Nathan Brown v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Posted on February 4, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918029-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-02-04
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	The Petitioner's claim that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) was dismissed, as the notice issued was determined to be a Notice of Non-Compliance (courtesy letter) and not a Notice of Violation required to carry the specific disclosure.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Nathan Brown	Counsel	—
Respondent	Val Vista Lakes Community Association	Counsel	Clint Goodman, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(E)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's claim that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) was dismissed, as the notice issued was determined to be a Notice of Non-Compliance (courtesy letter) and not a Notice of Violation required to carry the specific disclosure.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(E).

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) by failing to include notice of the option to petition for an administrative hearing in a Notice of Non-Compliance.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent's Notice of Non-Compliance regarding dead vegetation was actually a Notice of Violation and lacked the statutory disclosure required by A.R.S. § 33-1803(E). The ALJ found the document was a courtesy letter and not a Notice of Violation, and even if it were, the statute did not require the disclosure in this context because the Petitioner filed the petition before Respondent took enforcement action or completed the statutory response exchange.

Orders: Petitioner Nathan Brown's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(E)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(C)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(D)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11

Analytics Highlights

Topics: statutory interpretation, violation notice, non-compliance, courtesy letter, right to petition

Additional Citations:

33-1803(E)
32-2199.01
33-1803(C)
33-1803(D)
R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918029-REL Decision – 686796.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-25T09:59:54 (88.4 KB)

Brown v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association: Case Briefing

Executive Summary

This document provides a detailed analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case No. 19F-H1918029-REL, wherein Petitioner Nathan Brown’s petition against the Val Vista Lakes Community Association was dismissed. The central issue was whether an initial “Notice of Non-Compliance” sent by the Association constituted a formal “Notice of Violation” under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 33-1803(E), thereby requiring immediate disclosure of the member’s right to an administrative hearing.

The ALJ ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent Association. The decision rested on two primary conclusions: First, a reasonable reading of the document in question showed it to be a preliminary “courtesy letter” and not a formal Notice of Violation, as it explicitly warned that a Notice of Violation would be issued later if the issue was not remedied. Second, the ALJ determined that even if the document were considered a Notice of Violation, a plain reading of the statute does not require the disclosure of hearing rights to be included in the initial notice itself. The statute allows for this information to be provided at a later stage in the process, specifically after the member has submitted a formal response. The Petitioner’s failure to follow the statutory response procedure was a key factor in the ruling that the Association had not yet been required to provide the disclosure. Ultimately, the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, and his petition was dismissed.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Number

19F-H1918029-REL

Parties

Petitioner: Nathan Brown
Respondent: Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Hearing Date

January 16, 2019

Decision Date

February 4, 2019

Final Outcome

Petition Dismissed; Respondent deemed the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Background and Timeline of Events

• October 18, 2018: The Val Vista Lakes Community Association mailed a “Notice of Non-Compliance” to Nathan Brown regarding dead vegetation in his yard. The notice requested that the situation be remedied by November 1, 2018, and warned that failure to do so would result in the issuance of a “Notice of Violation that may involve fines.”

• October 24, 2018 (approx.): Mr. Brown filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initiating the legal matter.

• November 11, 2018: The Association issued a formal “Notice of Violation” to Mr. Brown concerning the same issue raised in the initial notice.

• November 27, 2018: The Arizona Department of Real Estate issued a Notice of Hearing.

• January 16, 2019: An administrative hearing was held, with Mr. Brown representing himself and Clint Goodman, Esq. representing the Association. Testimony was heard from Mr. Brown and Simone McGinnis, the Association’s general manager.

• February 4, 2019: ALJ Thomas Shedden issued a decision dismissing Mr. Brown’s petition.

——————————————————————————–

Core Legal Dispute and Arguments

The dispute centered on the interpretation and application of A.R.S. § 33-1803, which governs the process for notifying homeowners of violations of community documents.

Petitioner’s Position (Nathan Brown)

• Central Claim: The “Notice of Non-Compliance” received on October 18, 2018, was functionally and legally a “Notice of Violation.”

• Alleged Violation: The notice violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) because it failed to include “written notice of the member’s option to petition for an administrative hearing on the matter in the state real estate department.”

Respondent’s Position (Val Vista Lakes Community Association)

• Central Claim: The “Notice of Non-Compliance” was not a formal “Notice of Violation” but rather a “courtesy letter,” which is a common industry practice permitted by the Association’s governing documents.

• Defense: Because the initial letter was not a statutory Notice of Violation, the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1803 were not applicable to that specific communication.

——————————————————————————–

Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Decision

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner, Mr. Brown, bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence and failed to meet that standard. The decision was based on a series of factual findings and legal conclusions drawn from a “fair and sensible” interpretation of the statute.

Key Findings of Fact

• The Association mailed Mr. Brown a Notice of Non-Compliance on October 18, 2018.

• This notice informed Mr. Brown of a CC&R violation (dead vegetation) and stated that a failure to remedy the issue would result in a subsequent “Notice of Violation” with potential fines.

• Mr. Brown did not send a written response to the Association regarding the Notice of Non-Compliance, a step outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1803(C).

• Mr. Brown was later issued a formal Notice of Violation on November 11, 2018.

Conclusions of Law (Legal Rationale)

The ALJ’s decision to dismiss the petition was founded on three distinct legal interpretations:

1. Distinction Between Notices: The judge ruled that the initial communication was not a statutory Notice of Violation.

◦ The ruling states, “a reasonable reading of the Notice of Non-Compliance shows that it is not a Notice of Violation, because it informs Mr. Brown that a Notice of Violation would be issued if he did not appropriately address the ‘situation.'”

◦ This established the letter as a preliminary courtesy notice, distinct from the formal enforcement action that triggers statutory requirements.

2. Statutory Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1803: The judge concluded that even if the initial notice was a Notice of Violation, the Association still did not violate the statute.

◦ The decision notes, “a plain reading of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803 shows that a Notice of Violation is not required to include notice of the right to petition the Department of Real Estate because subsections D and E both show that any required notice can be given at other times.”

◦ The statute outlines a process where the member can respond via certified mail, and the Association’s duty to provide information about contesting the notice (including the right to a hearing) arises from that exchange.

3. Petitioner’s Procedural Failure: The judge found that the Association’s obligations under the statute were never triggered because Mr. Brown bypassed the prescribed process.

◦ The decision highlights that Mr. Brown did not file a written response with the Association but instead filed his petition with the Department just a few days after receiving the initial notice.

◦ The ruling concludes, “a sensible reading of the statute shows that the Respondent was not required to provide Mr. Brown with notice of a right to petition the Department at any time pertinent to this matter.”

——————————————————————————–

Final Order and Implications

• Order: The ALJ ordered that “Petitioner Nathan Brown’s petition is dismissed.”

• Prevailing Party: The Respondent, Val Vista Lakes Community Association, was deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

• Further Action: The decision is binding unless a party files for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, as stipulated by A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.02(B), 32-2199.04, and 41-1092.09.

Study Guide: Brown v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association (No. 19F-H1918029-REL)

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information from the provided case decision.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in case No. 19F-H1918029-REL, and what were their roles?

2. What specific statute did the Petitioner, Nathan Brown, allege that the Respondent violated?

3. What was the initial issue that prompted the Respondent to contact Mr. Brown on October 18, 2018?

4. What was Nathan Brown’s central legal argument concerning the “Notice of Non-Compliance”?

5. How did the Val Vista Lakes Community Association characterize the “Notice of Non-Compliance,” and why was this distinction critical to its defense?

6. According to the Findings of Fact, what procedural step did Mr. Brown fail to take after receiving the initial notice from the association?

7. What is the standard of proof required in this matter, and which party was responsible for meeting it?

8. What were the Administrative Law Judge’s two primary legal conclusions that led to the dismissal of the petition?

9. What was the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on February 4, 2019?

10. What recourse was available to the parties following the judge’s Order, and what was the specified time limit for that action?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Nathan Brown, who served as the Petitioner, and the Val Vista Lakes Community Association, which was the Respondent. Mr. Brown brought the complaint against the association, which was defending its actions.

2. Nathan Brown alleged that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(E). This section concerns an association’s obligation to provide a member with written notice of their option to petition for an administrative hearing.

3. The Respondent contacted Mr. Brown regarding dead vegetation in his yard, which was considered a violation of the community’s CC&Rs. The “Notice of Non-Compliance” requested that he remedy the situation by November 1, 2018.

4. Mr. Brown’s central argument was that the “Notice of Non-Compliance” was, in fact, a “Notice of Violation.” Therefore, he contended it should have included written notice of his option to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department, as required by statute.

5. The Association characterized the notice as a “courtesy letter,” which is a common practice for providing an initial warning before formal action. This distinction was critical because the Association argued that as a mere courtesy letter and not a formal “Notice of Violation,” it was not subject to the statutory disclosure requirements of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803.

6. Mr. Brown did not send a written response to the Respondent via certified mail within 21 calendar days of the notice. This response is an option provided to members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(C).

7. The standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The burden of proof was on the Petitioner, Nathan Brown, to show that the Respondent had violated the statute.

8. First, the judge concluded that a reasonable reading of the document shows it was not a “Notice of Violation” because it explicitly threatened that one would be issued later. Second, the judge concluded that even if it were a “Notice of Violation,” the statute does not require the hearing disclosure to be in the initial notice, and since Mr. Brown did not follow the response procedure, the Respondent’s obligation to provide that disclosure had not yet been triggered.

9. The final Order was that Petitioner Nathan Brown’s petition be dismissed. The judge also deemed the Respondent to be the prevailing party in the matter.

10. A party could file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate. Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09, this request had to be filed within 30 days of the service of the Order.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Consider the following questions. Formulate comprehensive, evidence-based answers using only the information and legal reasoning presented in the case decision.

1. Analyze the distinction between a “Notice of Non-Compliance” (or “courtesy letter”) and a “Notice of Violation” as presented in this case. Discuss why this distinction was the central point of contention and how the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of the document’s plain language resolved the issue.

2. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decision. Discuss how Nathan Brown’s failure to meet this standard, as the party with the burden of proof, was fundamental to the dismissal of his petition.

3. Examine the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of the procedural requirements outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(C), (D), and (E). How does the judge’s “sensible reading” of the statute’s timeline and reciprocal obligations undermine the Petitioner’s claim, even setting aside the debate over the notice’s title?

4. Describe the complete procedural timeline of this case, from the initial notice sent by the association to the final order from the Administrative Law Judge. Identify the key dates and actions taken by each party and by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

5. Discuss the role of statutory interpretation in this legal decision. How did the judge apply established legal principles, such as aiming for a “fair and sensible result” and avoiding “absurd and unreasonable construction,” to support the final ruling against the Petitioner?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Thomas Shedden, who presides over administrative hearings and makes legal decisions.

ARIZ. REV. STAT.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. The specific statute at the center of this case is section 33-1803.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this matter, the burden of proof was on the Petitioner, Nathan Brown.

An acronym for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. The decision implies these are the governing community documents that Mr. Brown was accused of violating due to dead vegetation.

Courtesy Letter

A term used by the Respondent to describe the “Notice of Non-Compliance.” It is characterized as a common industry practice to inform a resident of an issue before issuing a formal Notice of Violation.

Notice of Non-Compliance

The specific document dated October 18, 2018, sent to Mr. Brown. It informed him of dead vegetation, requested a remedy, and warned that a “Notice of Violation” could follow.

Notice of Violation

A formal notification that a violation has occurred. The decision establishes this as a distinct and more serious step than a “Notice of Non-Compliance,” and one was issued to Mr. Brown on November 11, 2018.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Nathan Brown was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Prevailing Party

The party who wins the legal case. The Administrative Law Judge deemed the Respondent to be the prevailing party.

Rehearing

A legal process to have a case heard again. The parties were notified of their right to request a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Val Vista Lakes Community Association was the Respondent.

📔

19F-H1918029-REL

1 source

This source is the Administrative Law Judge Decision for a case titled Nathan Brown vs. Val Vista Lakes Community Association, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The dispute centers on whether a Notice of Non-Compliance sent to Mr. Brown regarding dead vegetation in his yard constitutes a Notice of Violation under ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(E). Mr. Brown argued that the Association violated this statute by failing to include written notice of his option to petition for an administrative hearing in the initial notice. However, the Administrative Law Judge found that the initial document was merely a courtesy letter and not a formal Notice of Violation, and further concluded that the statute does not require the disclosure of the right to petition the Department of Real Estate within the initial violation notice. Ultimately, the judge determined that the Association was not required to provide Mr. Brown with the notice of his right to petition at any relevant time and dismissed Mr. Brown’s petition.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Nathan Brown (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Clint Goodman (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Appeared for the Respondent
Simone McGinnis (general manager)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Presented testimony
Ashley N. Moscarello (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Recipient of transmission
Clint Brown (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Recipient of transmission (listed separately from Clint Goodman)

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
F Del Sol (admin staff)
Transmitted document

N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. vs.

Posted on January 29, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918027-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-01-29
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the HOA Board had the authority under the CC&Rs and related documents to remove non-Board ARC members and appoint itself to perform the functions of the ARC, thus validating its approval of the homeowner's detached garage application.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	N. Wayne Dwight, Jr.	Counsel	—
Respondent	Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association	Counsel	Troy B. Stratman, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs §§ 3.2 and 7.7

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the HOA Board had the authority under the CC&Rs and related documents to remove non-Board ARC members and appoint itself to perform the functions of the ARC, thus validating its approval of the homeowner's detached garage application.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated CC&Rs §§ 3.2 or 7.7. The Board, having assumed the developer's rights, was authorized to remove and appoint ARC members.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs regarding ARC dissolution and architectural approval authority.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA Board violated CC&Rs §§ 3.2 and 7.7 by dissolving the ARC and then acting as the ARC to approve a modification (detached garage) for a homeowner.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied because he failed to establish that CC&Rs §§ 3.2 or 7.7 prohibited the Respondent HOA from replacing non-Board ARC members, appointing its own members to act as the ARC, or approving the detached garage application.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(D)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, ARC, CC&Rs, Board Authority, Architectural Review

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(D)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918027-REL Decision – 685758.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:17:21 (194.8 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision Briefing: Dwight vs. Whisper Mountain HOA

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in case number 19F-H1918027-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowner N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (“Petitioner”) and the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA Board violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by suspending the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and subsequently approving a homeowner’s construction application.

The ALJ denied the petition in its entirety, finding that the HOA Board acted within its authority. The decision established that upon the departure of the original developer (the “Declarant”), the Board inherited the Declarant’s full rights and responsibilities, including the power to both appoint and remove members of the ARC. The Judge explicitly rejected the Petitioner’s argument that ARC members held lifetime appointments, deeming such an interpretation contrary to the democratic principles of HOA governance. Consequently, the Board’s decision to remove the non-Board ARC members and appoint itself to serve as the ARC was ruled a valid exercise of its powers, and its subsequent approval of the construction application was not a violation of the CC&Rs.

Case Overview

Entity

Petitioner

N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (Homeowner and former ARC member)

Respondent

Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (HOA)

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky

Case Number

19F-H1918027-REL

Hearing Date

January 14, 2019

Decision Date

January 29, 2019

Core Allegation

The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent’s Board violated two sections of the CC&Rs:

1. § 7.7 (Improvements and Alterations): By approving a homeowner’s application to build a detached garage on September 19, 2018, without the approval of a properly constituted ARC.

2. § 3.2 (Appeal): By creating a situation where the body making an architectural decision (the Board acting as the ARC) is the same body that would hear an appeal of that decision, rendering the appeal process meaningless.

This was based on the Petitioner’s central claim that the Board’s action on August 6, 2018, to “dissolve” or “suspend” the ARC was a violation of the governing documents.

Key Factual Background & Timeline

• Prior to 2015: The developer, VIP Homes (“Declarant”), establishes the ARC as required by the CC&Rs.

• 2015: The Declarant turns over control of the HOA to the resident-elected Board of Directors.

• March 15, 2016: The Board adopts an ARC Charter, which explicitly states: “The right to appoint and remove all appointed [ARC] members at any time is hereby vested solely in the Board.” The Petitioner is appointed as one of three non-Board members to the ARC.

• 2017 or 2018: A proposed amendment to the CC&Rs to formally replace references to “Declarant” with “Board” or “Association” is not adopted by the general membership.

• July 17, 2018: The ARC meets to consider a detached garage application from homeowners Mark and Connie Wells. The meeting is contentious, with the Petitioner expressing doubts about the ARC’s authority to grant a variance from city setback requirements. The meeting adjourns abruptly after the applicant allegedly “verbally threatened the committee.”

• August 6, 2018: The HOA Board meets and passes a motion “to suspend the ARC committee for 60 days until guidelines/expectations are clarified.” The motion states that in the interim, the Board will review and approve all ARC submissions.

• August 24, 2018: The Board sends a letter to the non-Board ARC members, including the Petitioner, informing them of the 60-day suspension.

• September 17, 2018: The Board meets and approves a revised application from the Wells, which now aligns with City of Mesa code.

• September 19, 2018: The Board, formally acting as the ARC, reviews and approves the Wells’ revised application.

• October 22, 2018: The Petitioner files his complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• November 19, 2018: The Board adopts a “Resolution Regarding the ARC” to clarify its position. The resolution states the Board had “(i) temporarily removed the current members of the [ARC] (via a suspension) and (ii) chose to act and serve as the current [ARC].” It also formally ratifies the approval of the Wells’ garage.

Central Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Position (N. Wayne Dwight, Jr.)

• Limited Board Authority: The CC&Rs (§ 3.4) grant the Declarant the “sole right to appoint and remove” ARC members. After the Declarant’s departure, this section states that members “shall be appointed by the Board.” The Petitioner argued this only conferred the power to appoint, not to remove.

• Failed Amendment: The failure of the membership to amend the CC&Rs to explicitly grant the Board the Declarant’s powers proves that the Board does not possess the power of removal.

• Lifetime Appointments: The Petitioner argued that once appointed, ARC members could only be removed for specific cause (e.g., moving out of the community, incapacitation) and were otherwise entitled to serve for life.

• Improper ARC Suspension: The Board’s action to suspend the committee was a violation of the CC&Rs, as the Board lacked the authority to do so.

• Invalid Approval: Because the ARC was improperly suspended, the Board’s subsequent approval of the Wells’ application violated § 7.7, which requires ARC approval for all alterations.

• Meaningless Appeals: If the Board can act as the ARC, the appeal process outlined in § 3.2, which allows a homeowner to appeal an ARC decision to the Board, becomes an “exercise in futility.”

Respondent’s Position (Whisper Mountain HOA)

• Inherited Powers: Upon the Declarant’s departure, the Board assumed all of its rights and responsibilities under the CC&Rs, including the power to both appoint and remove ARC members.

• Authority from ARC Charter: The ARC Charter, adopted in 2016, explicitly grants the Board the sole right to remove ARC members at any time.

• Intent of the Board: The Board’s intent was not to abolish the ARC, but to address concerns about the committee’s conduct, including its “way of questioning applicants” and a need for more civility, fairness, and consistency.

• Clarification of “Suspension”: The use of the word “suspend” in communications by the management company (Mariposa Group) was “unfortunate and inaccurate.” The Board’s true action, clarified in its November 19 resolution, was to remove the non-Board members and appoint its own members to serve as the ARC.

• Valid Approval: The Board was legitimately acting as the ARC when it approved the Wells’ application; therefore, § 7.7 was not violated.

Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Conclusions

Interpretation of Governing Documents

The ALJ concluded that restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted to give effect to the intent of the parties. The Judge found the Petitioner’s interpretation of the CC&Rs to be unpersuasive and ultimately harmful to the community.

• The Judge stated that the Petitioner’s interpretation “elevates non-elected members of ARC above elected Board members, abrogates any community control over ARC, and does not serve the underlying purposes of the CC&Rs.”

• This “unelected lifetime appointment” concept was found to be contrary to the “democratic principles underlying HOA law in Arizona.”

On the Board’s Authority

The ALJ affirmed the HOA’s authority to manage the ARC as it did.

• Assumption of Powers: The decision concludes that “When Declarant turned Respondent HOA over to its Board, the Board assumed all of Declarant’s rights and responsibilities under the CC&Rs and related documents.” This included the power to remove ARC members.

• ARC Charter: The Judge noted that the ARC Charter also “expressly provided that the Board had the power to remove as well as to appoint members of the ARC.”

• Legitimacy of Actions: The Board was found to have acted within its authority in August 2018 when it “removed the three non-Board members of the ARC and appointed itself to perform the functions of the ARC.”

On the Alleged Violations

Based on the finding that the Board acted within its authority, the ALJ concluded that no violations occurred.

• Conclusion on CC&R § 7.7 (ARC Approval): The petition failed on this point because the Board was legitimately acting as the ARC when it approved the Wells’ application in September 2018.

• Conclusion on CC&R § 3.2 (Appeals): The petition failed on this point because the CC&Rs do not prohibit Board members from acting as the ARC. While acknowledging that appealing a decision to the same body “may be an exercise in futility,” the Judge noted that under the CC&Rs, the Board is not required to hear appeals in any event.

Final Order and Implications

Order: The petition filed by N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. was denied. The Judge found he had not established that the HOA violated CC&Rs §§ 3.2 or 7.7.

Implications: This decision establishes a strong precedent for interpreting HOA governing documents in a manner that favors functional, democratic governance over literal interpretations that could lead to impractical or absurd outcomes. It affirms that an HOA Board generally inherits the full operational powers of the original developer unless explicitly restricted, and that a Board can act to reform or reconstitute committees to ensure they serve the community’s best interests.

Study Guide: Dwight v. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. vs. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1918027-REL). It includes a quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined within the context of the legal document.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each of the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the provided source document.

1. What were the two specific allegations made by the Petitioner, N. Wayne Dwight, Jr., in his petition filed on October 22, 2018?

