney’s Fees

• Not Assignable to Petitioner: Because the HOA violated its own CC&Rs by following an improper enforcement procedure, the ALJ ruled that the “asserted legal fees are not assigned to Petitioner.”

• Improper Demand: The ALJ specifically analyzed the demand in the June 1, 2018 letter for “$1,500.00… authorized by the Board as a flat amount to resolve the matter.” The ruling states this amount “could only be looked at as either a settlement offer or as some sort of fine, which is not authorized under Section 1.1 but only under Section 18.” It was not a legitimate accounting of actual fees incurred as permitted by the CC&Rs.

• No Expenses Incurred Under Section 1.1: The Judge found that since Stienstra took action to stop the leasing, no legal action by the HOA “on behalf of the owner against the occupant” was required. Therefore, no expenses were actually incurred pursuant to the parameters of Section 1.1.

Final Decisions and Order

• Initial Decision (Nov 15, 2019): The petition was granted, and the HOA was ordered to reimburse Mr. Stienstra the $500.00 filing fee.

• Rehearing Decision (Apr 1, 2020): The ALJ affirmed the original order. The HOA’s new arguments regarding “good faith” and “unclean hands” did not alter the core finding of procedural failure. The final order declared the Petitioner the prevailing party and re-stated the requirement for the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Study Guide: Stienstra v. Cedar Ridge Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing and rehearing decisions in the case between petitioner Steven D. Stienstra and respondent Cedar Ridge Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, a series of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found in the legal decisions.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what was the central issue that prompted the administrative hearing?

2. What specific violations of the CC&Rs did the homeowner, Steven Stienstra, or his son commit that initiated the dispute?

3. Describe the initial action taken by HOA President Bill Ferguson in April 2018 and explain why the Administrative Law Judge did not consider it a formal enforcement action.

4. The HOA’s attorneys sent three Cease & Desist letters. What was the primary demand of the first letter, and what financial demands were added in the second and third letters?

5. What were the two key sections of the CC&Rs at the center of the dispute, and what did each section generally govern?

6. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclude that the HOA’s decision to proceed under Section 1.1 of the CC&Rs was inappropriate for the violations committed by the owner?

7. According to the ALJ’s decision, what specific procedural steps should the HOA have followed under Section 18 of the CC&Rs to properly enforce the covenants against an owner?

8. On what grounds did the Cedar Ridge HOA request a rehearing after the initial decision was issued in favor of the petitioner?

9. During the rehearing, the HOA introduced an “unclean hands” argument. What did this argument claim, and how did the ALJ respond to it?

10. What was the final, binding outcome of this case after the rehearing, including the ruling on attorney’s fees and the petitioner’s filing fee?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, homeowner Steven D. Stienstra, and the Respondent, Cedar Ridge Homeowners Association (HOA). While the dispute began over rental violations, the central issue at the hearing was the liability for legal fees the HOA incurred and asserted were owed by the Petitioner.

2. The Petitioner’s son violated Section 1.1 of the CC&Rs by listing the property on VRBO for short-term rentals (less than 30 consecutive days) and producing revenue from January to April 2018. He also later posted on Facebook Marketplace offering to rent separate units within the home, which violated the rule requiring the lease of an “owner’s entire lot.”

3. HOA President Bill Ferguson made a phone call to Mr. Stienstra in April 2018 to bring the short-term rental violations to his attention. The ALJ characterized this as a “courtesy or informational call” and not a formal enforcement action because it did not comply with the written notice procedures required by either Section 1.1 or Section 18 of the CC&Rs.

4. The first letter (May 11, 2018) demanded that Stienstra cease all rentals of less than 30 days. The second letter (June 1, 2018) added a demand for $1,500 in attorney’s fees, and the third letter (June 17, 2018) increased this demand to $2,600.

5. The key sections were Section 1.1 and Section 18. Section 1.1 governed leasing requirements (e.g., minimum 30-day term) and detailed a process for an owner to take action against a non-compliant tenant (occupant). Section 18, titled “Enforcement of Covenants,” provided the formal process for the HOA Board to take action against a non-compliant owner.