2. Identify the key parties in this case and describe their respective roles or relationships to the dispute.

3. What was the purpose and outcome of the ARC meeting held on July 17, 2018, regarding the Wells’ property?

4. Explain the actions taken by the Respondent’s Board of Directors during its meeting on August 6, 2018, regarding the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).

5. What was the Petitioner’s interpretation of CC&R § 3.4 regarding the removal of ARC members, and what was the potential consequence of this interpretation as noted by the Administrative Law Judge?

6. According to the Respondent’s Board president, Greg Robert Wingert, what were the primary reasons for removing the non-Board members of the ARC?

7. Describe the role of the Mariposa Group LLC in this case and explain how its communications created confusion.

8. How did the Board clarify its actions and ratify its decisions in the November 19, 2018 Resolution?

9. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and how is it defined in the case documents?

10. What was the final ruling of the Administrative Law Judge, and what was the core reasoning behind the decision regarding CC&Rs §§ 3.2 and 7.7?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent’s Board violated Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) §§ 3.2 and 7.7. The specific violations cited were the dissolution or suspension of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) on August 6, 2018, and the subsequent approval of an application from two members to build a detached garage on September 19, 2018.

2. The key parties are N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (the “Petitioner”), a property owner and former ARC member, and the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (the “Respondent”). The case also involves Greg Robert Wingert, the President of the Respondent’s Board, and Mark and Connie Wells, the homeowners who applied to build a detached garage. The dispute centers on the Respondent’s authority over the ARC, of which the Petitioner was a member.

3. The purpose of the July 17, 2018, meeting was for the ARC, including the Petitioner, to consider Mark and Connie Wells’ application for a detached garage. The meeting was abruptly adjourned after the applicant allegedly threatened the committee, and no formal vote was conducted at that time. However, a letter dated July 30, 2018, later informed the Wells that the ARC had approved their request.

4. At the August 6, 2018, meeting, the Board of Directors discussed the need for more consistency and guidelines for the ARC. Citing these reasons and safety concerns from a prior meeting, the Board passed a motion to “suspend the ARC committee for 60 days” and announced that in the interim, the Board itself would review and approve all ARC submissions.

5. The Petitioner argued that CC&R § 3.4 only allowed the Board to appoint, not remove, ARC members. He contended that once appointed, members could only be removed for cause and were otherwise entitled to serve for life. The Judge noted this interpretation would elevate unelected ARC members above the elected Board and abrogate community control.

6. Greg Robert Wingert testified that the Board removed the non-Board ARC members due to concerns about the “manner in which questioning was done in a public forum.” The Board’s intent was not to eliminate the ARC, but to continue the review process while making it more civil, fair, consistent, and transparent.

7. The Mariposa Group LLC was the Respondent’s management company. Its employees, such as Ed Ericksen, were responsible for drafting official communications like minutes and letters. These communications used inaccurate words like “suspend” and “dissolve” to describe the Board’s actions regarding the ARC, which Mr. Wingert testified was an “unfortunate and inaccurate” choice of words that did not reflect the Board’s true intent.

8. The November 19, 2018, Resolution clarified that the Board had removed the existing ARC members and appointed itself to act and serve as the ARC, as was its right under CC&R § 3.4. The resolution explicitly stated that the Board members were the current members of the ARC and ratified all prior architectural decisions made by the Board while serving in this capacity, including the approval of the garage on Lot 18.

9. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not, representing the greater weight of evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue.

10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge concluded that the Board acted within its authority when it removed the non-Board ARC members and appointed itself to perform ARC functions, meaning it did not violate CC&R § 7.7 by approving the Wells’ application. The Judge also found no violation of CC&R § 3.2, noting that the CC&Rs do not prohibit Board members from acting as the ARC.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate a comprehensive response based solely on the facts and legal interpretations presented in the source document.

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of the CC&Rs, particularly § 3.4. How does this interpretation address the transfer of power from the “Declarant” to the Board, and how does it counter the Petitioner’s argument for lifetime appointments?

2. Discuss the concept of an “appeal” as outlined in CC&R § 3.2. Evaluate the potential conflict of interest and the issue of futility raised when the Board of Directors also serves as the Architectural Review Committee.

3. Trace the timeline of events surrounding the Wells’ application for a detached garage. How did this specific application serve as the catalyst for the broader conflict between the Petitioner and the Respondent’s Board?

4. Examine the role of communication and language in this dispute. How did the specific wording used by the management company in official documents (e.g., “suspend”) differ from the Board’s stated intent, and how did this discrepancy fuel the conflict?

5. Based on the evidence presented, evaluate the argument that the Board’s actions were a necessary measure to ensure a “civil, fair, consistent, and transparent” architectural review process versus the argument that the Board overstepped its authority as defined by the CC&Rs.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition within the Source Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judicial officer (Diane Mihalsky) from the Office of Administrative Hearings tasked with conducting an evidentiary hearing and rendering a decision on the petition.

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

A committee established to review and approve or deny any improvements, alterations, or other work that alters the exterior appearance of a property. Per the CC&Rs, its decisions are final unless appealed to the Board.

ARC Charter

A document adopted by the Respondent’s Board on March 15, 2016, which provided that the ARC would consist of up to four members appointed by the Board and that the Board vested itself with the sole right to appoint and remove all appointed ARC members at any time.

Board of Directors (Board)

The elected body that conducts the affairs of the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association. The document presumes they are elected by members to specific terms.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing documents for the Whisper Mountain planned community, recorded on September 7, 2016. They outline the rules for property use, the structure of the HOA, and the functions of bodies like the ARC.

Declarant

The original developer who built the planned community, identified as VIP Homes. The Declarant initially held the sole right to appoint and remove ARC members, a right that transferred to the Board after the developer was no longer involved.

Mariposa Group LLC

The management company employed by the Respondent HOA. Its employees, such as Douglas Egan and Ed Ericksen, were responsible for drafting official communications like meeting minutes and approval letters.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate referred the petition for an evidentiary hearing.

Petitioner

N. Wayne Dwight, Jr., a property owner in the Whisper Mountain development and a former member of the ARC. He filed the petition alleging the HOA violated its CC&Rs.

Preponderance of the Evidence

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

Respondent

The Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (“HOA”), the governing body for the development. The Respondent was represented by its Board and legal counsel.

Select all sources

685758.pdf

No emoji found

19F-H1918027-REL

1 source

The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between a homeowner, N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (Petitioner), and the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA’s Board violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by dissolving or suspending the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and subsequently approving an application for a detached garage. The decision details the background, evidence presented at the hearing, and the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) findings and conclusions of law. Ultimately, the ALJ denied the petition, finding that the Board acted within its authority under the governing documents to remove non-Board ARC members and appoint itself to fulfill the ARC’s functions. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the specified CC&Rs.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf; former ARC member; testified on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Troy B. Stratman (attorney)
Stratman Law Firm, PLC
Represented Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
Greg Robert Wingert (board member/witness)
Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
Board President; Chairman of the ARC; testified for Respondent
Pam Cohen (board member)
Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
Seconded motions; identified as 'Pam' in meeting minutes
Ronna (board member)
Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
Made motion to suspend ARC
Gary (board member)
Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
Douglas Egan (property manager)
Mariposa Group LLC
Sent approval letter for garage application
Ed Ericksen (property manager)
Mariposa
Community Manager; sent approval/clarification letters regarding Wells' request

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol (staff)
Transmitted decision

Other Participants

Mark Wells (owner/applicant)
Whisper Mountain development
Submitted application for detached garage (Lot 18)
Connie Wells (owner/applicant)
Whisper Mountain development
Submitted application for detached garage (Lot 18)
Phil Hoyt (owner/member)
Whisper Mountain development (Lot 16)
Andy Horn (owner/member)
Whisper Mountain development (Lot 1)
Jason Komorowski (owner/member)
Whisper Mountain development (Lot 51)
Connie Harrison (neighbor)
Whisper Mountain development
Mentioned regarding Lot 18 variance condition
Don Berry (owner/member)
Whisper Mountain development (Lot 45)

Patricia Wiercinski vs. Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners

Posted on January 22, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918028-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-05-01
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Patricia Wiercinski	Counsel	—
Respondent	Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc.	Counsel	Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied and dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The documents requested (an email string among Board members) were informal communications and were not considered official records of the association because the Board never took formal action on the incident.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Board created or possessed any official documents related to the incident that they failed to produce, as the emails were deemed private, informal communications rather than official records.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to produce association records (un-redacted email string)

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce official documents, specifically an un-redacted email string among Board members concerning an incident where Petitioner's husband allegedly harassed potential property buyers.

Orders: Petition dismissed because the documents sought (un-redacted emails) were informal communications, not official records of the association required to be produced under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: homeowner records request, association records, informal communications, board quorum, records disclosure

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918028-REL Decision – 705044.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-28T10:45:33 (136.8 KB)

19F-H1918028-REL Decision – 684134.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-28T10:45:41 (149.9 KB)

19F-H1918028-REL Decision – 705044.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:17:32 (136.8 KB)

19F-H1918028-REL Decision – 684134.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:17:37 (149.9 KB)

19F-H1918028-REL Decision – 684134.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:27:32 (149.9 KB)

Legal Dispute Briefing: Wiercinski v. Long Meadow Ranch East POA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal dispute between homeowner Patricia Wiercinski and the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc. (the “Respondent” or “HOA”). The case, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, centered on the HOA’s alleged failure to produce official records in violation of Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805. The dispute originated from a June 19, 2017 incident where Wiercinski’s husband, Wayne Coates, allegedly confronted and verbally abused potential buyers of a neighboring property, causing them to withdraw their interest.

The core of the legal challenge involved an email exchange among HOA board members discussing the incident. Wiercinski’s petition, filed on October 18, 2018, demanded access to what she believed were official HOA documents related to this event. The case proceeded through an initial hearing on January 10, 2019, and a subsequent rehearing on April 22, 2019, both overseen by Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.

In both hearings, the Judge ruled decisively in favor of the HOA. The central finding was that the private email communications among board members did not constitute an “official record of the association.” Therefore, the HOA had no statutory obligation to produce them or provide an un-redacted version. The judge upheld the HOA’s decision to redact the names of the potential buyers and their agent, citing credible testimony regarding Mr. Coates’ history of “threatening and bullying neighbors” as a reasonable justification for protecting those individuals from potential harassment. Both of Wiercinski’s petitions were ultimately denied and dismissed.

Case Overview and Parties Involved

The dispute was formally adjudicated within the jurisdiction of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for evidentiary proceedings.

• Case Number: 19F-H1918028-REL

• Initial Hearing Date: January 10, 2019

• Rehearing Date: April 22, 2019

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky

Key Individuals and Entities

Name/Entity

Patricia Wiercinski

Petitioner; homeowner and member of the HOA.

Wayne Coates

Petitioner’s husband; central figure in the June 19, 2017 incident.

Long Meadow Ranch East POA, Inc.

Respondent; the Homeowners’ Association (“HOA”).

Michael “Mike” Olson

President of the Respondent’s Board of Directors.

Gregg Arthur

Director on the Respondent’s Board and a realtor.

Joe Zielinski

Director on the Respondent’s Board.

Kathy Andrews

Community Manager for the Respondent, employed by HOAMCO.

John Allen

HOA member and owner of the lot being sold.

Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq. (Goodman Law Group)

Legal representative for the Respondent.

Diane Mihalsky

Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.

The Core Incident of June 19, 2017

The legal dispute stemmed from an encounter on June 19, 2017, involving Wayne Coates and a family considering the purchase of a vacant lot on Puntenney Rd., located across the street from the Wiercinski/Coates residence.

According to an email from the prospective buyers, Mr. Coates confronted them, their son, and their architect as they were viewing the property.

• Coates’ Alleged Actions: He “came out of his house and was belligerent and cursing at them,” claiming “nothing was for sale around here.” The potential buyer described him as “verbally abusive and extremely confrontational,” making “rude remarks while cussing” and displaying “extreme aggressive behavior.”

• Impact on the Sale: The confrontation directly caused the potential buyers to withdraw their offer. In their correspondence, they stated:

• Broader Concerns: The incident was seen by some as detrimental to the entire community. Board Director Gregg Arthur noted, “Wayne thru his actions appears to have interfered with and destroyed a property sale. We need to meet and take action on this matter as it will have a broad and chilling effect amongst the realtor community (effecting us all) not to mention the property owners.”

The Initial Hearing and Decision (January 2019)

The initial hearing focused on whether the HOA had withheld official records of its deliberations or decisions regarding the June 19, 2017 incident.

Petitioner’s Position

Patricia Wiercinski argued that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce documents. Her key assertions were:

• Because an email about the incident was sent to a quorum of the Board, the matter constituted official business.

• The Board was legally required to make a formal motion and arrive at a documented decision, even if that decision was to take no action.

• She had never received any such documentation, such as minutes from an executive session or an open meeting.

• She pointed to a Board resolution regarding the electronic storage of documents as evidence that such records must exist.

Respondent’s Position

The HOA, represented by Ashley N. Moscarello, denied any violation. Their defense included:

• The email chain was an informal communication among neighbors and Board members on their personal email servers, not an official HOA record.

• No member had ever requested the Board take official action on the matter.

• The email string was provided voluntarily to the Petitioner.

• The names of the potential buyers and their real estate agent were redacted specifically because “Mr. Coates had a history of bullying and intimidating people.”

• The Board never formally discussed the incident, held a meeting, voted, or took any official action.

• The Community Manager, Kathy Andrews, testified that no official records (agendas, resolutions, minutes, etc.) pertaining to the incident existed.

Outcome and Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition. The key conclusions of law were:

• The burden of proof was on the Petitioner to show a violation occurred.

• The simple fact that a quorum of Board members discussed a topic in private emails “does not make it official Board business,” especially when no action is taken.

• Forcing volunteer board members to formally document every informal discussion would be an “unnecessary and burdensome requirement.”

• Because the Petitioner did not establish that any official documents regarding the incident existed, the petition was dismissed.

The Rehearing and Final Decision (May 2019)

Wiercinski requested and was granted a rehearing, alleging “misconduct by the judge.” In this second hearing, she significantly altered her legal argument.

Petitioner’s Evolved Position

Wiercinski abandoned her claim that the Board was required to create a formal record of inaction. Instead, her new theory was:

• The email string itself, having been voluntarily produced by the HOA, must be considered an “official record of the association.”

• As an official record, A.R.S. § 33-1805 required the HOA to produce a complete, un-redacted copy.

• She argued that she and Mr. Coates had a right to know the identities of those who had accused him of belligerence.

Respondent’s Defense

The HOA’s defense remained consistent:

• The redaction of names was a necessary and reasonable measure to protect the individuals from potential harassment by Mr. Coates.

• The incident was a personal dispute between neighbors and did not violate any of the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs, bylaws), placing it outside the Board’s enforcement authority.

• Kathy Andrews again testified that the email was not part of the association’s archived business records, as the Board took no official action.

Final Outcome and Rationale

The Judge once again dismissed the petition. The final ruling reinforced the initial decision and provided further clarity:

• The email string was definitively not a “record of the association.”

• Because it was not an official record, A.R.S. § 33-1805 did not compel the HOA to provide an un-redacted version.

• The Judge explicitly validated the HOA’s motive for the redactions, stating that the Board President’s fear that “Mr. Coates would harass the real estate agent and potential purchaser… does not appear unreasonable.”

Key Evidence and Testimony

The email communications provided the primary evidentiary basis for the case.

Incriminating Email Content

Several emails from June 20, 2017, highlighted the severity of the incident and concerns about Wayne Coates:

• From Real Estate Agent to Potential Buyer: “He [John Allen] knows this person, Wayne Coates, and said he has been an issue in the neighborhood before. He has contacted Hoamco and is seeking legal [counsel] to stop this menace.”

• From Director Joe Zielinski to the Board: “The YCSO [Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office] may file charges against Wayne for disorderly conduct/harassment… given Wayne’s arrest record and prison term and criminal history. … I don’t believe Wayne (and Patricia’s) aggressive and disruptive behavior will stop.”

• From Director Gregg Arthur to the Board: “I was hoping that this would not be a situation we would have to encounter with Wayne Coates and Patricia however here it is on our door step.”

Definition of “Official Records”

Testimony from Community Manager Kathy Andrews was crucial in establishing the distinction between official and unofficial communications. She defined official records as including:

• Governing documents and architectural guidelines.

• Board and general meeting minutes.

• Expenditures, receipts, contracts, and financials.

• Anything submitted to the Board for official action.

She confirmed that because the Board took no action on the June 19, 2017 incident, the related emails were not included in Respondent’s archived records.

Wiercinski v. Long Meadow Ranch East POA: A Case Study

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative case of Patricia Wiercinski versus the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc. The case revolves around a homeowner’s request for association records and the legal definition of what constitutes an official document that a homeowners’ association is required to produce under Arizona law. The material is drawn from two Administrative Law Judge Decisions, dated January 22, 2019, and May 1, 2019.

Key Parties and Individuals

Role / Title

Affiliation

Patricia Wiercinski

Petitioner

Homeowner, Member of Respondent

Wayne Coates

Petitioner’s Husband

Homeowner

Long Meadow Ranch East POA, Inc.

Respondent

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

Diane Mihalsky

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

Office of Administrative Hearings

Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq.

Legal Counsel for Respondent

Goodman Law Group

Michael “Mike” Olson

President of the Board

Respondent (HOA)

Gregg Arthur

Director on the Board

Respondent (HOA)

Kathy Andrews

Community Manager

HOAMCO (Respondent’s management company)

John Allen

Property Owner / HOA Member

Long Meadow Ranch East

Joe Zielinski

Director on the Board

Respondent (HOA)

Jim Robertson

Director on the Board

Respondent (HOA)

Tom Reid

Director on the Board

Respondent (HOA)

Boris Biloskirka

Former Board Member

Respondent (HOA)

Timeline of Key Events

June 19, 2017

An incident occurs where Wayne Coates allegedly acts belligerently toward potential buyers of John Allen’s property.

June 20, 2017

An email exchange regarding the incident occurs between John Allen, his realtor, and members of the HOA Board.

October 18, 2018

Patricia Wiercinski files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.

January 10, 2019

The initial evidentiary hearing is held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.

January 22, 2019

The ALJ issues a decision denying Wiercinski’s petition.

Post-Jan 22, 2019

Wiercinski requests a rehearing, alleging misconduct by the judge. The request is granted.

April 22, 2019

The rehearing is held.

May 1, 2019

The ALJ issues a final decision, again dismissing Wiercinski’s petition.

The Core Dispute: The June 19, 2017 Incident

On June 19, 2017, potential buyers, along with their builder, architect, and son, were viewing a lot for sale owned by John Allen on Puntenney Rd. The lot was across the street from the home of Patricia Wiercinski and Wayne Coates. An elderly man, later identified as Wayne Coates, came out of the house and was allegedly “belligerent and cursing” at the group, telling them nothing was for sale and they should not be snooping around. The potential buyers described the individual as “verbally abusive and extremely confrontational,” displaying “extreme aggressive behavior.” As a result of this encounter, the potential buyers decided to remove the lot from their list of considerations, stating they were seeking a “quiet, peaceful, and neighborly place to retire. Not a place with hostility and confrontation.”

This incident prompted John Allen to contact his realtor and members of the HOA Board, seeking action to prevent such behavior from interfering with future property sales.

The Legal Proceedings

Petitioner’s Argument: Patricia Wiercinski alleged that the HOA (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce documents related to its deliberations, decisions, and actions regarding the June 19, 2017 incident. Her core arguments were:

• The email about the incident was sent to a quorum of the Board, making it official business.

• The Board was required to make a formal motion and decision, even if it decided to take no action against her husband.

• She never received documents showing the Board addressed the incident in an executive session or open meeting.

• She did not receive a map referenced in one of the emails or a letter mentioned by board member Joe Zielninski in a video.

• An HOA resolution to electronically store all association business documents meant the requested records must exist.

Respondent’s Argument: The HOA denied violating any statute. Its defense was based on the following points:

• The Board never took any official action against Wiercinski or Coates as a result of the incident.

• The email string was an informal communication among Board Directors on their personal servers and was not kept as an official record. It was provided to Wiercinski voluntarily.

• The names of the potential purchasers and real estate agent were redacted from the emails because Wayne Coates has a known history of “threatening and bullying neighbors and others.”

• No official discussion or vote on the incident ever occurred in an executive session or general meeting.

ALJ’s Decision (January 22, 2019): The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition. The decision concluded that Wiercinski did not meet her burden of proof to establish that any official documents regarding the incident existed that the Respondent failed to produce. The judge reasoned that the mere fact a quorum of Board members informally discusses a topic in private emails does not make it official Board business, especially when no action is taken.

Reason for Rehearing: Wiercinski requested a rehearing, alleging misconduct by the judge. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the request without noting any specific misconduct or stating why it should have changed the result.

Petitioner’s Changed Argument: At the rehearing, Wiercinski changed her theory of the case. She no longer argued that the Board failed to produce a record of a formal decision. Instead, she argued that:

• The email string itself was an official record of the association’s business.

• A.R.S. § 33-1805 therefore required the HOA to produce a fully un-redacted copy of the emails.

• She and Mr. Coates had a right to know the names of the individuals accusing Mr. Coates of belligerence.

Respondent’s Rebuttal: The HOA maintained its position:

• The email string was not an official record because the Board never took any action on the matter. The incident did not violate any of the HOA’s CC&Rs, bylaws, or anything else it was empowered to enforce.

• Community Manager Kathy Andrews testified that official records include governing documents, minutes, and items submitted to the Board for action. Since the Board took no action, the email was not included in the association’s archived records.

• The names were redacted because of Mr. Coates’s history of intimidation, and the Board president feared he would harass the individuals involved.

ALJ’s Final Decision (May 1, 2019): The petition was dismissed again. The ALJ reaffirmed that the email string was not a “record of the association.” Therefore, A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) did not require the Respondent to provide an un-redacted version to the Petitioner. The judge also noted that the fear of harassment by Mr. Coates, which prompted the redactions, “does not appear unreasonable.”

——————————————————————————–

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

1. What specific event on June 19, 2017, initiated the legal dispute?

2. What Arizona statute did Patricia Wiercinski claim the HOA violated, and what does that statute generally require?

3. Why did the HOA state it redacted names from the email chain it provided to Wiercinski?

4. In the initial hearing, what did Wiercinski argue the HOA Board was required to do even if it decided to take no action on the incident?

5. How did Wiercinski’s primary legal argument change between the first hearing and the rehearing?

6. Who is Kathy Andrews, and what was her testimony regarding the HOA’s official records?

7. Did the HOA Board ever hold a formal meeting or take an official vote regarding the incident involving Wayne Coates?

8. According to the ALJ, does an informal email discussion among a quorum of board members automatically constitute “official Board business”?

9. What was the final ruling in the case after the rehearing?

10. What reason did HOA President Mike Olson give for the Board not taking official action on the June 19, 2017 incident?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The event was an alleged confrontation where Wayne Coates was belligerent and verbally abusive toward potential buyers who were viewing a property for sale across the street from his home. This encounter caused the buyers to lose interest in the property.

2. Wiercinski claimed the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. This statute requires that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association be made reasonably available for examination by any member.

3. The HOA stated it redacted the names of the potential purchasers and their real estate agent due to Wayne Coates’s history of “threatening and bullying neighbors and others.” Board President Mike Olson testified he feared Mr. Coates would harass the individuals if their identities were revealed.

4. In the initial hearing, Wiercinski argued that the Board was required to make a formal motion and arrive at a formal, documented decision even if it decided it was not going to take any action against her husband.

5. In the rehearing, Wiercinski’s argument shifted from claiming the HOA failed to produce a record of a decision to arguing the email string itself was an official record. She then demanded that the HOA provide a fully un-redacted version of this email string.

6. Kathy Andrews is the community manager for the HOA, employed by the management company Hoamco. She testified that the association’s official records include items like governing documents, meeting minutes, and anything submitted to the Board for action, and that the email was not an official record because the Board took no action.

7. No. Testimony from multiple witnesses, including Mike Olson and Gregg Arthur, confirmed that the Board never discussed the incident at an executive meeting or general membership meeting and never voted or took any official action as a result of the incident.

8. No. The ALJ’s decision states that the mere fact a quorum of Board members discusses a topic does not make it official Board business, especially if they do not take any action to make it so.

9. The final ruling was that the Petitioner’s petition was dismissed. The ALJ found that the email string was not an official record of the association, so the HOA was not required by law to provide an un-redacted version.

10. Mike Olson testified that the Board never voted to take any action because the alleged incident did not violate the Respondent’s CC&Rs, bylaws, or anything else that the HOA was authorized or empowered to enforce.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge between informal discussions among board members and “official Board business.” How did this distinction shape the outcome of both hearings?

2. Discuss the evolution of Patricia Wiercinski’s legal strategy from the initial hearing to the rehearing. Was the change in argument effective, and why or why not?

3. Examine the roles of A.R.S. § 33-1805 and A.R.S. § 33-1804 in this case. Explain how the Petitioner and Respondent interpreted these statutes differently and how the Administrative Law Judge ultimately applied them.

4. Based on the testimony of Mike Olson and Kathy Andrews, describe the HOA’s official position on record-keeping and its justification for not treating the email string as an official document.

5. Evaluate the Respondent’s decision to redact the names of non-members from the email string. What reasons were given for this action, and how did the Administrative Law Judge view this justification in the final ruling?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary

• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): The impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and makes legal decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Diane Mihalsky.

• A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): An Arizona Revised Statute cited in the case which provides that “all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member.”

• A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4): An Arizona Revised Statute cited in the case which provides that any quorum of the board of directors that meets informally to discuss association business must comply with open meeting and notice provisions.

• Homeowners’ Association (HOA): An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium building that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. In this case, the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc.

• Petitioner: The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Patricia Wiercinski.

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

• Quorum: The minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly (such as a board of directors) necessary to conduct the business of that group. The petitioner argued that because a quorum of the board was included on the emails, the discussion constituted official business.

• Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc.

4 Shocking Lessons from an HOA Lawsuit About a “Nightmare Neighbor”

Introduction: Behind the Closed Doors of the HOA Board

Many people live in communities governed by a Homeowners’ Association (HOA), navigating the rules and paying the dues as part of modern suburban life. But what happens when a serious dispute between neighbors erupts? What if one resident’s behavior is so aggressive that it costs another the sale of their property? A real-life administrative law case from Prescott, Arizona, provides a rare and fascinating look into the messy reality of HOA governance. The lawsuit, filed by a homeowner against her HOA for allegedly withholding records, reveals surprising truths about what constitutes “official business” and the real-world limits of an HOA’s power.

——————————————————————————–

1. Not All HOA Talk is “Official Business”—Even When the Whole Board Is In on It.

The case centered on a dramatic incident. A homeowner’s husband, Wayne Coates, was accused of being “belligerent and cursing” at potential buyers viewing a lot across the street, causing them to back out of the sale. The distressed property seller, John Allen, emailed an HOA board member, Gregg Arthur, who then forwarded the complaint to the entire board. The petitioner, Mr. Coates’ wife, argued that this email chain was an official HOA record.

Her argument rested on a profound misunderstanding of board governance that many residents likely share: she claimed the board was legally required to make a motion and arrive at a formal decision even if it decided to do nothing. The administrative law judge firmly rejected this idea. The emails were deemed informal, private communications, not official records.

The judge clarified that “official business” is triggered when a board moves toward a formal decision or action that would bind the association, such as spending funds, issuing a violation, or changing a rule. These emails were purely informational and investigatory, never reaching that threshold. This distinction is a cornerstone of volunteer board governance, as it protects boards from being paralyzed by procedure. The judge’s decision powerfully refutes the notion that boards must formally document every issue they choose not to pursue:

the mere fact that a quorum of Board members may discuss a topic does not make it official Board business, especially if they do not end up taking any action to make a matter board business. Any other result would impose an unnecessary and burdensome requirement on volunteers who are not compensated for their time who are may be neighbors and who may also be friends, in addition to being Board members.

2. A Neighbor’s Behavior Can Kill a Property Sale, and Your HOA Might Be Powerless.

The impact of Mr. Coates’ alleged actions was immediate and severe. The potential buyers, seeking a peaceful retirement, were so shaken by the confrontation that they explicitly withdrew their interest in the property.

An email from the potential buyer, submitted as evidence, vividly illustrates the direct financial consequence of the neighbor’s behavior:

In closing when we returned one thing that stands out is would we want to live next to this type of behavior of [a] neighbor? The answer is no, this lot was one that we had in our top 2 Lots as a consideration for purchase but due to the volatile potential of this man, we have decided at this point to remove it from our list.

Despite the clear harm to a member, the HOA concluded it could not intervene. According to testimony, Community Manager Kathy Andrews explained that the HOA had “no authority to become involved in a personal dispute between neighbors.” Further, Board President Mike Olson testified that the incident did not violate any specific CC&Rs or bylaws the board was empowered to enforce. This highlights a counter-intuitive reality for many homeowners: not all bad neighbor behavior falls under an HOA’s jurisdiction, even when it negatively affects property sales. However, while the HOA was powerless, the situation was not a dead end for the seller, who court records show did eventually sell his lot to someone else.

3. Transparency Has Limits, Especially When a Resident Is Seen as a Threat.

The petitioner demanded an un-redacted copy of the emails, wanting to know exactly who was accusing her husband. The HOA refused, redacting the names of the potential buyers and their real estate agent.

The reason, according to sworn testimony from HOA President Mike Olson, was that Mr. Coates had a “history of threatening and bullying neighbors and others.” This case highlights the inherent tension between a member’s right to information and the board’s fiduciary duty to protect individuals from harm. While members have a right to access official records, that right is not absolute.

The judge validated the board’s exercise of its duty of care, finding its rationale for the redactions to be sound. In a moment of legal irony, the judge noted that the board’s fear was reasonable, “especially given Mr. Coates’ role in causing Petitioner to prosecute this petition at the original hearing and rehearing.” In effect, the petitioner’s own aggressive pursuit of the case in court helped to legally justify the board’s initial decision to protect identities from her husband.

4. Suing Your HOA Can Put Your Own Dirty Laundry on Display.

Perhaps the greatest irony of the lawsuit is what it ultimately accomplished. In her quest to obtain what she believed were improperly withheld documents, the petitioner’s legal action placed deeply unflattering information about her husband directly into the public record for anyone to see.

Emails submitted as evidence contained damaging statements, including an email from board member Joe Zielinski that is now a permanent part of the court file. It contained severe allegations that went far beyond the initial incident.

The YCSO [Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office] may file charges against Wayne for disorderly conduct/harassment, based on what happened to Mr. Allan and the others in attendance, given Wayne’s arrest record and prison term and criminal history. . . . I don’t believe Wayne (and Patricia’s) aggressive and disruptive behavior will stop.

This serves as a powerful “be careful what you wish for” lesson in HOA litigation. The lawsuit, intended to hold the HOA accountable, permanently enshrined the allegations about her husband’s “arrest record and prison term” in the public court record—the very opposite of the privacy and vindication the petitioner was likely seeking.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: The Fine Line Between Community and Controversy

This case peels back the curtain on the complex world of volunteer-run HOAs. It demonstrates that the line between an informal discussion among neighbors and official, actionable HOA business is finer and more consequential than most residents assume. It shows that an HOA’s power has clear limits and that a board’s duty to protect individuals can sometimes override demands for total transparency. It makes you wonder: when you see a problem in your neighborhood, is it truly the HOA’s business to solve, or is it a personal dispute between neighbors?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Patricia Wiercinski (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf
Wayne Coates (petitioner's husband)
Central figure in the June 19, 2017 incident

Respondent Side

Ashley N. Moscarello (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Represented Respondent
Michael Olson (board president, witness)
President of Respondent's board; testified at hearing and rehearing
Gregg Arthur (board director, witness)
Director on Respondent's board; testified at hearing
Kathy Andrews (property manager, witness)
HOAMCO
Respondent's community manager; employed by HOAMCO; testified at hearing and rehearing
John Allen (member/complainant)
Owner trying to sell property across the street from Petitioner; member of Respondent
Jim Robertson (board director)
Director on Respondent's board
Joe Zielinski (board director, witness)
Director on Respondent's board; mentioned conversation with YCSO deputy
Tom Reid (board director)
Director on Respondent's board
Boris Biloskirka (former board member)
Recipient of emails; identified as a former Board member
Josh (compliance officer)
Referenced in emails regarding compliance inspections

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Administrative Law Judge
Shelia Polk (head prosecutor)
Head of the office Joe Zielinski sought to contact regarding Wayne Coates
YCSO’s deputy (deputy)
Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office
Conversed with Joe Zielinski regarding the incident
Judy Lowe (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
Transmitted decision electronically

Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla vs. Village of Oakcreek Association

Posted on January 9, 2019 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	18F-H1817018-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-01-09
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge denied the entire petition. Although the Respondent used a faulty ballot (Issue 2), the Petitioner waived the right to object by failing to raise a complaint prior to the vote. Petitioner also failed to prove his claims for issues 1 and 3.
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla	Counsel	—
Respondent	Village of Oakcreek Association	Counsel	Mark K. Sahl

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
By-Laws Section 8, Article VIII

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the entire petition. Although the Respondent used a faulty ballot (Issue 2), the Petitioner waived the right to object by failing to raise a complaint prior to the vote. Petitioner also failed to prove his claims for issues 1 and 3.

Why this result: Petitioner waived the right to object to the ballot defect (Issue 2) by allowing the vote to proceed without objection, and failed to prove the claims for Issues 1 and 3.

Key Issues & Findings

Vote count required to amend declaration

Petitioner requested an order declaring the amendment invalid due to insufficient vote count.

Orders: Claim failed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Absence of separate voting opportunity for proposed actions

Petitioner sought an order declaring the amendment invalid because the ballot improperly required a single vote on two separate actions.

Orders: Claim denied on rehearing. Petition denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297
Allen v. State, 14 Ariz. 458, 130 P. 1114

Unauthorized fines in excess of $50

Petitioner requested an order that the Association cannot levy fines in excess of $50 per violation.

Orders: Claim failed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA elections, absentee ballots, waiver doctrine, amendment procedure, fines

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2)
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297
Allen v. State, 14 Ariz. 458, 130 P. 1114

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

18F-H1817018-REL-RHG Decision – 673729.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:22:28 (40.8 KB)

18F-H1817018-REL-RHG Decision – 673828.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:22:31 (48.5 KB)

18F-H1817018-REL-RHG Decision – 680738.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:22:34 (103.5 KB)

Briefing Document: Servilla v. Village of Oakcreek Association (Case No. 18F-H1817018-REL-RHG)

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Scott S. Servilla versus the Village of Oakcreek Association. The final order, issued on January 9, 2019, following a rehearing, denied the petitioner’s claims. The central issue revolved around a homeowners association vote held on November 10, 2016, where two distinct amendments—one concerning property leasing and another a schedule of fines—were combined into a single item on the ballot.

The petitioner argued this ballot format violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1812(A), which requires a separate opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action. However, the ALJ’s decision did not rule on the merits of this statutory violation. Instead, the petition was denied based on the legal doctrine of waiver. The ALJ concluded that the petitioner, having received the allegedly defective ballot more than a month before the vote, had forfeited his right to challenge the procedure by failing to raise any objection until after the vote was completed and the unfavorable outcome was known. The decision heavily relies on the precedent set by the Arizona Supreme Court in Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, which established that a party cannot knowingly allow a flawed election to proceed and then protest only after receiving an undesirable result. The ALJ’s decision is binding, with any appeal required to be filed in superior court.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

This matter was a dispute brought before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings between a homeowner and a homeowners association regarding the validity of an amendment to the association’s governing documents.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

18F-H1817018-REL-RHG

Petitioner

Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla

Respondent

Village of Oakcreek Association

Administrative Law Judge

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Hearing Date

November 29, 2018

Record Held Open Until

December 20, 2018

Decision Issued

January 9, 2019

II. Procedural History

1. Initial Petition: On or about November 13, 2017, Scott S. Servilla filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate against the Village of Oakcreek Association, an HOA with 2436 homeowners.

2. Expansion of Claims: The petitioner initially filed a single-issue petition with a $500 fee but was ordered by the ALJ to either specify the single issue or pay for a multi-issue hearing. The petitioner paid an additional $1,000 and proceeded with three distinct claims.

3. First ALJ Decision: Following an initial hearing, the ALJ found that the petitioner failed to prove two of his three claims. On the second claim—the improper ballot format—the judge found a statutory violation had occurred but concluded that “because the statute did not provide an enforcement mechanism to the Administrative Law Judge, no remedy could be ordered.”

4. Request for Rehearing: The petitioner filed a Request for Reconsideration, arguing that the conclusion of “no remedy” was contrary to law.

5. Rehearing Granted: On or about September 21, 2018, the Commissioner for the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted the request for a rehearing, which was held on November 29, 2018.

III. The Central Dispute: The November 10, 2016 Vote

The core of the dispute was the validity of a vote taken during a Special Meeting of Members on November 10, 2016.

• Bundled Amendments: The vote’s stated purpose was to approve the “Leasing and Schedule of Fines Assessment.” This single proposal combined two separate and substantive changes to the Master Declaration:

1. Addition of Section 4.23: Leasing of Lots and Units; Restrictions and Limitations, which established a minimum lease term of 30 days and prohibited leasing less than an entire unit.

2. Replacement of Section 5.08: Schedule of Fines, which permitted the association’s committee to adopt a new schedule specifying fines for violations.

• Ballot Format: The absentee ballot provided members with only a single voting choice: “FOR THE LEASING AND SCHEDULE OF FINES AMENDMENT” or “AGAINST THE LEASING AND SCHEDULE OF FINES AMENDMENT.”

• Statutory Violation Alleged: The petitioner contended this format violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A), which requires that a ballot “shall set forth each proposed action” and “shall provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.”

• Vote Outcome: A total of 1,067 ballots were received (approximately 44% of members). Of those, 564 voted in favor of the amendment, constituting approximately 53% of the votes cast.

IV. Key Arguments at Rehearing

• Statutory Violation: The ballot was legally defective because it combined two distinct proposed actions into one vote, denying members the right to vote on each separately as required by statute.

• Evidence of Dissent: The petitioner argued that a subsequent vote in April 2017, in which members rejected a proposal to eliminate the By-Laws’ $50 fine limit, demonstrated that “had the proposed amendment been broken into two parts, the part of the proposed amendment dealing with the fines most likely would have failed.”

• Requested Remedy: The petitioner argued that based on case law, the ALJ was authorized to declare the entire amendment void and unenforceable.

• Waiver of Objection: The respondent’s primary argument was that the petitioner had waived any right to object to the ballot format. The petitioner received the absentee ballot on or about October 4, 2016, but did not raise an objection until April 2017, long after the November 10, 2016 vote was completed.

• Lack of Enforcement Provision: The respondent also maintained its earlier position that even if a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(2) occurred, the statute itself provides no enforcement mechanism or remedy.

V. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s final decision denied the petitioner’s petition in its entirety, based solely on the legal principle of waiver.

The ALJ found that the petitioner’s failure to object to the ballot’s format in a timely manner was fatal to his claim.

• Awareness of Defect: The petitioner received the absentee ballot on October 4, 2016, over a month before the November 10, 2016 vote. This provided sufficient time to identify the procedural issue and raise an objection.

• Failure to Act: By not objecting before the vote, the petitioner allowed the flawed process to proceed. He only lodged a complaint after the results were not in his favor.

• Forfeiture of Rights: The ALJ concluded, “As Petitioner was or should have been aware of the alleged issues with the ballot, he waived his right to bring forth a complaint about the ballot when he allowed the vote to proceed on November 10, 2016.”

The decision rested on the Arizona Supreme Court case Zajac v. City of Casa Grande (2004), which itself relied on Allen v. State (1913). This precedent establishes that a party cannot remain silent about a known procedural defect in an election process and then challenge the process only after an unfavorable outcome.

• Key Principle: The ALJ articulated the principle from Zajac: “one cannot knowingly let a defective vote proceed only to complain and seek redress if the results are not to the individual’s liking.”

• Direct Quotation: The decision directly quotes the ruling in Zajac to finalize its point: “He cannot have it both ways; that is, he cannot allow the [vote] to proceed without objection, and then be permitted thereafter to assert his protest.”

• Petition Denied: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.”

• Binding Decision: As the decision was issued as a result of a rehearing, it is legally binding on the parties.

• Appeal Process: Any party wishing to appeal the order must file for judicial review with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served (January 9, 2019).

Study Guide: Servilla v. Village of Oakcreek Association (Case No. 18F-H1817018-REL-RHG)

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case involving Petitioner Scott Servilla and Respondent Village of Oakcreek Association, as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decision of January 9, 2019. It includes a short-answer quiz to test factual recall, a corresponding answer key, suggested essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

——————————————————————————–

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 sentences each, based entirely on the information provided in the source documents.

1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what roles did they play?

2. What were the two distinct proposed changes that were combined into a single voting item on the November 10, 2016 absentee ballot?

3. Which specific Arizona Revised Statute did the Petitioner allege was violated by the format of the ballot, and what does that statute require?

4. What was the numerical outcome of the November 10, 2016 vote on the proposed amendment?

5. What was the Respondent’s primary legal argument for why the Petitioner’s complaint about the faulty ballot should be dismissed?

6. What key legal precedent, specifically the case of Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rely upon in the final decision?

7. According to the decision, when did the Petitioner receive the ballot, and why was this date critical to the ALJ’s final ruling?

8. What was the finding in the initial Administrative Law Judge Decision regarding the ballot issue, and why did it lead to a request for a rehearing?

9. Describe the separate vote that occurred in April 2017 and explain how the Petitioner used it to support his argument regarding the 2016 vote.

10. What was the final order issued by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer on January 9, 2019, and what was the legal basis for this order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Scott S. Servilla (who appeared on his own behalf), and the Respondent, the Village of Oakcreek Association (a homeowners association represented by Mark Sahl). The Petitioner filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

2. The two proposed changes were the addition of a new section, 4.23, concerning “Leasing of Lots and Units; Restrictions and Limitations,” and the complete replacement of an existing section, 5.08, titled “Schedule of Fines.” The ballot presented these as a single item called the “LEASING AND SCHEDULE OF FINES AMENDMENT.”

3. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(2) and A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2). The statute requires that an absentee ballot “shall set forth each proposed action” and “shall provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.”

4. A total of 1067 ballots were received, representing approximately 44 percent of the members. Of those who voted, 564 (approximately 53 percent) voted in favor of the proposed amendment.

5. The Respondent’s primary argument was that the Petitioner had waived any right to object to the ballot’s format. The Respondent contended that the Petitioner should have raised his objection before the vote occurred, rather than waiting until after the results were known.

6. The ALJ relied on the precedent set in Zajac v. City of Casa Grande. This Arizona Supreme Court case established the principle that an individual aware of a procedural issue with an election cannot wait to see the results before lodging a complaint.

7. The Petitioner acknowledged receiving the absentee ballot on or about October 4, 2016, more than a month before the November 10, 2016 vote. This date was critical because it demonstrated that the Petitioner had ample time to object to the ballot’s format before the vote took place, supporting the ALJ’s waiver finding.

8. In the initial decision, the ALJ found that a violation of the statute had occurred regarding the ballot but concluded that no remedy could be ordered because the statute lacked an enforcement mechanism. The Petitioner requested a rehearing, alleging that this conclusion was contrary to the law and that the ALJ did have the authority to declare the amendment void.