6. The ALJ concluded that Section 1.1 was inappropriate because its enforcement mechanism empowers the HOA to act “on behalf of such owner against owner’s occupant” if the owner fails to do so. In this case, the HOA was taking direct action against the owner (Stienstra) for his own violations, a scenario that the ALJ determined was governed by Section 18.

7. Under Section 18, the HOA was required to notify the owner “in writing of the breach,” provide the owner 30 days to appear before the Board to respond, and then grant a reasonable time period (not to exceed 60 days) to remedy the breach before it could levy a fine.

8. The HOA requested a rehearing on the grounds that the ALJ’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, and was not support by the evidence.” The HOA specifically alleged the ALJ had not considered evidence that it had reason to believe violations were continuing and had erred in interpreting the CC&Rs.

9. The HOA argued that because the Petitioner had admittedly violated the CC&Rs, he had “unclean hands” and therefore was not entitled to seek relief from the Department regarding the HOA’s actions. The ALJ noted that the remedy sought by the Petitioner was monetary (release from fees), not equitable, and the core issue remained whether the HOA’s enforcement actions were valid under its own governing documents.

10. The final outcome, upheld on rehearing, was that the Petitioner’s petition was granted. The HOA was ordered to reimburse Mr. Stienstra for his $500 filing fee, and the ALJ concluded that the asserted legal fees were not assignable to him due to the HOA’s failure to follow its own CC&R enforcement procedures.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each question using only the facts and arguments presented in the provided legal decisions.

1. Analyze the procedural missteps made by the Cedar Ridge HOA Board in its enforcement actions against Steven Stienstra. How did its choice to proceed under Section 1.1 instead of Section 18 fundamentally undermine its position, according to the Administrative Law Judge?

2. Discuss the role of communication and miscommunication in escalating the conflict between Stienstra and the HOA. Use specific examples from the text, such as the Ferguson phone call, the continued VRBO listing, the HOA’s internal distrust, and the unofficial board meeting, to illustrate your points.

3. Evaluate the HOA’s argument on rehearing that its actions were protected because they acted in good faith based on the advice of their attorney, as allowed under A.R.S. § 10-3830. Why was this argument ultimately unpersuasive to the Administrative Law Judge?

4. The central issue in this case evolved from CC&R violations to a dispute over attorney’s fees. Trace this evolution, explaining how each Cease & Desist letter escalated the financial stakes and why the ALJ ultimately determined the fees were not assignable to Stienstra.

5. Compare and contrast the enforcement mechanisms detailed in Section 1.1 and Section 18 of the Cedar Ridge CC&Rs. Explain the specific purpose of each section and why applying the correct one was critical to the outcome of this case.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1806.01

An Arizona Revised Statute providing that a planned community property owner may use their property as a rental unless prohibited in the declaration and must abide by the declaration’s rental time period restrictions.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and makes legal findings and rulings. In this case, the ALJ was Kay Abramsohn.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this proceeding, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the HOA’s violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. The governing legal documents that set forth the rules for a planned community or homeowners association.

Cease & Desist Letter

A formal written demand from an attorney or party to stop (cease) and not restart (desist) an allegedly illegal or infringing activity.

Declaration

The legal document that creates a homeowners association and its CC&Rs.

Forcible Entry and Detainer

A legal action, often used for eviction, to recover possession of real property from someone who is in wrongful possession. Section 1.1 mentions this as an action an owner could take against a non-compliant tenant.

A legal claim or right against a property to secure the payment of a debt. Section 18 of the CC&Rs allows the HOA to place a lien on a property for an unpaid special assessment or fine.

Occupant

As used in Section 1.1, refers to a tenant or lessee under a lease agreement, distinct from the property owner.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, homeowner Steven D. Stienstra.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this case, meaning that the evidence as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Cedar Ridge Homeowners Association.

Special Assessment

A charge levied by an HOA against an owner for a specific purpose, such as repaying attorney’s fees incurred by the HOA or as a fine, as described in Sections 1.1 and 18.

Unclean Hands

A legal doctrine arguing that a party who has acted unethically or in bad faith in relation to the subject of a complaint should not be entitled to seek relief. The HOA raised this argument against the Petitioner on rehearing.

An Expedia Group website containing listings for vacation property rentals, which the Petitioner’s son used to list the property.