9. In April 2017, a separate proposed amendment to eliminate the By-Laws’ $50 fine limitation was voted down by the members. The Petitioner argued this subsequent vote demonstrated that the fines portion of the November 2016 amendment would likely have failed if members had been given a separate opportunity to vote on it.

10. The final order, issued January 9, 2019, denied the Petitioner’s petition. The legal basis was the doctrine of waiver; the ALJ ruled that because the Petitioner was aware of the alleged issues with the ballot before the vote and failed to object, he waived his right to complain about it after the results were announced.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive essay responses based on the details and legal reasoning presented in the source documents.

1. Explain the legal doctrine of waiver as applied in this case. How did the timeline of events, from the receipt of the ballot to the filing of the petition, support the Administrative Law Judge’s application of the principles from Zajac v. City of Casa Grande?

2. Analyze the conflicting interpretations of “proposed action” under A.R.S. § 33-1812(A) as presented by the Petitioner and the Respondent. Although the Judge ultimately ruled on procedural grounds, which party’s interpretation of the statute appears more consistent with the law’s text and intent?

3. Discuss the procedural history of this case, from the initial filing with the Arizona Department of Real Estate through the first decision, the request for reconsideration, and the final ruling on rehearing. What does this progression reveal about the administrative hearing process and the remedies available to petitioners?

4. The Petitioner attempted to use the results of an April 2017 vote to argue that the fines portion of the November 2016 amendment would likely have failed if voted on separately. Evaluate the strength and relevance of this argument within the legal context of the case.

5. Imagine the Petitioner had raised his objection to the ballot format before the November 10, 2016 vote. Based on the information in the decision, how might the proceedings and the ultimate outcome have been different?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The collection of laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature. The Petitioner alleged violations of A.R.S. § 33-1817 and § 33-1812.

Absentee Ballot

A ballot that allows a member to vote without being physically present at a meeting. The format of this ballot was the central issue of the rehearing.

By-Laws

The rules that govern the internal operations of an association. The Petitioner cited a violation of By-Laws Section 8, Article VIII concerning a $50 fine limit.

Department (The Department)

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency where the Petitioner first filed his petition against the homeowners association.

Master Declaration

A core governing document for a homeowners association that establishes rules, restrictions, and obligations for homeowners. The November 10, 2016 vote was to amend this document.

A formal, binding decision issued by a judge. The final document in this case was an order denying the Petitioner’s petition.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Scott Servilla & Heidi H. Servilla.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It means the evidence presented is more convincing and likely to be true than the evidence offered in opposition.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case granted to reconsider the initial decision. A rehearing was granted after the Petitioner argued that the initial finding of “no remedy” was contrary to law.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Village of Oakcreek Association.

Waiver

A legal doctrine where a party intentionally or through inaction gives up a known right or claim. The ALJ ruled the Petitioner waived his right to object to the ballot by not raising the issue before the vote.

Zajac v. City of Casa Grande

An Arizona Supreme Court case that established a key legal precedent used in this decision. It holds that a party cannot knowingly allow a defective vote to proceed and then complain only if the results are unfavorable.

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “18F-H1817018-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla, vs. Village of Oakcreek Association”,
“decision_date”: “2019-01-09”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Scott Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Also listed as Scott S. Servilla; appeared on his own behalf”
},
{
“name”: “Heidi H Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Mark K. Sahl”,
“role”: “respondent attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP”,
“notes”: “Represented Village of Oakcreek Association”
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “ADRE Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “L. Dettorre”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Name derived from email address [email protected]”
},
{
“name”: “A. Hansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Name derived from email address [email protected]”
},
{
“name”: “D. Jones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Name derived from email address [email protected]”
},
{
“name”: “D. Gardner”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Name derived from email address [email protected]”
},
{
“name”: “N. Cano”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Name derived from email address [email protected]”
},
{
“name”: “c. serrano”,
“role”: “transmission clerk”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Signed document transmission for November 29, 2018 order”
},
{
“name”: “Felicia Del Sol”,
“role”: “transmission clerk”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Signed document transmission for January 9, 2019 order”
}
]
}

{ “case”: { “agency”: “ADRE”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “docket_no”: “18F-H1817018-REL-RHG”, “case_title”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla vs. Village of Oakcreek Association”, “decision_date”: “2019-01-09”, “alj_name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer” }, “parties”: [ { “party_id”: “P1”, “role”: “petitioner”, “name”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla”, “party_type”: “homeowner”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: null, “attorney_firm”: null, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null }, { “party_id”: “R1”, “role”: “respondent”, “name”: “Village of Oakcreek Association”, “party_type”: “HOA”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “Mark K. Sahl”, “attorney_firm”: “CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP”, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null } ], “issues”: [ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “type”: “statute”, “citation”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”, “caption”: “Failure to provide separate voting opportunity for each proposed action in absentee ballot”, “violation(s)”: “Written ballot used did not provide a separate opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action, violating A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2) and the Declaration12.”, “summary”: “Petitioner alleged the November 10, 2016 vote was invalid because the absentee ballot combined two distinct proposed amendments (Leasing restrictions and Schedule of Fines) into a single vote, contravening the requirement that ballots set forth and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action1….”, “outcome”: “respondent_win”, “filing_fee_paid”: 500.0, “filing_fee_refunded”: false, “civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0, “orders_summary”: “Claim failed because Petitioner waived the right to object to the faulty ballot by allowing the vote to proceed without objection45.”, “why_the_loss”: “Petitioner was aware of the alleged issue with the ballot prior to the November 10, 2016 vote but failed to raise an objection, thus waiving the right to complain thereafter46.”, “cited”: [ “Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297” ] } ], “money_summary”: { “issues_count”: 3, “total_filing_fees_paid”: 1500.0, “total_filing_fees_refunded”: 0.0, “total_civil_penalties”: 0.0 }, “outcomes”: { “petitioner_is_hoa”: false, “petitioner_win”: “loss”, “summarize_judgement”: “The Administrative Law Judge denied the entire petition, finding that the Petitioner waived the right to challenge the outcome of the November 10, 2016 vote concerning the faulty ballot (Issue 2) because he failed to object before the vote proceeded. Petitioner also failed to prove his claims regarding the required vote count (Issue 1) and unauthorized fines (Issue 3)4….”, “why_the_loss”: “Petitioner waived the right to object to the ballot defect (Issue 2) by allowing the vote to proceed without objection after receiving the ballot, and failed to prove the claims for issues 1 and 34….” }, “analytics”: { “cited”: [ “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2)”, “A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”, “Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297”, “Allen v. State, 14 Ariz. 458, 130 P. 1114” ], “tags”: [ “HOA elections”, “absentee ballots”, “waiver doctrine”, “amendment procedure”, “fines” ] } }

{ “rehearing”: { “is_rehearing”: true, “base_case_id”: “18F-H1817018-REL”, “original_decision_status”: “affirmed”, “original_decision_summary”: “In the original decision, the Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner failed to prove claims regarding issues one and three1. For issue two (faulty ballot), the ALJ established a statutory violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2), but concluded that no remedy could be ordered because the statute did not provide an enforcement mechanism1.”, “rehearing_decision_summary”: “The Commissioner granted the rehearing to address the legal conclusion that no remedy could be ordered for the violation found in Issue 22. Following the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the entire petition3, concluding that Petitioner waived the right to complain about the faulty ballot because he was aware of the alleged issues but allowed the November 10, 2016 vote to proceed without objection4….”, “issues_challenged”: [ { “issue_number”: 2, “description”: “Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2) because the written ballot used did not provide a separate opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action7.”, “challenge”: “Petitioner challenged the original conclusion that no remedy could be ordered, alleging this was contrary to the law and arguing that the Administrative Law Judge was authorized to declare the amendment void and unenforceable28.”, “rehearing_outcome”: “Denied/Failed. The claim failed because the ALJ ruled that Petitioner waived his right to bring forth a complaint about the ballot by allowing the vote to proceed without objection36.” } ] } }

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “18F-H1817018-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla, Petitioner, vs. Village of Oakcreek Association, Respondent.”,
“decision_date”: “January 9, 2019”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Scott Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Also referred to as Scott S. Servilla”
},
{
“name”: “Heidi H Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Mark K. Sahl”,
“role”: “attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “c. serrano”,
“role”: “staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitted documents”
},
{
“name”: “Felicia Del Sol”,
“role”: “staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitted documents”
}
]
}

This document summarizes the administrative law judge decision in the rehearing case of Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla v. Village of Oakcreek Association, Case No. 18F-H1817018-REL-RHG1. This matter was heard by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer on November 29, 2018, with the record held open until December 20, 20181.

Procedural History (Original Decision vs. Rehearing)

Petitioner Scott Servilla filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) against the Village of Oakcreek Association (Respondent) alleging multiple violations of statute and the community’s Master Declaration2,3.

Original Decision: The Administrative Law Judge initially ruled on three issues4. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to prove two claims5. However, the ALJ found that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2) regarding the written ballot, but concluded that because the statute did not provide an enforcement mechanism, no remedy could be ordered5.

Rehearing Grant: Following this initial decision, Petitioner filed a Request for Reconsideration, arguing the conclusion that no remedy existed was contrary to law6. The ADRE Commissioner granted the request for rehearing6.

Key Facts and Issue for Rehearing

The central issue during the rehearing concerned the statutory violation found in the original decision: whether the November 10, 2016 vote to amend the Master Declaration was invalid because the absentee ballot failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)4,7.

The Ballot Violation: A.R.S. § 33-1812(A) requires that absentee ballots set forth “each proposed action” and provide an opportunity to vote for or against “each proposed action”7. The Respondent’s proposed amendment bundled two distinct actions: the addition of leasing restrictions and the complete replacement of the Schedule of Fines8,9,10. The ballot only allowed members to vote “FOR” or “AGAINST THE LEASING AND SCHEDULE OF FINES AMENDMENT” as a single package9.

Key Legal Argument and Decision

At the rehearing, the core legal debate shifted from whether a violation occurred to whether the Petitioner was entitled to relief, specifically whether the ALJ could declare the amendment void and unenforceable6,11.

Respondent’s Defense and the Doctrine of Waiver: Respondent argued that Petitioner had waived the right to object because he did not raise any complaint about the defective ballot prior to the vote12. Petitioner received the ballot more than one month before the November 10, 2016 vote13.

ALJ Legal Conclusion: Drawing on Arizona Supreme Court precedent (Zajac v. City of Casa Grande)10,14, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that an individual cannot allow a known defective vote to proceed and only complain afterward if dissatisfied with the results15,16. Because Petitioner failed to raise an objection to the faulty ballot prior to the scheduled vote, he waived his right to bring a subsequent complaint about the ballot16.

Based on the application of the waiver doctrine, the ALJ found that Petitioner’s claim as to the ballot must fail16. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Petitioner’s petition is denied17. This order, resulting from the rehearing, is binding on the parties17.

{
“case”: {
“agency”: “ADRE”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“docket_no”: “18F-H1817018-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla vs. Village of Oakcreek Association”,
“decision_date”: “2019-01-09”,
“alj_name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”
},
“parties”: [
{
“party_id”: “P1”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“name”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla”,
“party_type”: “homeowner”,
“email”: null,
“phone”: null,
“attorney_name”: null,
“attorney_firm”: null,
“attorney_email”: null,
“attorney_phone”: null
},
{
“party_id”: “R1”,
“role”: “respondent”,
“name”: “Village of Oakcreek Association”,
“party_type”: “HOA”,
“email”: null,
“phone”: null,
“attorney_name”: “Mark K. Sahl”,
“attorney_firm”: “CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP”,
“attorney_email”: null,
“attorney_phone”: null
}
],
“issues”: [
{
“issue_id”: “ISS-001”,
“type”: “statute”,
“citation”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”,
“caption”: “Vote count required to amend declaration”,
“violation(s)”: “Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) and Declaration regarding the required majority vote (1173 votes) for the November 10, 2016 amendment.”,
“summary”: “Petitioner requested an order declaring the amendment invalid due to insufficient vote count.”,
“outcome”: “respondent_win”,
“filing_fee_paid”: 500.0,
“filing_fee_refunded”: false,
“civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0,
“orders_summary”: “Claim failed.”,
“why_the_loss”: “Petitioner failed to prove the claim.”,
“cited”: []
},
{
“issue_id”: “ISS-002”,
“type”: “statute”,
“citation”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”,
“caption”: “Absence of separate voting opportunity for proposed actions”,
“violation(s)”: “The written ballot used for the November 10, 2016 amendment violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A) and (B)(2) because it bundled two distinct proposed actions (Leasing Restrictions and Schedule of Fines) into a single vote.”,
“summary”: “Petitioner sought an order declaring the amendment invalid because the ballot improperly required a single vote on two separate actions.”,
“outcome”: “respondent_win”,
“filing_fee_paid”: 500.0,
“filing_fee_refunded”: false,
“civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0,
“orders_summary”: “Claim denied on rehearing. Petition denied.”,
“why_the_loss”: “Petitioner waived the right to object to the faulty ballot by receiving it over a month prior and allowing the vote to proceed on November 10, 2016, without raising a complaint.”,
“cited”: [
“A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”,
“Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297”,
“Allen v. State, 14 Ariz. 458, 130 P. 1114”
]
},
{
“issue_id”: “ISS-003”,
“type”: “governing_document”,
“citation”: “By-Laws Section 8, Article VIII”,
“caption”: “Unauthorized fines in excess of $50”,
“violation(s)”: “Respondent allegedly violated By-Laws by imposing fines in excess of $50 per violation, especially after a proposed amendment to raise the fines was voted down.”,
“summary”: “Petitioner requested an order that the Association cannot levy fines in excess of $50 per violation.”,
“outcome”: “respondent_win”,
“filing_fee_paid”: 500.0,
“filing_fee_refunded”: false,
“civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0,
“orders_summary”: “Claim failed.”,
“why_the_loss”: “Petitioner failed to prove the claim.”,
“cited”: []
}
],
“money_summary”: {
“issues_count”: 3,
“total_filing_fees_paid”: 1500.0,
“total_filing_fees_refunded”: 0.0,
“total_civil_penalties”: 0.0
},
“outcomes”: {
“petitioner_is_hoa”: false,
“petitioner_win”: “loss”,
“summarize_judgement”: “The Administrative Law Judge denied the entire petition. Although the Respondent used a faulty ballot (Issue 2), the Petitioner waived the right to object by failing to raise a complaint prior to the vote. Petitioner also failed to prove his claims for issues 1 and 3.”,
“why_the_loss”: “Petitioner waived the right to object to the ballot defect (Issue 2) by allowing the vote to proceed without objection, and failed to prove the claims for Issues 1 and 3.”,
“cited”: [
“A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”,
“Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297”
]
},
“analytics”: {
“cited”: [
“A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”,
“A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”,
“A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2)”,
“Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297”,
“Allen v. State, 14 Ariz. 458, 130 P. 1114”
],
“tags”: [
“HOA elections”,
“absentee ballots”,
“waiver doctrine”,
“amendment procedure”,
“fines”
]
}
}

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “18F-H1817018-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla, vs. Village of Oakcreek Association”,
“decision_date”: “2019-01-09”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Scott Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Appeared on his own behalf at the hearing; also listed as Scott S. Servilla [1], [2]”
},
{
“name”: “Heidi H Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”,
“notes”: “Administrative Law Judge [3], [4], [1], [2]”
},
{
“name”: “Mark K. Sahl”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP”,
“notes”: “Represented Village of Oakcreek Association [2]”
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Granted the request for rehearing [5]”
},
{
“name”: “c. serrano”,
“role”: “staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitted documents on November 29, 2018 [6], [7]”
},
{
“name”: “Felicia Del Sol”,
“role”: “staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitted documents on January 9, 2019 [8]”
},
{
“name”: “LDettorre”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal [3], [4]”
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal [3], [4]”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal [3], [4]”
},
{
“name”: “DGardner”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal [3], [4]”
},
{
“name”: “ncano”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal [3], [4]”
}
]
}

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Scott Servilla (petitioner)
Also referred to as Scott S. Servilla
Heidi H Servilla (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Mark K. Sahl (attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

c. serrano (staff)
Transmitted documents
Felicia Del Sol (staff)
Transmitted documents

William P Lee vs. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association

Posted on December 27, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918019-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-04-22
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	William P. Lee	Counsel	—
Respondent	Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association	Counsel	Timothy D. Butterfield, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs amendments 1, 2, & 3; Greenlaw Rules and Regulations; A.R.S. §§ 33-1803, 33-1809

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition after rehearing, concluding the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated its CC&Rs, controlling Rules and Regulations (revised July 2018), or relevant statutes (A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 1809) by banning parking on association streets and implementing a booting/towing contract.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the alleged violations of community documents or A.R.S. statutes by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of community documents and statutes regarding parking ban and vehicle booting/towing

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated its CC&Rs amendments 1, 2, and 3, and Rules and Regulations, by banning all parking on association streets and contracting for vehicle booting/towing. Petitioner also contested the validity of the 2018 revised Rules and Regulations due to improper notice and alleged violations of A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 1809.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 33-1809
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Rule Enforcement, Parking Restrictions, CC&Rs, Rules and Regulations, Towing/Booting, Notice Requirement

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 33-1809
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918019-REL Decision – 703187.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:16:51 (110.8 KB)

19F-H1918019-REL Decision – 678471.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:16:56 (118.5 KB)

19F-H1918019-REL Decision – 678471.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:27:00 (118.5 KB)

19F-H1918019-REL Decision – 703187.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:27:03 (110.8 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: William P. Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two

Executive Summary

This document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 19F-H1918019-REL-RHG, where Petitioner William P. Lee’s complaint against the Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association (Greenlaw) was denied. Mr. Lee, a homeowner, alleged that Greenlaw’s complete ban on street parking and its contract with a towing company to enforce the ban violated the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Mr. Lee failed to meet the required burden of proof. The central conclusion was that Greenlaw’s revised Rules and Regulations, effective July 2018, are the controlling authority and explicitly permit a total ban on street parking. The ALJ determined that the specific parking prohibitions detailed in the CC&R amendments—concerning fire lanes, snow removal, and abandoned vehicles—do not preclude the association from enacting a more comprehensive ban via its rules. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Greenlaw had actually taken the alleged enforcement actions (booting or towing) against any member’s vehicle.

Case Overview

Detail

Information

Case Name

William P. Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two

Case Number

19F-H1918019-REL-RHG

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Petitioner

William P. Lee (Homeowner)

Respondent

Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two (Homeowners Association)

Hearing Date

April 1, 2019 (Rehearing)

Decision Date

April 22, 2019

Final Order

Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Presiding ALJ

Velva Moses-Thompson

Petitioner’s Core Allegations and Arguments

William P. Lee’s petition, filed on September 12, 2018, centered on the claim that Greenlaw acted outside its authority by banning all street parking and contracting with a towing company for enforcement. His arguments were:

• Violation of CC&Rs: The total parking ban directly contradicted CC&R Amendments 1, 2, and 3. Mr. Lee contended these amendments established an exhaustive list of permissible parking restrictions, limited to:

◦ Designated fire lanes (Amendment #1).

◦ Periods of snow removal (Amendment #2).

◦ Vehicles in an obvious state of disrepair for over 72 hours (Amendment #3).

• Invalidity of Revised Rules: Mr. Lee argued that the July 2018 revised Rules and Regulations, which contain the parking ban, were not valid or controlling due to improper notification.

◦ He contended that Greenlaw’s Bylaws (Article V, Section 1) required that such notices be delivered personally or by postal mail.

◦ He received notice only via a July 6, 2018 email, which he claimed did not clearly indicate that the rules had been substantively changed.

• Improper Motive: Mr. Lee contended that “the only reason that the Association banned parking was to please Barbara, a board member who did not want anyone to park behind her property.”

Respondent’s Defense

Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two asserted that its actions were proper and within the scope of its authority as an HOA. Its defense included the following points:

• Controlling Authority: Greenlaw maintained that its revised Rules and Regulations, effective July 2018, were the controlling documents governing parking.

• Notice Protocol: The association contended that the Bylaw provision requiring personal or postal mail notice applies only to notices mandated by statute or the CC&Rs. Greenlaw argued there is no such requirement for providing notice of amendments to the Rules and Regulations.

• Sufficient Notice: Greenlaw asserted that Mr. Lee received actual notice of the revised rules via the email sent on July 6, 2018.

Analysis of Key Governing Documents

The case revolved around the interpretation of and interplay between several of Greenlaw’s governing documents.

Document

Key Provision / Content

Relevance to Case

CC&R Amendments 1, 2, & 3

These amendments, added to Article II (Permitted Uses), establish specific, conditional parking prohibitions related to fire lanes, snow removal, and abandoned vehicles.

The petitioner argued these amendments represented the only circumstances under which parking could be banned. The ALJ found they were not an exhaustive list.

Bylaws, Article V, Section 1

“Notices to directors and lot owners shall be in writing and delivered personally or mailed to the directors or lot owners at their addresses appearing on the books of the corporation.”

The petitioner cited this to argue that the email notice for the revised rules was improper, thus invalidating the rules. The ALJ sided with the Respondent’s interpretation.

Rules and Regulations (July 2018), Section 8

“Parking is not allowed on any association street or alleyway at any time… cars parked in violation may be booted and/or towed by a contracted independent towing company.” The rule specifies that the streets (Eva, Heidi, Jeffrey Loops) are private and owned by the HOA.

This document contains the explicit, total parking ban at the heart of the dispute. The ALJ found this rule to be the valid and controlling authority.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The ALJ’s decision was based on a comprehensive review of the evidence and legal standards, ultimately concluding that the petitioner failed to prove his case.

Burden of Proof

The decision established that Mr. Lee bore the burden of proof “to establish that Greenlaw violated amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the CC&Rs, and the Greenlaw Rules and Regulations by a preponderance of the evidence.” A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Key Conclusions of Law

1. Validity of the 2018 Rules: The ALJ concluded that “the weight of the evidence presented at hearing shows that Greenlaw’s Rules and Regulations were revised effective July 2018 and are the controlling Rules and Regulations of Greenlaw.” Mr. Lee failed to establish that any prior version remained in effect.

2. Scope of CC&R Amendments: The decision found that the CC&R amendments only “provide specific scenarios in which parking on the streets is banned.” They do not restrict the association from implementing a broader ban through its Rules and Regulations. Therefore, the total ban did not violate the CC&Rs.

3. No Violation of Rules: Because the July 2018 rules were found to be controlling, and they explicitly authorize a total parking ban, the ALJ concluded that Greenlaw’s decision did not violate its own Rules and Regulations.

4. Insufficient Evidence of Enforcement: A critical failure in the petitioner’s case was the lack of evidence.

◦ The decision notes, “Mr. Lee provided no evidence that Greenlaw booted or towed any of the vehicles belonging to Greenlaw members.”

◦ His testimony about observing a booted jeep was dismissed as insufficient, as he “did not know who owned the jeep, nor who was responsible for booting the jeep.” The Greenlaw manager’s subsequent comment was not found to be an admission of responsibility.

◦ Mr. Lee did not allege that any of his own vehicles had been booted or towed.

5. No Statutory Violation: The judge found that Mr. Lee failed to establish any violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 33-1803 and 33-1809.

Final Order and Implications

Based on these findings, the Administrative Law Judge issued a final, binding order.

• Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”

• Appeal Process: As the order resulted from a rehearing, it is binding on the parties. Any party wishing to appeal must seek judicial review in the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.

Study Guide: Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two (Case No. 19F-H1918019-REL-RHG)

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case between William P. Lee and the Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association. It covers the central conflict, the arguments presented by both parties, the key legal documents involved, and the final decision rendered by the Administrative Law Judge.

Case Overview

This case centers on a dispute between a homeowner, William P. Lee, and his Homeowners Association (HOA), Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two. Mr. Lee filed a petition alleging that the HOA’s decision to ban all parking on association streets and contract with a towing company violated the community’s governing documents. The matter was decided by an Administrative Law Judge following a rehearing on April 1, 2019.

Key Parties and Roles

Party/Role

Name / Entity

Description

Petitioner

William P. Lee

A homeowner in Greenlaw Unit Two and member of the HOA who filed the petition against the association.

Respondent

Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two

The Homeowners Association (HOA) responsible for governing the community, against which the petition was filed.

Legal Counsel

Timothy D. Butterfield, Esq.

Appeared on behalf of the Respondent, Greenlaw Townhouses.

Adjudicator

Velva Moses-Thompson

The Administrative Law Judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings who presided over the rehearing and issued the decision.

Timeline of Key Events

June 16, 1986

Greenlaw Bylaws were recorded at the Coconino County Recorder.

July 2, 1999

Greenlaw Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) was recorded.

July 6, 2018

Greenlaw sent an email to members with an attachment containing the revised Rules and Regulations, effective July 2018.

September 12, 2018

William P. Lee filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

December 13, 2018

The original hearing on the petition was conducted.

February 11, 2019

The Department of Real Estate issued an order for a rehearing.

April 1, 2019

The rehearing was held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

April 22, 2019

The Administrative Law Judge issued the final decision, denying the petitioner’s petition.

The Central Conflict: Parking Regulations

The core of the dispute was Mr. Lee’s allegation that Greenlaw’s comprehensive ban on street parking, as stated in its revised 2018 Rules and Regulations, violated the more specific parking restrictions outlined in the community’s CC&Rs. The validity of the 2018 Rules and Regulations, and the method by which they were distributed to homeowners, was also a key point of contention.

• Violation of CC&Rs: The general ban on street parking violated Amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the CC&Rs, which only banned parking in specific situations (fire lanes, snow removal, abandoned vehicles).

• Improper Notice: Greenlaw failed to provide proper notice of the revised Rules and Regulations. Mr. Lee argued that the HOA’s Bylaws (Article V, Section 1) required notice to be delivered personally or by postal mail, not by email.

• Unclear Communication: The email sent on July 6, 2018, did not clearly state that the rules had been recently changed.

• Invalidity of New Rules: Due to the improper notice, Mr. Lee contended that the 2018 revised Rules and Regulations were not valid or controlling.

• Improper Motivation: Mr. Lee alleged the only reason for the ban was to appease a board member named Barbara who did not want anyone parking behind her property.

• Evidence of Enforcement: Mr. Lee testified that he observed a jeep being booted in a driveway and that the Greenlaw manager’s response implied the HOA’s contracted towing company could boot vehicles in violation.

• Notice Was Sufficient: Greenlaw contended that the Bylaw’s requirement for mail or personal delivery only applied to notices mandated by statute or the CC&Rs.

• No Notice Requirement: The HOA argued that it was not required by law or the CC&Rs to provide homeowners with notice of an amendment to the Rules and Regulations.

• Notice Was Received: Greenlaw asserted that Mr. Lee did, in fact, receive notice of the revised rules via the email sent on July 6, 2018.

• No Proof of Harm: Greenlaw pointed out that Mr. Lee provided no evidence that any vehicles belonging to Greenlaw members had been booted or towed by the association, nor did he allege that one of his own vehicles had been affected.

Governing Documents and Legal Principles

• Amendment #1: Bans parking in designated fire lanes.

• Amendment #2: Bans parking on subdivision roads during snow removal periods.

• Amendment #3: Allows for the towing of vehicles parked at the curb in an obvious state of disrepair for over 72 hours.

• Article V, Section 1: States that notices to directors and lot owners “shall be in writing and delivered personally or mailed.”

• Section 8: Explicitly states, “Parking is not allowed on any association street or alleyway at any time.” It identifies the streets (Eva, Heidi, and Jeffrey Loops) as “Private Fire Access Lanes” owned by the HOA and states that vehicles in violation may be booted and/or towed.

• The petitioner, Mr. Lee, bore the burden of proof to establish his claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

• The source defines preponderance of the evidence as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force.”

The Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge, Velva Moses-Thompson, denied Mr. Lee’s petition. The key conclusions of law were:

1. Controlling Document: The 2018 revised Rules and Regulations were found to be the valid and controlling rules for the Greenlaw HOA.

2. Authority to Ban Parking: The 2018 Rules and Regulations explicitly allow the association to ban all parking on its streets and to enforce this rule by booting or towing vehicles.

3. No Violation of CC&Rs: The judge concluded that Mr. Lee failed to prove that the general parking ban violated the specific, situational bans outlined in CC&R Amendments 1, 2, and 3. The amendments did not preclude the HOA from enacting a broader rule.

4. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: Mr. Lee did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Greenlaw’s actions violated either the CC&Rs or the Rules and Regulations.

5. Insufficient Evidence of Enforcement: Mr. Lee failed to provide any evidence that Greenlaw was actually responsible for booting the jeep he observed. His testimony was not sufficient to prove the HOA had taken action against any member.

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Test Your Understanding

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information in the study guide.

1. What was the central allegation in William P. Lee’s petition against the Greenlaw HOA?

2. What three specific scenarios for parking restrictions are outlined in Amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the Greenlaw CC&Rs?

3. On what grounds did Mr. Lee argue that the 2018 revised Rules and Regulations were not valid?

4. How did Greenlaw defend its use of email to distribute the revised Rules and Regulations to homeowners?

5. According to Section 8 of the revised Rules and Regulations, what are the potential consequences for parking on an association street?

6. What was the judge’s conclusion regarding the validity and authority of the 2018 revised Rules and Regulations?

7. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and who bore the burden of proof to meet it in this case?

8. Why did the judge find Mr. Lee’s testimony about a booted jeep to be insufficient evidence?

9. Did the judge find that Greenlaw’s general parking ban violated Amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the CC&Rs? Explain why or why not.

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this matter?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Mr. Lee’s central allegation was that the Greenlaw HOA had violated its CC&Rs and Rules and Regulations. Specifically, he claimed the association’s decision to ban all parking on its streets and to contract with a company to boot vehicles was improper.

2. The CC&R amendments outline three specific parking restrictions. Amendment 1 bans parking in designated fire lanes, Amendment 2 bans parking on roads during snow removal, and Amendment 3 allows for the towing of abandoned vehicles in a state of disrepair for over 72 hours.

3. Mr. Lee argued the 2018 rules were invalid because he was not given proper notice. He contended that the HOA’s Bylaws required notice to be delivered personally or by postal mail, and that the email he received was not a valid method of distribution.

4. Greenlaw defended its use of email by arguing that the Bylaw’s requirement for personal or mail delivery only applied to notices that were required by statute or the CC&Rs. The HOA contended it was not required by law to provide notice for an amendment to its Rules and Regulations.

5. Section 8 states that cars parked in violation on an association street may be booted and/or towed by a contracted independent towing company. The rule identifies the streets as “Private Fire Access Lanes.”

6. The judge concluded that the Rules and Regulations revised in July 2018 were the controlling rules for Greenlaw. Furthermore, the judge found that these rules do allow the association to ban all parking on its streets and to tow or boot cars in violation.

7. A “preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof that convinces a judge that a contention is more probably true than not. In this case, the petitioner, William P. Lee, bore the burden of proving his claims by this standard.

8. The evidence was insufficient because Mr. Lee did not know who owned the jeep or who was responsible for booting it. There was no direct evidence provided that proved Greenlaw or its contractor was responsible for the action.

9. No, the judge did not find that the ban violated the CC&Rs. The judge reasoned that the amendments only provided specific scenarios where parking was banned and did not prevent the HOA from enacting a broader, more general parking ban in its Rules and Regulations.

10. The final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge was that the Petitioner’s (Mr. Lee’s) petition is denied.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Deeper Analysis

The following questions are for further reflection. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the conflict between Greenlaw’s Bylaws (Article V, Section 1) regarding notice and its 2018 distribution of revised Rules and Regulations. Discuss both parties’ arguments and explain how the judge’s ultimate decision implies a resolution to this conflict.

2. Discuss the legal concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. How did William P. Lee’s failure to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard affect the outcome of his claims regarding both the parking ban and the alleged booting/towing incidents?

3. Compare and contrast the parking restrictions detailed in the CC&R Amendments with the broader ban instituted in Section 8 of the 2018 Rules and Regulations. Explain why the existence of the specific amendments did not prevent the HOA from enacting a more general rule.

4. Evaluate the evidence presented by Mr. Lee. What were the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments and testimony, particularly concerning the booted jeep and the motivation behind the parking ban?

5. Imagine you are legal counsel for the Greenlaw HOA. Based on the arguments and outcome of this case, what advice would you give the Board of Directors regarding future amendments to its Rules and Regulations to avoid similar disputes?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over hearings at administrative agencies. In this case, Velva Moses-Thompson served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Affirmative Defenses: Arguments made by the respondent that, if proven, can defeat or mitigate the petitioner’s claim. The Respondent (Greenlaw) bears the burden to establish these defenses.

• Burden of Proof: The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this case, Mr. Lee had the burden of proof to establish his claims.

• Bylaws: A set of rules adopted by an organization, such as an HOA, for governing its internal operations. Greenlaw’s bylaws addressed the method for providing notices to members.

• Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): A set of rules governing the use of land in a planned community or subdivision. Owners agree to be bound by the CC&Rs.

• Homeowners Association (HOA): An organization in a planned community that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two is the HOA in this case.

• Petitioner: The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. William P. Lee is the Petitioner.

• Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in which the trier of fact is convinced that a contention is “more probably true than not.” It is described as “the greater weight of the evidence.”

• Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the claims. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two is the Respondent.

• Rules and Regulations: A set of rules established by the HOA, in addition to the CC&Rs and Bylaws, that govern the day-to-day life and conduct within the community. The 2018 revised parking ban was located in Greenlaw’s Rules and Regulations.

Select all sources

703187.pdf

No emoji found

19F-H1918019-REL-RHG

1 source

This document presents an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between William P. Lee, a homeowner, and Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two, his Homeowners Association. The central issue revolved around the Greenlaw HOA’s implementation of a comprehensive ban on street parking and its contracting with a towing company to enforce the rule, which Mr. Lee contended violated the association’s governing documents, specifically amendments to the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the proper notification procedures for revised rules. The findings of fact detail the history of the parking rules, the homeowner’s receipt of the electronic notification of the revised rules, and Mr. Lee’s arguments that the association failed to use the required postal mail or personal delivery methods for notice. The Conclusions of Law determined that the controlling rules were the revised July 2018 Rules and Regulations and that Mr. Lee failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated either the CC&Rs or relevant Arizona statutes. Consequently, the Judge ordered that the petitioner’s petition be denied.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

William P. Lee (petitioner)
Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association member
Testified on behalf of himself

Respondent Side

Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Timothy D. Butterfield (HOA attorney)
Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association
Barbara (board member)
Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association
Contended by Lee to be the reason for the parking ban

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

John A Sellers vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Posted on December 26, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918010-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-05-10
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John A Sellers	Counsel	—
Respondent	Rancho Madera Condominium Association	Counsel	Edward D. O'Brien

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.10

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the HOA (Respondent) did not violate CC&R Section 3.10. The CC&Rs imposed the duty of keeping the drainage area clear primarily on the Unit Owners, and the HOA only retained the right to enforce this requirement, not an explicit obligation.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&Rs because the HOA did not have an obligation to enforce clearance requirements against unit owners under the cited covenant provisions.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs § 3.10 by failing to require unit owners to remove vegetation and fencing materials from the stormwater channel behind their homes.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.10 by failing to compel unit owners to clear vegetation and debris (including chicken wire) from the stormwater drainage channel, asserting this failure created a flood risk to unit 12. The ALJ found that the CC&Rs placed the primary maintenance responsibility on Unit Owners, and the HOA only had the right, but not the obligation, to enforce clearance requirements.

Orders: The petition was denied and dismissed. No action was required of Respondent because Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated the CC&Rs regarding maintenance of the drainage easement.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
Title 33, Chapter 9
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
Vazanno v. Superior Court
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
Powell v. Washburn
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Drainage, Maintenance, Enforcement, Condominium

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
Title 33, Chapter 9
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
Vazanno v. Superior Court
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
Powell v. Washburn
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918010-REL Decision – 706533.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:15:56 (42.2 KB)

19F-H1918010-REL Decision – 707530.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:16:00 (111.5 KB)

19F-H1918010-REL Decision – 667122.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:16:05 (50.0 KB)

19F-H1918010-REL Decision – 678371.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:16:09 (129.5 KB)

19F-H1918010-REL Decision – 667122.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:26:17 (50.0 KB)

19F-H1918010-REL Decision – 678371.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:26:21 (129.5 KB)

Briefing Document: Sellers vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of the case John A Sellers, Petitioner, vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association, Respondent (Case No. 19F-H1918010-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was a claim by Petitioner John Sellers that his homeowner’s association (HOA) violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to compel other homeowners to remove vegetation and fencing from a common stormwater drainage channel, which he alleged created a flood risk to his property, Unit 12.

The petitioner’s claim was ultimately unsuccessful. It was denied first in an initial evidentiary hearing and again in a subsequent rehearing. The central finding of the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) in both decisions was a critical distinction between an HOA’s right to enforce rules and an obligation to do so. The ALJs determined that the CC&Rs placed the primary responsibility for maintaining the drainage easement on the individual unit owners. The HOA’s mandatory duty to intervene was found to be triggered only by actual damage resulting from an owner’s negligence, not by the mere potential for future damage. As no flooding or damage had ever occurred, the HOA was found to have acted within its authority and had not violated the CC&Rs. The petitioner’s personal circumstances, including a contentious divorce and court-ordered sale of the property, were noted but deemed legally irrelevant to the determination of a CC&R violation.

Case Chronology and Procedural History

The case progressed through an initial petition, a hearing, a decision, a request for rehearing, and a final decision on rehearing. A notable procedural anomaly occurred when a hearing scheduled for November 5, 2018, was officially vacated due to a withdrawal notice from the petitioner, yet the hearing proceeded on that date as originally planned.

Details

Aug 23, 2018

Petition Filed

John A. Sellers filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging the Rancho Madera Condominium Association violated CC&R § 3.10.

Oct 23, 2018

Hearing Vacated

An order was issued by ALJ Diane Mihalsky vacating the November 5 hearing because the petitioner had notified the Department of his wish to withdraw the petition.

Nov 5 & Dec 12, 2018

Initial Hearing

Despite the prior vacating order, an evidentiary hearing was held before ALJ Mihalsky.

Dec 26, 2018

Initial Decision

ALJ Mihalsky issued a decision finding that the petitioner failed to prove his case. The petition was denied.

Feb 1, 2019

Rehearing Requested

The petitioner filed a request for a rehearing, alleging procedural irregularities and errors in the initial decision.

Feb 22, 2019

Rehearing Granted

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the request for a rehearing.

Apr 15, 2019

Rehearing Held

A rehearing was held before a new judge, ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer.

May 7, 2019

Post-Hearing Filing Stricken

The petitioner submitted an unauthorized supplemental argument after the rehearing. ALJ Eigenheer issued an order striking the filing from the record and closing the record.

May 10, 2019

Final Decision on Rehearing

ALJ Eigenheer issued a final decision, again finding for the respondent and dismissing the petition.

Core Dispute Analysis

Petitioner’s Position and Allegations

• Core Allegation: The petitioner alleged that the Rancho Madera Condominium Association (Respondent) violated CC&R § 3.10 by failing to enforce its rules. Specifically, the Association did not require owners of “Drainage Easement Units” to remove obstructions—such as large succulents, cacti, shrubs, and chicken wire fencing—from a 3′ x 3′ stormwater drainage canal located behind their homes.

• Perceived Risk: The petitioner testified that these items could catch storm debris, clog the channel, and cause flooding that would damage his property, Unit 12. He submitted videos of heavy rains to support his concern.

• Evolving Legal Argument: In the rehearing, the petitioner’s argument shifted. He acknowledged that the CC&Rs gave the Association the right to enforce maintenance standards but argued that “at a certain point exercising a right becomes an obligation,” particularly when matters of safety and property values are implicated.

• Claimed Financial Damages: The petitioner testified he was undergoing a contentious divorce and his condominium was being sold by order of the Maricopa County Superior Court. He asserted that due to the unresolved flood risk, which he was obligated to disclose, the sale price of Unit 12 was “$40,000 less than it would have been.”

Respondent’s Position and Actions

• Denial of Violation: The Association denied it had violated any CC&Rs by its handling of the drainage channel.

• Evidence and Testimony: The Association, represented by its President, Jeffrey Kaplan, presented several key points:

◦ No History of Flooding: Mr. Kaplan testified that Unit 12 had never sustained any flood damage since the development was built in 2012, including during a “100-year storm” in 2014. After a significant rainstorm in August 2018, he personally inspected the easement and saw no water in it.

◦ Origin of Plants: Mr. Kaplan stated that the builder had originally planted the vegetation in the drainage easement that the petitioner was concerned about.

◦ No Other Complaints: No other members of the 46-unit Association had expressed any concerns about drainage.

◦ Proactive Communication: To assuage the petitioner’s concerns, the Association’s management company sent letters to the relevant homeowners on April 18, 2018, and July 19, 2018, reminding them of their responsibility to keep the drainage area free of obstructions.

◦ Due Diligence: Mr. Kaplan contacted officials at the Maricopa County Flood Control District and the Town of Cave Creek, who confirmed the drainage area was not on any official floodplain maps and that the Association was solely responsible for its maintenance.

Key CC&R Provisions and Legal Interpretation

The ALJs’ decisions hinged on a close reading of the Rancho Madera CC&Rs. The analysis consistently differentiated between the duties of individual owners and the duties of the Association.

• CC&R § 3.10.2 — Unit Owner Responsibility: This section places the primary maintenance burden directly on the homeowners of the Drainage Easement Units.

◦ Interpretation: The legal conclusion was that this provision unambiguously makes individual owners responsible for keeping their portion of the easement clear.

• CC&R § 3.10.4 — Association Responsibility: This section defines the specific circumstance under which the Association is required to act.

◦ Interpretation: Both ALJs found that this clause creates a reactionary, not a proactive, duty for the Association. Its obligation to repair is triggered by actual damage occurring, not by a perceived risk of future damage.

• CC&R § 13.1.1 — Association Enforcement Power: This section, highlighted in the rehearing, grants the Association authority to act.

◦ Interpretation: The ALJ in the rehearing ruled that this language grants a discretionary right, not a mandatory obligation. The CC&Rs contain no provision that converts this right into a duty under the circumstances presented by the petitioner.

Judicial Findings and Rulings

Initial Decision (ALJ Diane Mihalsky, Dec 26, 2018)

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner failed to establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

• Findings of Fact: The petitioner successfully established that plants and chicken wire existed in the stormwater canal. However, he failed to establish that these items actually impeded the flow of water.

• Conclusion: The respondent proved that the drainage canal had functioned as intended since 2012 and that Unit 12 had never flooded. The petitioner’s divorce was noted to have “cast a long shadow over his administrative complaint” but was irrelevant to the legal issue. The petition was denied.

Rehearing Decision (ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer, May 10, 2019)

• Central Legal Finding: The CC&Rs clearly intend for unit owners to bear the primary responsibility for keeping the drainage area clear. The Association’s only specified obligation is to repair damage after it has occurred and bill the responsible owner.

• Right vs. Obligation: The decision explicitly states, “While Respondent has the right to enforce the requirements that the Unit Owners keep the Drainage Easement Area clear, nothing in the CC&Rs provides that Respondent has an obligation to do so.”

• Final Order: The petitioner failed to establish that the respondent violated Section 3.10 of the CC&Rs. The petition was dismissed.

Notable Evidence

A key piece of evidence submitted by the respondent was a June 22, 2018, email from the petitioner’s wife, Debborah Sellers, which directly refuted the petitioner’s claims. In the email, she stated:

“There has never been any issue with the storm drain behind our house and it is not a major disclosure item… Stop making something out of nothing. AND I HOPE YOU AREN[’]T FREAKING POTENTIAL BUYERS AND OTHER REALTORS WITH THIS NONSENSE.”

Study Guide for Case No. 19F-H1918010-REL: Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. What was the specific allegation John A. Sellers made against the Rancho Madera Condominium Association in his petition filed on August 23, 2018?

2. Identify the key responsibilities assigned to individual unit owners of Drainage Easement Units according to Section 3.10.2 of the CC&Rs.

3. Who is Jeffrey Kaplan, and what key testimony did he provide on behalf of the Respondent?

4. What specific actions did the Respondent’s management company take in April and July of 2018 to address the Petitioner’s concerns?

5. According to the decision by Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky, what did the Petitioner fail to establish regarding the plants and chicken wire in the drainage canal?

6. On what grounds did John A. Sellers file his Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Dispute Rehearing Request on February 1, 2019?

7. What was the Petitioner’s core argument regarding the Association’s “right to enforce” the CC&Rs versus an “obligation to enforce” them?

8. What was the final conclusion of Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer regarding the Association’s responsibilities under the CC&Rs?

9. What occurred after the April 15, 2019 rehearing when the Petitioner attempted to submit supplemental information to the Office of Administrative Hearings?

10. Describe the evidence presented in an email from Debborah Sellers and its relevance to the case.

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. John A. Sellers alleged that the Rancho Madera Condominium Association violated Section 3.10 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). He claimed the Association failed to require condominium owners to remove vegetation and fencing materials from the stormwater channel, creating a flood risk for his unit.

2. Section 3.10.2 of the CC&Rs requires each Unit Owner of a Drainage Easement Unit to keep their respective Drainage Easement Area free of weeds and other debris. The purpose is to ensure that stormwater can flow freely and that no improvement, including plant materials, impedes this flow.

3. Jeffrey Kaplan is the President of the Rancho Madera Condominium Association. He testified that the drainage easement had never failed, even during a 100-year storm in 2014, that the original builder had planted the vegetation in question, and that he had consulted with county and town officials about the drainage area.

4. To address the Petitioner’s concerns, the Respondent’s management company sent letters to the owners of the Drainage Easement Units. Letters sent on April 18, 2018, and July 19, 2018, reminded owners of their responsibility to keep the drainage area free of obstructions, weeds, and debris.

5. Judge Mihalsky’s decision on December 26, 2018, concluded that the Petitioner established the presence of plants and chicken wire but failed to establish that these items actually impede the flow of water. The judge found that the drainage system functions as intended and there was no unreasonable risk of flooding.

6. The Petitioner filed for a rehearing based on several alleged issues with the original proceeding. These included an irregularity in the proceedings, the existence of newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission or rejection of evidence, and a belief that the findings of fact or decision were arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.

7. The Petitioner argued that while the CC&Rs grant the Association the “right to enforce” maintenance requirements, this right becomes an “obligation” when issues of property values and safety are at stake. He maintained that the potential for flooding created such an obligation for the Association to act.

8. Judge Eigenheer concluded that the CC&Rs intend for unit owners to bear the responsibility of keeping the Drainage Easement Area clear. She determined that while the Association has the right to enforce this, nothing in the CC&Rs creates an obligation for it to do so, and its only specified responsibility is to repair damage after it occurs, billing the responsible unit owner.

9. After the rehearing, the Petitioner submitted supplemental authority and argument without having requested leave to do so. The Respondent’s counsel argued this filing was untimely and introduced new arguments, requesting it be struck. On May 7, 2019, Judge Eigenheer ordered the filing struck from the record and closed the record.

10. The Respondent submitted a June 22, 2018 email from Debborah Sellers, the Petitioner’s wife. In the email, she stated there had never been an issue with the storm drain, called his concerns “nonsense,” and noted that the developer had done a good job, undermining the Petitioner’s claim of a significant and obvious flood risk.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, takes evidence, and makes legal decisions and orders. In this case, Diane Mihalsky and Tammy L. Eigenheer served as ALJs.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community or condominium association. In this case, the CC&Rs for Rancho Madera were the central document in the dispute.

Drainage Easement

A perpetual, non-exclusive legal right created over a specific portion of property (the eastern five feet of Units 9-18) for constructing and maintaining a stormwater drainage channel.

Drainage Easement Area

The specific portion of land encumbered by the Drainage Easement, defined as the eastern five feet of the designated units.

Drainage Improvements

The physical components of the drainage system, such as the channel, decomposed granite, rip rap (large stones), or concrete, as originally constructed by the developer.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, John A. Sellers.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue rather than the other, making a contention more probably true than not.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case, granted by the Commissioner in this instance, to re-examine the issues based on claims such as procedural irregularities, newly discovered evidence, or errors in the original decision.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the petitioner’s claims. In this case, the Rancho Madera Condominium Association.

The Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings from members of condominium unit owners’ associations.

I Read an Entire HOA Lawsuit. Here Are 4 Shocking Lessons About Power, Rules, and Reality.

The Anatomy of a Neighborhood War

Living under a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) often means navigating a complex world of rules, regulations, and neighborhood politics. For most, disagreements are minor annoyances. But sometimes, a seemingly small issue can escalate into a full-blown legal war.

This is the story of one homeowner’s single-minded crusade against his HOA over a stormwater drainage channel he believed was a serious flooding risk. After filing a formal petition, the dispute escalated into a multi-stage legal battle that spanned nearly a year. The official court documents reveal that even after a judge ruled decisively against him, the homeowner doubled down, demanding a rare rehearing.

A deep dive into this protracted case reveals a fascinating and cautionary tale. The legal reasoning that ultimately settled the matter highlights several surprising lessons that apply to anyone living in a planned community.

1. Proving a Rule Was Broken Isn’t the Same as Proving Harm

The initial hearing, held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky in late 2018, centered on a seemingly straightforward argument from the petitioner, John Sellers. He pointed out that his neighbors had placed plants—including large succulents, shrubs, and cacti—as well as chicken wire in a stormwater drainage channel. This, he argued, was a clear violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which stated that no improvement “shall be constructed, installed or allowed to grow… that may… impede the flow of water.”

But in her December 26, 2018 decision, the judge ruled against him. While Sellers successfully proved the obstructions existed, he failed to meet the legal burden of proof that they actually “impede the flow of water.” His claim was defeated by testimony from the HOA President, Jeffrey Kaplan, who stated that the unit had never sustained any flood damage, not even during a “100-year storm in 2014.”

The lesson from this first round is stark: in this legal context, simply pointing out a technical rule break was not enough. The petitioner had to prove that the violation was causing a tangible, negative impact. Without evidence of actual harm or impeded water flow, the theoretical risk was insufficient to win the case.

2. An HOA’s “Right” to Enforce Is Not an “Obligation”

After losing the first round on a question of evidence, Sellers’ argument evolved. He requested a rehearing, which was granted, and the case landed before a new judge, Tammy L. Eigenheer, in the spring of 2019. This shifted the legal focus from physical proof of impeded water flow to a more fundamental question of the HOA’s duties.

Sellers argued that because safety and property values were at stake, the association had a duty to enforce the CC&Rs and compel his neighbors to clear the drainage channel. He contended that at a certain point, an organization’s “right” to act becomes an “obligation.”

The judge’s final decision on May 10, 2019, was clear, absolute, and is where the most powerful lesson of the entire case lies.

“While Respondent has the right to enforce the requirements that the Unit Owners keep the Drainage Easement Area clear, nothing in the CC&Rs provides that Respondent has an obligation to do so.”

This distinction is critical for any homeowner. An HOA can possess the legal power to act but may not be legally compelled to use it. According to the judge’s interpretation, the governing documents placed the responsibility for keeping the channel clear on the individual unit owners. The association’s only stated obligation was to repair damage after it happened, with the cost being billed back to the responsible party.

3. Outside Conflicts Can Cast a Long Shadow

Legal disputes are rarely just about the facts of the case. During the initial hearing, it was revealed that the petitioner was going through a “contentious divorce” and that the condo unit at the center of the dispute was a community asset being sold by the court.

The most dramatic evidence, however, came from an email written by the petitioner’s own wife, Debborah Sellers. The email, submitted as evidence by the HOA, directly undermined his claims about the severity of the drainage issue.

In her decision, Judge Mihalsky officially stated that the divorce was “not relevant” to the technical question of whether the HOA violated the CC&Rs. However, she immediately added that the situation “cast a long shadow over his administrative complaint,” suggesting that the personal context, and especially the damaging email, severely harmed the petitioner’s credibility.

4. Writing Letters Isn’t the Same as Being Heard

Throughout the dispute, the petitioner made his concerns known by writing “many letters” to the HOA president. He was persistent in his written communications, attempting to force the issue onto the association’s radar.

Yet, this effort was contrasted with a notable lack of direct participation. According to the testimony of HOA President Kaplan during the first hearing, Sellers “never attended any of Respondent’s noticed Board meetings” where his concerns could have been discussed among the board members.

The HOA’s response to his letters was limited; it sent two general reminder letters to all residents in the affected area but did not take direct enforcement action against any specific homeowner. The practical takeaway is that to effect change or be taken seriously in an HOA dispute, visibility and participation are critical. Writing letters is a start, but attending official meetings to present a case in person can be a more effective strategy for ensuring an issue is formally addressed.

A Cautionary Tale for Any Homeowner

What began as a seemingly straightforward complaint about drainage and rule enforcement devolved into a legal battle that consumed nearly a year, involving two multi-day hearings before two different administrative law judges. The petitioner lost his case on the evidence, then lost it again on the law.

It serves as a potent cautionary tale, demonstrating that in the world of HOA disputes, the obvious path is not always the winning one. It leaves every homeowner with a final, thought-provoking question to ponder: When you see a problem in your community, how do you decide if a fight is worth the cost—not just in money, but in time, credibility, and peace?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John A Sellers (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Edward D. O’Brien (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC/LLP
Represented Respondent
Edith I. Rudder (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC/LLP
Represented Respondent
Jeffrey Kaplan (HOA President/witness)
Rancho Madera Condominium Association
Testified on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
OAH
ALJ for initial proceedings
Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
OAH
ALJ for rehearing
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
ADRE
LDettorre (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of transmission
AHansen (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of transmission
djones (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of transmission
DGardner (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of transmission
ncano (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of transmission
c. serrano (Clerical staff)
Transmitted document
F. Del Sol (Clerical staff)
Transmitted document

Other Participants

Debborah Sellers (witness)
Petitioner's wife, email submitted as evidence

Jerry R. Collis vs. Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association

Posted on December 18, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H18020-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-12-20
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	The Petitioner's challenge against the HOA was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the community documents or statutes when issuing citations.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jerry R. Collis	Counsel	—
Respondent	Laveen Meadows HOA c/o Planned Development Services	Counsel	Chad Gallacher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Sections 10.11.2, 10.11.4, and 10.16; A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's challenge against the HOA was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the community documents or statutes when issuing citations.

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

Key Issues & Findings

Challenge to HOA fine citations/improper enforcement of parking and nuisance rules

Petitioner claimed the Respondent HOA improperly issued citations against him for vehicle violations (inoperable vehicle, street parking, nuisance), asserting the HOA could not violate CC&R 10.11.4 but that the citations alleging the violation were unwarranted.

Orders: Petitioner Jerry R. Collis’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, CC&Rs, Vehicle Parking, Nuisance, Burden of Proof

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H18020-REL Decision – 677244.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:14:51 (97.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Collis v. Laveen Meadows HOA (Case No. 19F-H18020-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and decision in the administrative hearing of Jerry R. Collis (Petitioner) versus the Laveen Meadows HOA (Respondent). The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Mr. Collis’s petition, which alleged the HOA had wrongly issued citations concerning his vehicle.

The central issue revolved around a series of violation notices issued to Mr. Collis for an “Inoperable Vehicle.” While Mr. Collis focused his argument on proving the vehicle was, in fact, operational, the HOA successfully argued that the citations were based on a broader set of violations. These included not only the vehicle’s condition under CC&R Section 10.11.4 but also violations for street parking (Section 10.11.2) and creating a nuisance (Section 10.16) due to its unsightly appearance, which included cobwebs, debris, a flat tire, and a covered window.

The Judge concluded that the petitioner, Mr. Collis, failed to meet the burden of proof. By only addressing the vehicle’s operability, he did not disprove the other valid grounds for the citations. Consequently, the Judge found that the HOA had not violated its own governing documents or state statutes, dismissing the petition and declaring the HOA the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

1. Case Overview and Core Dispute

• Case Number: 19F-H18020-REL

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Jerry R. Collis (representing himself)

◦ Respondent: Laveen Meadows HOA (represented by Chad Gallacher, Esq.)

• Adjudicator: Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge

• Hearing Date: December 4, 2018

• Decision Date: December 20, 2018

The Petitioner’s Allegation

On September 17, 2018, Jerry R. Collis filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The initial Notice of Hearing framed the allegation as the Laveen Meadows HOA having violated Article 10, Section 10.11.4 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which pertains to inoperable vehicles.

At the December 4, 2018 hearing, Mr. Collis clarified his position. He argued that the issue was not that the HOA itself could violate that section, but that the HOA had wrongly issued him citations alleging a violation of that provision when his vehicle was fully operational.

The Respondent’s Position

The Laveen Meadows HOA, represented by Community Manager Lisa Riesland, objected to this reframing of the issue. The HOA contended that the citations issued to Mr. Collis were justified under multiple sections of the CC&Rs, not solely the “inoperable vehicle” clause. The HOA’s actions were based on violations of Sections 10.11.2 (street parking), 10.11.4 (inoperable vehicle), and 10.16 (nuisance).

2. Relevant CC&R Provisions

The dispute centered on the interpretation and application of three specific sections within the Laveen Meadows HOA CC&Rs.

Section

Title / Subject

Description

10.11.4

Inoperable Vehicles

Prohibits any motor vehicle “which are not in operating condition” from being parked in unenclosed areas, including driveways. This section was amended in May 2013 to clarify the definition of “operating condition.”

10.11.2

Street Parking

Prohibits parking on the streets within the community.

Nuisances

Prohibits nuisances, which are defined to include conditions that are “unsightly or that could reasonably cause annoyance to other members of the Association.”

3. Analysis of Evidence and Timeline

Violation Notices and Fines

Between September 2016 and June 2017, the HOA sent seven notifications to Mr. Collis regarding his vehicle. A key finding from the hearing was that while all seven notices stated, “Violation: Vehicle Parking – Inoperable Vehicle,” none of them cited a specific provision of the CC&Rs.

The timeline of notifications and fines is as follows:

• September 19, 2016: Initial letter citing expired tags and an inoperable vehicle on the street. Given 10 days to correct.

• October 11, 2016: Letter warning of a potential $25 fine. Notified of appeal rights. No evidence of appeal by Collis.

• December 1, 2016: A $25 fine was charged to Mr. Collis’s account. Mr. Collis appealed this to the HOA Board.

• January 26, 2017: The HOA Board sent a letter to Mr. Collis denying his appeal.

• April 20, 2017: A $50 fine and a $10 mailing fee were charged. No evidence of appeal.

• May 9, 2017: A $100 fine and a $10 mailing fee were charged. No evidence of appeal.

• May 23, 2017: A $100 fine and a $10 mailing fee were charged. No evidence of appeal.

• June 8, 2017: A $100 fine and a $10 mailing fee were charged. No evidence of appeal.

• June 26, 2017: A $100 fine and a $10 mailing fee were charged. No evidence of appeal.

For each fine assessed from October 2016 onwards, the HOA’s letters informed Mr. Collis of his right to appeal to the Board and to request an administrative hearing. The record shows no evidence that Mr. Collis requested an administrative hearing for any of the fines prior to filing his petition in 2018.

Competing Testimonies

• Petitioner (Collis): Testified that his vehicle was never inoperable. He acknowledged that at the time of the June 2017 letters, the vehicle had a flat tire and a covered window, but explained this was the result of vandalism.

• Respondent (HOA): Community Manager Lisa Riesland provided testimony deemed “credible” by the Judge. She stated that the vehicle’s condition constituted a nuisance under Section 10.16. Specific details included:

◦ Cobwebs and debris on or beneath the vehicle.

◦ At various times, cobwebs extended from the vehicle to the ground, trapping leaves.

◦ The condition was deemed “unsightly.”

4. Legal Conclusions and Final Order

Burden of Proof

The Judge established that Mr. Collis, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proof. The standard required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning evidence sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue over the other.

Judge’s Rationale

The decision rested on the following legal conclusions:

1. CC&Rs as a Contract: The CC&Rs constitute a binding contract between the homeowner and the HOA, requiring both parties to comply with its terms. The HOA must act reasonably in exercising its authority.

2. Multiple Grounds for Citations: The preponderance of evidence demonstrated that the HOA’s citations were based on violations of Sections 10.11.2 (street parking), 10.11.4 (inoperable vehicle), and 10.16 (nuisance).

3. Insufficiency of Petitioner’s Argument: Because the citations were multifaceted, Mr. Collis’s argument that his vehicle was in operating condition was insufficient to prove the citations were unwarranted. His claim did not address the evidence of street parking or the unsightly conditions that constituted a nuisance.

4. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: Ultimately, the Judge concluded: “Mr. Collis has failed to show that the Respondent violated any of the CC&Rs, other community documents, or the statutes that regulate planned communities.”

Final Order

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Jerry R. Collis’s petition is dismissed.

The decision established the Laveen Meadows HOA as the prevailing party. This order is binding unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order (December 20, 2018).

Study Guide: Collis v. Laveen Meadows HOA

This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter of Jerry R. Collis (Petitioner) versus Laveen Meadows HOA (Respondent), Case No. 19F-H18020-REL. It includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal document.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided source document.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and who represented them?

2. What was the original violation Mr. Collis alleged against the Laveen Meadows HOA in his petition filed on September 17, 2018?

3. How did Mr. Collis clarify or reframe the issue he was raising during the December 4, 2018 hearing?

4. According to the HOA’s community manager, Lisa Riesland, what three CC&R sections were the basis for the citations issued to Mr. Collis?

5. What common phrase was used to describe the violation in all seven notifications sent to Mr. Collis, and what crucial detail did these notifications omit?

6. Describe the initial fine issued to Mr. Collis, including the date of the letter and the amount.

7. What physical evidence did the HOA present to support its claim that Mr. Collis’s vehicle created an “unsightly condition” under CC&R Section 10.16?

8. In addition to the unsightly conditions, what two other issues with the vehicle were noted around June 2017, and what was Mr. Collis’s explanation for them?

9. According to the “Conclusions of Law,” who bears the burden of proof in this matter, and what is the required standard of proof?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, and what was the legal consequence of this decision for the parties?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Jerry R. Collis, the Petitioner, who appeared on his own behalf, and Laveen Meadows HOA, the Respondent. The Respondent was represented by Chad Gallacher, Esq.

2. Mr. Collis’s original petition, as shown in the Notice of Hearing, alleged that the Laveen Meadows HOA had violated Article 10, Section 10.11.4 of its own CC&Rs. This section pertains to parking motor vehicles that are not in operating condition in unenclosed areas.

3. At the hearing, Mr. Collis acknowledged the HOA could not violate its own rule and clarified that the real issue was that the HOA had wrongly issued him citations for violating Section 10.11.4. He argued that he was not, in fact, in violation of that provision.

4. Lisa Riesland testified that the citations were based not just on Section 10.11.4 (inoperable vehicles), but also on Section 10.11.2, which prohibits parking on the streets, and Section 10.16, which prohibits nuisances.

5. All seven notifications sent to Mr. Collis included the statement: “Violation: Vehicle Parking – Inoperable Vehicle.” However, none of the notifications listed a specific provision of the CC&Rs that had allegedly been violated.

6. The first fine was detailed in a letter dated December 1, 2016. The letter informed Mr. Collis that his account had been charged a $25 fine for the ongoing violation of storing an inoperable vehicle on the street.

7. The HOA presented credible testimony from Lisa Riesland that there were cobwebs and debris on or beneath the vehicle. At various times, these cobwebs extended from the vehicle to the ground and had trapped leaves, creating an unsightly condition.

8. Around June 2017, the vehicle also had a flat tire and a bag or cardboard covering one window. Mr. Collis acknowledged these facts and explained that the vehicle had been vandalized.

9. The “Conclusions of Law” state that Mr. Collis, the petitioner, bears the burden of proof. The standard of proof required to decide all issues in the matter is that of a “preponderance of the evidence.”

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Mr. Collis’s petition be dismissed. This legally binding order deemed the Respondent (Laveen Meadows HOA) to be the prevailing party in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses to encourage a deeper analysis of the case. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the discrepancy between Mr. Collis’s initial petition alleging a violation of Section 10.11.4 and the actual issue he raised at the hearing. How did this “reframing” of the issue affect his case, and how did the Respondent react?

2. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the document. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge applied this standard to the evidence presented by both Mr. Collis and the HOA to reach the final decision.

3. Trace the series of notifications and fines issued by the Laveen Meadows HOA, beginning with the September 19, 2016 letter. Evaluate the HOA’s process and communication based on the details provided in the letters. Did the HOA act reasonably, according to the legal standards cited in the decision?

4. The HOA cited three different CC&R sections (10.11.2, 10.11.4, and 10.16) as the basis for the citations, even though the notifications only stated “Vehicle Parking – Inoperable Vehicle.” Explore the significance of each of these sections and explain why Mr. Collis’s focus on his vehicle being operable was insufficient to win his case.

5. Examine the appeal options available to Mr. Collis at each stage of the violation process. Based on the “Findings of Fact,” what actions did he take or fail to take regarding his appeal rights, and how might this have impacted the overall trajectory of the dispute?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official (Thomas Shedden in this case) who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal rulings and decisions.

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE

The Arizona Administrative Code, a compilation of rules and regulations of Arizona state agencies. Section R2-19-119 is cited as establishing the standard of proof for the hearing.

ARIZ. REV. STAT.

The Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. Various sections are cited regarding homeowner association disputes and administrative procedures.

Appearances

A formal term for the individuals present and participating in the hearing. In this case, it was Jerry R. Collis and Chad Gallacher, Esq.

The governing body of the Laveen Meadows HOA, to which Mr. Collis had the right to appeal fines. He appealed one fine to the Board, which was denied.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the burden of proof was on Mr. Collis.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community or homeowners’ association. The decision establishes the CC&Rs as a contract between the HOA and its members.

Community Manager

An individual responsible for managing the operations of the HOA. Lisa Riesland served this role for the Respondent and testified at the hearing.

Conclusions of Law

The section of the decision where the Administrative Law Judge applies legal principles and statutes to the established facts to reach a judgment.

Findings of Fact

The section of the decision that lists the established, undisputed facts of the case based on evidence and testimony presented during the hearing.

Nuisance

A condition prohibited by CC&R Section 10.16. It is defined as a condition that is unsightly or could reasonably cause annoyance to other members of the Association.

Operating Condition

A term from CC&R Section 10.11.4, which was amended in May 2013 to clarify its meaning. Mr. Collis argued his vehicle was always in operating condition.

The final, legally binding ruling of the Administrative Law Judge. In this case, the Order was to dismiss the petitioner’s petition.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this matter, Jerry R. Collis is the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as “The greater weight of the evidence…sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, Laveen Meadows HOA is the Respondent.

🏛️

19F-H18020-REL

1 source

The provided text consists of an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings concerning a dispute between Petitioner Jerry R. Collis and the Laveen Meadows HOA, which is the Respondent. This decision addresses Mr. Collis’s petition alleging the HOA violated its CC&Rs by improperly issuing citations related to his vehicle. The Findings of Fact detail that Mr. Collis’s vehicle was cited for being inoperable, having expired tags, and creating an unsightly condition defined as a nuisance under multiple CC&R sections. Ultimately, the Conclusions of Law state that Mr. Collis failed to meet his burden of proof to show the HOA violated any community documents or statutes, leading to the dismissal of his petition.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jerry R. Collis (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Chad Gallacher (HOA attorney)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Counsel for Respondent Laveen Meadows HOA
Lisa Riesland (community manager)
Laveen Meadows HOA
Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

f del sol (admin support)
Signed copy distribution notice

George E Lord vs. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Posted on December 17, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918013-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-12-17
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, or the association's CC&Rs.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	George E Lord	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association	Counsel	Maria Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, and CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, or the association's CC&Rs.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of any statute or covenant alleged. The core findings supported the HOA's position that the lessee was engaging in prohibited business activity and subletting, and that the charged attorney fees were permissible.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violations concerning notice procedures, leasing restrictions, prohibited business use, and excessive fees.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 by failing to include proper citations in violation notices, violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 and CC&Rs by imposing illegal restrictions on occupancy dates and prohibiting tenant guests, and violated fee limits under A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E) by charging $250 in attorney fees.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.A.C. R2-19-119
CC&Rs Section 7.21
CC&Rs Section 7.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, HOA dispute, leasing restrictions, short-term rental, business use, notice procedure, attorney fees

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.A.C. R2-19-119
CC&Rs Section 7.21
CC&Rs Section 7.3

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677039.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:47:51 (115.9 KB)

19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677040.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:47:54 (47.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Lord v. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1918013-REL, involving Petitioner George E. Lord and Respondent The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association. The judge ultimately dismissed all claims brought by the Petitioner, ruling that the Association acted within the bounds of Arizona statutes and its governing documents.

The core of the dispute centered on Mr. Lord’s leasing of three condominium units to an individual, Barrie Shepley, who used the properties to house participants for his commercial fitness training camps. The Association contended this arrangement constituted a prohibited short-term sublease and an improper business use of the units, leading them to suspend amenity access for the occupants.

The judge’s decision affirmed the Association’s position on all counts. Key takeaways include:

• Substance Over Form: The judge concluded that despite the absence of a formal sublease agreement, the nature of the arrangement—specifically a camp pricing structure that varied based on the number of occupants per condo—was effectively a sublet designed to house an “itinerant population,” contrary to the “spirit and purpose” of the community’s rules.

• Business Use Violation: The operation was found to be a business activity that violated the CC&Rs by requiring persons (camp participants) to come to the residential units.

• Procedural Compliance: The Association’s violation notices were deemed compliant with Arizona law. The judge noted that the statute only requires a detailed citation of the violated rule after the owner responds to the initial notice, which the Petitioner failed to do.

• Legality of Fees: A $250 charge levied by the Association’s counsel was determined to be a permissible charge for attorney’s fees related to potential collection, not an illegal penalty for leasing information as the Petitioner alleged.

As a result of these findings, the Petitioner’s request for relief was denied, and the petition was dismissed in its entirety.

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: George E. Lord (unit owner)

◦ Respondent: The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

• Case Number: 19F-H1918013-REL

• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Presiding Judge: Tammy L. Eigenheer, Administrative Law Judge

• Hearing Date: November 26, 2018

• Decision Date: December 17, 2018

• Final Disposition: The petition filed by George E. Lord was dismissed.

II. Factual Background and Timeline of Events

1. Lease Agreements: On or about December 4, 2017, Petitioner George Lord, through his management company, leased two units at The Boulders to Barrie Shepley for a term from March 7, 2018, to April 30, 2018. A third unit was subsequently leased to Mr. Shepley on or about January 15, 2018.

2. Commercial Use: Mr. Shepley operated a Canadian fitness business, “Personal Best,” which offered training camps in Tucson. Accommodations at The Boulders were included in the camp packages. The price for a camp varied based on occupancy:

◦ $950.00 each for four campers in a condo

◦ $1075.00 each for three campers in a condo

◦ $1299.00 each for two campers in a condo

3. Occupancy Begins: On March 7, 2018, guests of Mr. Shepley (camp participants) began arriving to occupy the three leased units.

4. Association Intervention: On March 9, 2018, Community Manager Danielle Morris emailed Mr. Lord, stating the Association’s belief that he was in violation of the CC&Rs by allowing subleasing for periods less than the 30-day minimum. Ms. Morris informed him that amenity access cards for the three units were deactivated.

5. Dispute Escalation: Mr. Lord contended that the occupants were merely “guests” of Mr. Shepley, not subletters. Ms. Morris countered that the Association required the names of all occupants and the duration of their stays, and that each occupant must stay for a minimum of 30 days.

6. Information Provided: On March 13, 2018, Mr. Lord provided the names of the occupants and their dates of occupancy, requesting that amenities be restored.

7. Violation Reiterated: On March 16, 2018, Ms. Morris stated the violation was ongoing, as occupants staying from March 7 to March 31 did not meet the 30-day minimum stay requirement.

8. Formal Notice of Violation: On March 18, 2018, Mr. Lord received formal Notices of Violations for the three units. The notices stated that amenity access was suspended because the HOA was not provided with the names of adult occupants and their timeframes. The notice warned that a $300 fine could be applied. Mr. Lord did not respond to these notices.

9. Attorney Involvement: On March 22, 2018, Mr. Lord received a letter from the Association’s legal counsel outlining its legal position and noting an amount due of $250 for attorney’s fees already incurred.

10. Lease Cancellation & Financial Loss: On April 2, 2018, Mr. Shepley cancelled the remainder of the leases due to the lack of amenities for his guests. Mr. Lord asserted a resulting financial loss of $6,900 in rental fees for April 2018.

11. Petition Filing: On August 31, 2018, Mr. Lord filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Association violated state statutes and its own CC&Rs.

III. Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

Mr. Lord’s petition was based on three primary allegations against the Association:

• Allegation 1: Defective Violation Notice (A.R.S. § 33-1242): The Petitioner argued that the Notices of Violations were legally deficient because they failed to cite the specific statute or CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated.

• Allegation 2: Unlawful Occupancy Requirements (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 & CC&Rs): The Petitioner asserted that the Association overstepped its authority by demanding that each occupant, whom he characterized as a “guest” of the primary lessee, must stay for a minimum of 30 days. He argued the 30-day minimum lease term applied only to the primary lease with Mr. Shepley, not to the occupants.

• Allegation 3: Improper Fees (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E)): The Petitioner claimed that the $250 charge from the Association’s attorney constituted an illegal fee, penalty, or charge related to providing leasing information, which he argued was prohibited by statute.

IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof for any of his allegations and dismissed the petition. The judge’s reasoning is detailed below.

Finding 1: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242 (Violation Notice)

The judge determined that the Association’s initial Notices of Violations were legally sufficient.

• Legal Reasoning: A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) requires an association to cite the specific provision of the condominium documents that has been violated. However, this obligation is only triggered after the unit owner sends a written response to the initial notice by certified mail.

• Factual Basis: The Petitioner admitted that he did not respond to the formal Notices of Violations he received.

• Conclusion: Because the Petitioner did not take the legally required step to trigger the Association’s duty to provide a specific citation, the Association did not violate the statute.

Finding 2: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 or CC&Rs (Leasing Rules)

The judge concluded that the Association was justified in its actions regarding the occupancy of the units.

• The Arrangement was a “Form” of Subletting: The judge ruled against the Petitioner’s argument that the occupants were merely “guests.” The fact that the price of the fitness camp changed based on how many people shared a unit was seen as evidence that Mr. Shepley was, in effect, subletting the units for his business.

• Prohibited Business Activity: The judge found that Mr. Shepley was operating a business from the units in a manner prohibited by Section 7.3 of the CC&Rs, which disallows business activity that “involve[s] persons coming to the Unit.”

• Spirit of the Law: The decision acknowledged that the specific facts of the case “falls between the cracks of the specific language of the statutes and the regulations.” However, the judge emphasized that the Association’s actions were consistent with the broader intent of its rules, stating, “given the totality of the circumstances, the spirit and purpose of the applicable rules is to allow an association to know who is in the community and to prevent an itinerant population.”

• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to establish that the Association violated leasing statutes or its own CC&Rs.

Finding 3: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E) (Fees)

The judge found that the $250 charge was not an illegal penalty.

• Nature of the Charge: The evidence showed that no fines for the lease policy violation had actually been assessed. The $250 charge was explicitly for attorney’s fees related to the potential collection of assessments.

• Legal Reasoning: The judge stated, “Nothing in the cited statute or the CC&Rs prohibits such a charge being implemented.” The fee was not a penalty for “incomplete or late information” as covered by the statute, but a charge for legal costs incurred by the Association.

• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to establish a violation regarding the assessed fees.

V. Referenced Statutes and Governing Documents

Reference

Provision Summary

Relevance to Case

A.R.S. § 33-1242(B)&(C)

Outlines the process for a unit owner to respond to a violation notice and the association’s subsequent duty to provide specific details of the violation.

The judge found no violation because the Petitioner did not follow the procedure to trigger the association’s duty.

A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(C)

Limits the information an association can require about a tenant to names, contact info for adults, lease period, and vehicle information.

The Petitioner’s case rested on interpreting this statute; the judge found the Association’s inquiries justified by the unique circumstances.

A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E)

Prohibits an association from imposing fees greater than $15 for incomplete or late leasing information.

The Petitioner argued the $250 attorney fee violated this, but the judge found it was a permissible charge for legal costs, not a penalty.

CC&R Section 7.21

Requires leases to be in writing, for a term of not less than 30 days, and requires owners to provide lessee names and lease dates.

The Association argued the arrangement violated the 30-day minimum stay rule for occupants, which the judge upheld in spirit.

CC&R Section 7.3

Prohibits business activities within a unit that involve persons coming to the unit.

The judge found Mr. Shepley’s fitness camp, which housed participants in the units, was a clear violation of this provision.

Leasing Policy

States a $300 fine may be imposed for violations of the 30-day minimum lease policy.

The Notice of Violation referenced this potential fine, though it was never actually assessed.

VI. Final Order and Procedural Notes

• Order: Based on the above findings, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petition be dismissed.

• Binding Nature: The decision is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.

• Related Filings: On the same day the decision was issued, December 17, 2018, the court also issued a separate “Order Vacating Hearing,” likely a procedural filing to cancel a future hearing that was rendered unnecessary by the dismissal of the case.

Study Guide: Lord v. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

This study guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case No. 19F-H1918013-REL, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The case involves a dispute between a condominium unit owner, George E. Lord, and his condominium association, The Boulders at La Reserve, concerning leasing policies, occupant regulations, and alleged statutory violations.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based on the information provided in the source documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what were their respective roles?

2. Describe the business arrangement that Barrie Shepley, the petitioner’s lessee, was operating from the leased condominium units.

3. What was the first official action the Condominium Association’s management took in response to the arrival of Barrie Shepley’s guests, and what was their stated reason?

4. According to the Association, what two specific provisions of the governing documents were being violated by the petitioner and his lessee?

5. What was the petitioner’s central argument for why the occupants of the units were not in violation of the Association’s 30-day minimum stay requirement?

6. On what procedural grounds did the petitioner, George Lord, claim that the Association’s “Notice of Violations” was itself a violation of Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1242)?

7. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule that the Association did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1242?

8. How did the judge interpret the fact that the price for Barrie Shepley’s fitness camps varied based on the number of people sharing a condo?

9. What financial loss did the petitioner claim to have suffered, and what was the direct cause of this loss?

10. What was the final ruling, or “Order,” issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were George E. Lord, the petitioner and owner of multiple condominium units, and The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association, the respondent and governing body for the community. The case was adjudicated by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.

2. Barrie Shepley operated a fitness business called “Personal Best” that offered training camps in the Tucson area. The price for these camps included accommodations at The Boulders, with the cost per person varying based on how many campers shared a condominium unit.

3. The Association’s first action was to deactivate the amenity access cards for the three units leased by Shepley. Danielle Morris, the Community Manager, stated this was due to a belief that the petitioner’s lessee was subleasing the units for periods of less than the 30-day minimum in violation of the CC&Rs.

4. The Association alleged violations of the CC&Rs related to subleasing for less than the 30-day minimum timeframe. The formal Notices of Violations also cited the failure to provide the names of all adult occupants and the timeframes of their stays to the HOA.

5. The petitioner argued that because his lessee, Mr. Shepley, was not charging a specific rental fee to the occupants, they were merely “guests” and not sub-lessees. Therefore, the 30-day minimum stay requirement applicable to leases did not apply to them.

6. The petitioner alleged that the Association’s failure to include a citation to the specific statute or CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated in the initial Notice of Violations was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242.

7. The judge ruled against the petitioner because A.R.S. § 33-1242 only requires an association to provide the specific provision violated after the unit owner sends a written response to the initial notice by certified mail. The petitioner admitted that he did not respond to the Notices of Violations.

8. The judge found that the tiered pricing structure supported the conclusion that Mr. Shepley was, “in a form, subletting the units.” The fact that the camp price decreased as more people shared a unit indicated that the occupants were paying for their accommodations, not simply staying as guests.

9. The petitioner asserted a financial loss of $6,900 in rental fees for April 2018. This loss was directly caused by Barrie Shepley canceling the remainder of his leases due to the lack of amenities for his occupants.

10. The Administrative Law Judge’s final order was that the Petition filed by George E. Lord be dismissed. This decision was binding unless a rehearing was granted.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, citing specific facts, arguments, and legal interpretations from the case file.

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning for concluding that Barrie Shepley was “in a form, subletting” the units. Discuss the evidence cited and the concept of the “spirit and purpose” of the rules versus their literal interpretation.

2. Examine the procedural misstep made by the petitioner, George Lord, after receiving the Notices of Violations. How did this action directly impact the judge’s ruling on his claim regarding A.R.S. § 33-1242?

3. Discuss the conflict between a unit owner’s right to lease their property and a condominium association’s right to enforce its governing documents, using the specific provisions of the CC&Rs (Sections 7.21 and 7.3) and state law (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01) as examples from the case.

4. Explain the distinction the judge made between the $300 potential fine mentioned in the Notice of Violations and the $250 attorney’s fee charged to the petitioner. How did this distinction relate to A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E), and why was the Association’s action deemed permissible?

5. Evaluate the concept of an “itinerant population” as mentioned by the judge. How did Barrie Shepley’s business model contribute to this concern for the Association, and how did it ultimately weigh into the judge’s decision to dismiss the petition?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Name

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal rulings on disputes involving government agencies. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified body of laws for the state of Arizona. The petitioner alleged violations of specific statutes within this code, namely A.R.S. § 33-1242 and § 33-1260.01.

A.R.S. § 33-1242

A state law governing the process for notifying a unit owner of a violation of condominium documents and the procedures for the owner to respond and contest the notice.

A.R.S. § 33-1260.01

A state law that places limitations on what information an association can require from a unit owner regarding a tenant and caps certain fees or penalties for incomplete information at $15.

Amenity

A feature or facility of a property that provides comfort, convenience, or pleasure. In this case, access to amenities was controlled by key cards, which the Association deactivated.

Barrie Shepley

The individual who leased three condominium units from the petitioner. He operated a fitness business, “Personal Best,” and used the units to house clients attending his training camps.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community or condominium. The Association alleged Shepley’s use of the units violated Sections 7.21 (leasing limitations) and 7.3 (business use limitations).

George E. Lord

The Petitioner in the case. He was the owner of multiple condominium units at The Boulders at La Reserve and filed the petition against the Association.

Itinerant population

A term used by the judge to describe a population of short-term, transient occupants. The judge concluded that the purpose of the Association’s rules was, in part, to prevent this type of occupancy.

Notice of Violations

A formal written document sent by the Association to the petitioner informing him of alleged violations of the governing documents and outlining potential consequences, such as fines.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, George E. Lord.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It means that the petitioner had the burden of showing that the facts they sought to prove were “more probable than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association.

Subletting

The practice of a tenant leasing a rented property to a third party. The Association contended Shepley was subletting the units to his campers, while the petitioner argued they were merely guests.

The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

The Respondent in the case. The homeowners’ association (HOA) responsible for governing the condominium community in Oro Valley, Arizona.

The $6,900 ‘Guest’ Mistake: 3 Hard Lessons from an HOA Lawsuit

A $6,900 loss in rental income and a losing legal battle with his HOA—all because of a dispute over the definition of a “guest.” This case between owner George Lord and The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association is a masterclass in how quickly and completely an owner can lose when they misinterpret the rules and underestimate an association’s power.

For any homeowner or landlord, this dispute provides three crucial lessons distilled from the administrative court’s decision. Understanding these precedents is essential before you ever find yourself at odds with your own HOA.

Lesson 1: The “Spirit of the Rule” Can Outweigh Your Clever Workaround

The dispute began when the property owner, Mr. Lord, leased three condos to Barrie Shepley, who ran fitness training camps. Mr. Shepley then used the condos to house his camp attendees, often for periods shorter than the HOA’s 30-day minimum lease term.

The owner argued his arrangement complied with the rules. He claimed his tenant, Mr. Shepley, was not subleasing the units; the attendees were merely “guests,” and therefore not subject to the 30-day minimum. It was a clever workaround, but it fell apart under scrutiny for two distinct reasons.

First, the judge looked past the “guest” label to the financial substance of the arrangement. A key piece of evidence was the camp’s pricing: the cost changed based on how many campers shared a condo ($950 each for four campers vs. $1299 each for two). The judge saw this as clear proof that housing was being paid for, making it a form of subletting.

Second, the judge found that the arrangement constituted a prohibited business activity. The association’s CC&Rs (Section 7.3) explicitly forbade any business activity that “involve[s] persons coming to the Unit.” Since the fitness camp required attendees to come to the condos for lodging, it was a direct violation. The judge’s decision was therefore not just based on a subjective interpretation, but was also grounded in a concrete rule violation.

The court looked at the “totality of the circumstances” to make its ruling, a point powerfully summarized in the final decision:

However, given the totality of the circumstances, the spirit and purpose of the applicable rules is to allow an association to know who is in the community and to prevent an itinerant population.

Pro Tip: Before implementing a workaround, ask yourself: “Does this honor the community’s stated goal?” If the answer is no, you’re on thin ice, even if you think you’ve found a loophole.

Lesson 2: You Must Follow Procedure to the Letter, Or You Forfeit Your Rights

Confident in his “guest” interpretation, the homeowner made his next critical error by underestimating the importance of legal procedure. He argued that the HOA’s initial “Notice of Violations” was invalid because it failed to cite the specific CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated.

This argument was swiftly dismissed due to a simple but fatal mistake: the owner never sent a formal written response to the notice by certified mail.

Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1242), an owner’s formal written response via certified mail triggers the HOA’s obligation to provide the specific provision that was violated. Without that trigger, the HOA’s duty to explain further is never activated. The homeowner failed to pull the trigger. Because he did not follow this exact procedure, his claim was thrown out, and the HOA had no further legal obligation to detail its case.

Analyst’s Takeaway: In a legal dispute, communication that isn’t sent via the officially mandated channel (like certified mail) is legally equivalent to communication that never happened.

Lesson 3: The HOA’s Legal Fees Can Hit Your Wallet Sooner Than You Think

Early in the dispute, the owner received a letter from the HOA’s legal counsel. The letter outlined the association’s position and included a charge for $250.00. This was not a fine for the violation. It was a fee for the lawyer’s time, as explained in the letter:

“As you know, the Association is entitled to recover its costs and attorneys’ fees from you, including $250.00 already incurred for the preparation of this letter.”

Many governing documents contain clauses that allow an HOA to recover its “costs of enforcement.” This letter was an enforcement action, and the legal fee was the cost. The judge found that nothing in the law or CC&Rs prohibited the HOA from immediately passing this expense to the owner.

This initial charge was a precursor to a much larger financial blow. As an enforcement tool for the violations discussed in Lesson 1, the HOA suspended the tenants’ access to community amenities. This pressure tactic worked perfectly. The tenant, Mr. Shepley, cancelled his leases due to the lack of amenity access, leading to the owner’s stated loss of $6,900 in rental fees.

Pro Tip: Assume your HOA’s first legal letter starts a running tab. Budget for legal costs from day one of a formal dispute, not just for potential fines.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Your Best Defense

The case of Lord vs. The Boulders at La Reserve establishes three clear precedents for owners: a rule’s intent can supersede its literal interpretation, procedural shortcuts void your rights, and the financial clock starts ticking the moment an HOA retains counsel.

This case is a firm reminder of an HOA’s power to enforce its rules, but it also highlights the owner’s responsibility to understand them. It begs the question: In our own communities, are we fully aware of the rules we’ve agreed to live by?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

George E. Lord (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Maria Kupillas (respondent attorney)
Law offices of Farley, Choate & Bergin
Danielle Morris (community manager)
The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
LDettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
ncano (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

Barrie Shepley (renter/key individual)

John W. Gray vs. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association

Posted on November 30, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918004-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-11-30
Administrative Law Judge	Kay Abramsohn
Outcome	The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding the Respondent's violations of the CC&Rs and rules concerning parking enforcement. The Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John W. Gray	Counsel	—
Respondent	Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association	Counsel	Austin Baillio, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding the Respondent's violations of the CC&Rs and rules concerning parking enforcement. The Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to enforce parking rules (vehicle limits, garage use, inoperable vehicles)

Petitioner alleged that the HOA refused to enforce parking rules regarding vehicle limits, requiring use of garages for first cars, and banning inoperable or commercial vehicles, despite written complaints. The ALJ found the HOA failed to enforce these rules or issue proper notices/fines.

Orders: MCIII ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1258
MCIII Rules and Regulations #2 and #3
MCIII CC&Rs 4.12
MCIII CC&Rs 4.13
MCIII CC&Rs 4.14

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, Parking Rules, Filing Fee Refund, Inoperable Vehicle, CC&R Violation

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918004-REL Decision – 674057.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:15:17 (139.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Gray v. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (Case No. 19F-H1918004-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of John W. Gray (Petitioner) versus the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII, Respondent). The central issue was MCIII’s failure to enforce its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and community rules regarding vehicle parking.

The Petitioner, Mr. Gray, presented credible and convincing evidence of widespread, ongoing parking violations by multiple residents, including exceeding vehicle limits, failing to use garages for primary parking, and the long-term storage of an inoperable vehicle in a common area parking space. The Respondent, MCIII, argued that the rules were difficult to enforce and that it had taken some action, including revising the rules shortly before the hearing.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately rejected MCIII’s defense, concluding that the association had demonstrably failed to enforce its governing documents. The ALJ found that MCIII had viable enforcement options, such as issuing notices and fines, which it did not utilize. The final order deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party and required MCIII to reimburse his $500 filing fee.

Case Overview

• Parties Involved:

◦ Petitioner: John W. Gray, owner of Unit 122 in the Mesa Coronado III Condominium development.

◦ Respondent: Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII), the unit owners’ association for the 33-unit development.

• Adjudicating Body: The Office of Administrative Hearings, following a referral from the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• Hearing Date: October 29, 2018.

• Decision Date: November 30, 2018.

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that MCIII violated its own Rules, Regulations, and CC&Rs (specifically Articles 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14) by refusing to enforce parking rules despite receiving written complaints.

Background and Timeline of the Dispute

The conflict centered on parking within the MCIII development, which has 36 parking spaces for 33 units, with spaces being “open” and not assigned to specific units (with one exception).

• Pre-existing Rules (Adopted Jan. 2002):

◦ Owners were limited to two cars per unit.

◦ The garage was considered the “assigned” parking for the first car.

◦ Inoperable vehicles were banned from the property.

◦ A system of warnings and fines was in place for rule violations.

• May 17, 2018: Petitioner Gray submitted a formal written complaint to MCIII, identifying at least eight units in violation of parking rules. His complaint specified:

◦ Units with three cars were not using their garages for parking, instead using them for storage.

◦ An inoperable red truck had been stationary in the same parking spot for over a year.

◦ A commercial truck was present containing what he believed to be hazardous pool chemicals.

• MCIII’s Initial Response: The association acknowledged a “history” with the parking situation and stated the Board would review the rules for revision. MCIII noted it would investigate the red truck and also accused the Petitioner of regularly parking his own truck in a fire lane.

• July 16, 2018: The Petitioner sent a follow-up notification regarding the continuing violations.

• MCIII’s Second Response: The association informed the Petitioner that the issue would be on the agenda for the July 24, 2018 Board meeting and again reminded him of his own alleged fire lane parking violations.

• July 23, 2018: MCIII sent a notice to the owner of the unit associated with the inoperable red truck, informing them of the rules violation.

• July 30, 2018: The Petitioner filed his formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• October 23, 2018: Days before the hearing, the MCIII Board adopted new parking rules.

Petitioner’s Case and Evidence (John W. Gray)

The Petitioner built a detailed case demonstrating a pattern of non-enforcement by MCIII. The ALJ found his evidence to be “credible and convincing.”

• Specific Violations Alleged:

◦ Excess Vehicles: Multiple units possessed more than the two-vehicle limit.

◦ Garage Misuse: Residents with multiple cars were using common area parking spaces while their garages were used for storage.

◦ Inoperable Vehicle: A red truck remained parked and inoperable in one space for over a year, in direct violation of CC&R 4.14.

• Evidence Presented at Hearing:

◦ Photographs: A series of exhibits (6 through 16) contained photographs documenting the various offending vehicles.

◦ Private Investigation: The Petitioner hired a private investigator to obtain vehicle registration information to link specific vehicles to their owners and units (Exhibit 17).

◦ Quantitative Analysis: The Petitioner calculated that just 12 units were occupying 27 common area parking spaces, leaving very few spaces for the remaining 21 units.

◦ Written Correspondence: Copies of his complaints to MCIII were submitted, demonstrating that the association was put on notice of the violations.

Respondent’s Defense and Actions (MCIII)

The association’s defense centered on the difficulty of enforcement and subsequent actions taken after the Petitioner’s complaint.

• Core Arguments:

◦ Unenforceability: MCIII asserted that it was “almost impossible” to enforce the existing restrictive rules, as it would require constant 24/7 monitoring.

◦ Lack of Prior Complaints: The Respondent claimed it had received no complaints about parking prior to Mr. Gray’s.

◦ Issue is Moot: MCIII argued that its recent revision of the parking rules rendered the Petitioner’s complaint moot.

• Actions Taken by MCIII:

◦ Rule Revision: At the October 23, 2018 Board meeting, MCIII adopted new rules that eliminated the two-car limit but maintained the requirement for residents to use their garage first before occupying common area spaces. The ban on inoperable and commercial vehicles was also kept.

◦ Enforcement Against Petitioner: The Respondent noted that it had previously taken enforcement action by having the Petitioner’s own truck towed for parking in a fire lane.

◦ Notice Regarding Red Truck: MCIII provided evidence that it sent one letter on July 23, 2018, regarding the inoperable red truck.

◦ Towing Contract: The association stated it had recently contracted with Shaffer Towing for towing services.

◦ Community Manager Patrols: The “Community Manager,” Andrea Lacombe, testified that she drove through the property approximately twice a month looking for violations.

Governing Rules and CC&Rs

The decision rested on the specific language of the association’s governing documents in effect at the time of the complaint.

Document

Article/Rule

Provision

Rules & Regulations (Jan 2002)

Rule 3

Limits owners to two cars per unit and “assigns” the garage as parking for the first car.

CC&Rs (Jan 1999)

Art. 4.12

Prohibits the parking of commercial vehicles, RVs, boats, trailers, etc., on any part of the condominium outside of an enclosed garage.

CC&Rs (Jan 1999)

Art. 4.13

States that no parking space may be used for storage or any purpose other than parking of Family Vehicles. Grants the Board the right to assign spaces.

CC&Rs (Jan 1999)

Art. 4.14

Prohibits the storage of inoperable vehicles on any portion of the condominium other than within enclosed garages. Grants the Board the right to have violating vehicles towed.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ sided with the Petitioner, finding that MCIII had failed in its duty to enforce its own rules.

• Rejection of MCIII’s Defense: The ALJ determined that MCIII’s argument that the rules were unenforceable was “not a viable defense.” The decision explicitly stated that the association could have used provisions for notification and fines to enforce the rules but failed to do so.

• Evidence of Non-Enforcement: The hearing record demonstrated a clear failure by MCIII to act.

◦ The evidence was “undisputed” that the inoperable red truck had been in violation for over a year, yet MCIII only sent a single notice long after the complaint was filed.

◦ The ALJ noted that clearing even that one space would have improved the “tenuous parking situation.”

◦ The record contained no indication that MCIII had ever enforced the rules regarding the number of vehicles or the mandatory use of garages for primary parking.

◦ The only enforcement action cited, other than the single letter, was the towing of the Petitioner’s own vehicle.

• Conclusion of Law: Based on the evidence, the ALJ concluded that “MCIII failed to enforce CC&Rs and rules and regulations regarding parking.” The revision of the rules just before the hearing did not negate the past failure to enforce the rules that were in effect at the time of the Petitioner’s complaint.

Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued a binding order with two key provisions:

1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, John W. Gray, is officially deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

2. Reimbursement: MCIII is ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.

Study Guide: Gray v. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association

This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 19F-H1918004-REL, concerning a dispute over the enforcement of parking regulations. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Answer each of the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the provided source document.

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

2. What were the two main issues John W. Gray alleged in his petition filed with the Department on July 30, 2018?

3. According to the MCIII rules in effect at the time of the complaint, what were the primary restrictions placed on vehicle ownership and parking for residents?

4. Describe the key evidence the Petitioner presented at the hearing to substantiate his claims of widespread parking rule violations.

5. What was the Respondent’s primary defense for not enforcing the more restrictive parking rules that were in place at the time of the complaint?

6. How did the new rules, adopted on October 23, 2018, change the association’s approach to vehicle limits and garage use?

7. Explain the significance of the inoperable red truck to the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.

8. What was the required standard of proof for the Petitioner in this case, and did the judge determine that he met it?

9. Prior to the hearing, what specific enforcement actions did MCIII take in response to the Petitioner’s documented complaints?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, and what was MCIII required to do?

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were John W. Gray, the Petitioner, who was a condominium owner in the MCIII development, and the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII), the Respondent and the governing unit owners’ association for the development. Mr. Gray initiated the legal action against the association for allegedly failing to enforce its rules.

2. The Petitioner’s two main allegations were that the association had failed to provide him with a copy of its management company agreement and that it refused to enforce its parking rules. He specifically alleged multiple units were violating rules regarding the number of vehicles and the presence of inoperable vehicles.

3. The rules in effect at the time of the complaint limited owners to a maximum of two cars per unit. The rules also “assigned” the garage as the designated parking spot for the first car and explicitly banned “inoperable” vehicles from the property.

4. The Petitioner presented credible evidence including photographs from multiple exhibits (6-16) showing numerous violations. He also testified based on his personal observations, identified specific units with three cars using garages for storage, and provided vehicle registration information obtained through a private investigator.

5. The Respondent defended its lack of enforcement by arguing that the existing restrictive rules were “almost impossible” to enforce without constant surveillance. The Community Manager also testified that she had received no prior complaints about parking from other residents.

6. The new rules, adopted October 23, 2018, removed the limit on the number of cars permitted per unit. However, they instituted a new requirement that owners must park their vehicles in their respective garages before using any common area parking spaces.

7. The inoperable red truck was significant because it had been parked in the same spot for over a year, serving as undisputed evidence of a long-standing violation. The judge noted that MCIII’s single letter to the owner, sent long after the violation began, demonstrated a clear failure to enforce its rules regarding inoperable vehicles.

8. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning the Petitioner had to convince the judge that his contentions were more probably true than not. The judge concluded that the Petitioner successfully met this burden of proof.

9. MCIII’s primary enforcement actions were to place the issue on its July 24, 2018, Board meeting agenda and to send one letter on July 23, 2018, to the owner of the unit associated with the inoperable red truck. The record also shows MCIII had previously enforced parking rules against the Petitioner himself by having his truck towed from a fire lane.

10. The judge ordered that the Petitioner be deemed the prevailing party in the case. The judge further ordered that MCIII must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the order.

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed to promote deeper analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive responses based on the facts and arguments presented in the source document.

1. Analyze the Respondent’s argument that revising the parking rules made the Petitioner’s complaints “moot.” Based on the judge’s decision, evaluate the strength of this defense and explain why it was ultimately unsuccessful.

2. Discuss the concept of a condominium association’s duty to enforce its own rules and CC&Rs, using the specific examples of MCIII’s actions (and inactions) from the case. How did the association’s selective enforcement—such as towing the Petitioner’s vehicle but not others—factor into the case’s context?

3. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Which party presented a more compelling case, and why? Support your analysis by citing specific exhibits, testimony, and documented observations mentioned in the decision.

4. Explore the timeline of events from the Petitioner’s first complaint in May 2018 to the judge’s decision in November 2018. How does this timeline illustrate the dispute’s escalation and the association’s response strategy?

5. The Administrative Law Judge found that MCIII’s argument of the rules being “unenforceable” was not a viable defense. What practical enforcement actions, short of 24/7 surveillance, could the association have taken according to the information provided in the hearing record?

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision. In this case, it was Kay Abramsohn.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a trial to produce evidence that proves the claims they have made against the other party.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community like a condominium. MCIII’s CC&Rs were effective January 12, 1999.

Common Elements

Also referred to as the “Common Area,” these are parts of the condominium property, such as the parking lot, available for use by all unit owners.

Community Manager

An employee of the management company (Curtiss Management) hired by the association to handle its affairs. In this case, the manager was Andrea Lacombe.

Evidentiary Hearing

A formal legal proceeding where parties present evidence (exhibits) and testimony to prove their case before a judge or hearing officer.

Inoperable Vehicle

A vehicle that cannot be operated. Both the old and new MCIII rules, as well as CC&R 4.14, prohibited storing such vehicles on the property outside of an enclosed garage.

A term used to describe an issue that is no longer in dispute or of practical significance. MCIII argued that its new rules made the Petitioner’s issues moot.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this case, John W. Gray.

A map, drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land. The plat for MCIII showed there were 36 parking spaces in the lot.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true; it is a superior evidentiary weight that inclines an impartial mind to one side.

Prevailing Party

The party who is found to have won the legal case. The judge deemed the Petitioner to be the prevailing party.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; the defending party. In this case, the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association.

He Fought the HOA Over Parking—and Won. Here Are the 5 Surprising Lessons from His Battle.

Introduction: The Familiar Frustration of HOA Parking

For anyone living in a condo, townhome, or planned community, the daily dance of parking is a familiar routine. It’s a world of limited spaces, confusing rules about guest parking, and the constant fear of a warning sticker or, worse, a tow truck. This shared frustration often simmers just below the surface of community life, where the rules established by a Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel arbitrary and inconsistently applied.

This post breaks down a real-life administrative court case where one resident, John W. Gray, took on his Condominium Association for its complete failure to enforce its own parking rules. Without getting lost in legal jargon, we will explore how a single, determined individual was able to hold his HOA accountable. This wasn’t just a simple disagreement; it was a formal challenge that went before a judge.

The official court decision in Gray’s favor offers powerful and surprising lessons for any homeowner, renter, or board member. This David vs. Goliath story is more than just a victory for one resident; it’s a practical guide filled with takeaways on how to effectively address community disputes and understand the true responsibilities of an HOA.

1. The ‘It’s Too Hard to Enforce’ Excuse Doesn’t Work

The association (MCIII) built its primary defense on the argument that its own parking rules were “almost impossible” to enforce. They claimed that the two-car limit per unit was too restrictive and would require constant, 24/7 monitoring and picture-taking, which was simply not feasible.

The administrative law judge completely rejected this excuse. The core lesson from the ruling is that an HOA cannot simply choose to ignore its governing documents because enforcement is inconvenient. The judge pointed out that the association had simpler tools at its disposal, such as issuing violation notices and levying fines as outlined in their rules, but failed to take even these basic steps.

The judge’s finding offers a powerful reality check for any board that feels overwhelmed by its own regulations:

MCIII’s argument that the rules were unenforceable is not a viable defense in this instance, as the rules contained many provisions that could have been noticed to the units regarding parking rules and their enforcement.

2. Meticulous Data is Your Strongest Weapon

John W. Gray didn’t just complain; he built an airtight case. His methodical approach to proving the association’s failure was a key factor in his success. The court record details the specific actions he took:

• He conducted personal observations and took photographs of the offending vehicles.

• He identified the specific units that had too many cars and were using their garages for storage instead of parking.

• He hired a private investigator to obtain vehicle registration information to definitively link cars to specific units.

The judge found this evidence to be “credible and convincing.” Gray’s detailed documentation painted a clear picture of the problem’s scale. According to his calculations, just 12 of the community’s 33 units were monopolizing 27 parking spaces, leaving very few for the remaining 21 units. This takeaway is clear: a well-documented, fact-based complaint is infinitely more powerful than anecdotal grievances.

3. Changing the Rules Doesn’t Erase Past Failures

In response to Gray’s formal complaint, the HOA Board took a strategic but ultimately unsuccessful step. Just days before the scheduled hearing, the Board reviewed and adopted a new set of parking rules. These new rules conveniently removed the two-car limit that the association had claimed was unenforceable.

The association then argued that this rule change made the petitioner’s original complaint “moot,” or irrelevant. They essentially claimed that since the rule he was complaining about no longer existed, there was no longer a case to be heard.

This strategy failed because the judge ruled on the HOA’s past failure to enforce the rules that were in effect at the time of the complaint. This is a crucial lesson in accountability. An organization cannot escape responsibility for its prior negligence simply by changing the rules at the last minute. The failure to act had already occurred, and the consequences of that failure were the basis of the lawsuit.

4. Ignoring Small Violations Can Create a Major Crisis

Nowhere was the HOA’s failure more obvious than in the case of a single inoperable red truck. The vehicle had been parked in the same spot for over a year, in clear violation of the rules prohibiting the storage of inoperable vehicles on the property.

Despite this long-term, visible violation, the hearing record shows the HOA’s response was both delayed and minimal. They sent only one letter to the unit owner about the truck, and this action was taken “long after” the violation began and only after Gray had formally complained.

The judge’s observation on this single vehicle underscores the wider impact of the board’s inaction:

Even the clearing of just one more space would have made the tenuous parking situation better.

The red truck was a symptom of a much larger disease. The failure to address one obvious, easily-proven violation demonstrated a systemic failure to manage the community’s shared resources, which directly contributed to the parking crisis and the disproportionate use of spaces by a few residents.

5. Enforcement Must Be Fair, Not Just Convenient

Perhaps the most telling detail from the hearing record was the apparent double standard in the HOA’s enforcement actions. The record explicitly mentions only two enforcement actions the association had taken regarding parking:

• Towing the petitioner’s own truck on one occasion for parking in a fire lane.

• Sending a single, very late letter about the red truck that had been parked for over a year.

The hearing record is devastatingly clear on this point. The only enforcement actions the board could point to were punitive or reactive: towing the truck of the very resident demanding action, and sending a single, belated letter about a year-old violation after he had filed a formal complaint. This wasn’t just inconsistent enforcement; it was a textbook case of selective enforcement that targeted the complainant while ignoring the systemic problem.

For an HOA’s authority to be respected and legally defensible, its rules must be applied fairly and consistently to all residents, not just when it is convenient or aimed at a perceived nuisance.

Conclusion: A Win for the Power of One

The judge’s order was a decisive victory for resident rights, affirming that an HOA’s duty to enforce its own rules is not optional. While the association was ordered to repay his $500 filing fee, the real prize was the validation that one resident, armed with credible evidence, can successfully hold a board accountable to the entire community. This case proves that meticulous documentation, persistence, and a refusal to be ignored are the great equalizers in community governance. It makes you wonder: what ‘unenforceable’ rules in your community are just waiting for a champion to demand they be followed?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John W. Gray (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Austin Baillio (attorney)
Maxwell & Morgan PC
Represented Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association
Andrea Lacombe (community manager)
Curtiss Management
Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

Kay Abramsohn (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
Transmitted decision electronically

Rogelio A. Garcia vs. Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association

Posted on November 19, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918009-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-03-04
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Rogelio A. Garcia	Counsel	—
Respondent	Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association	Counsel	Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition for rehearing, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. The HOA was not required to provide the statutory details or the notice of the right to petition ADRE because the Petitioner failed to submit a written response by certified mail within 21 days of the violation notices.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. The HOA was not required to provide the information listed in A.R.S. § 33-1242 (C) or the notice of right to petition in (D) because the Petitioner did not submit a written response by certified mail within twenty-one days, which is the triggering requirement for those obligations.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of statutory requirements for homeowner association violation notices.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 requirements regarding violation notices. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to establish the violation because he did not respond by certified mail within the 21-day statutory period, meaning the HOA was not triggered to fulfill its obligations under § 33-1242(C) and (D).

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Notice Violation, A.R.S. 33-1242, Statutory Construction, Homeowner Petition Dismissed

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
Home Builders Association of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale, 187 Ariz. 479, 483, 930 P.2d 993, 997(1997)
Canon School Dist. No. 50 v. W.E.S. Constr. Co., 177 Ariz. 526, 529, 869 P.2d 500, 503 (1994)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918009-REL Decision – 692638.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-25T09:58:56 (89.4 KB)

19F-H1918009-REL Decision – 671673.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-25T09:59:03 (85.4 KB)

19F-H1918009-REL Decision – 692638.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:15:40 (89.4 KB)

19F-H1918009-REL Decision – 671673.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:15:44 (85.4 KB)

Briefing Document: Garcia v. Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes two Administrative Law Judge Decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Rogelio A. Garcia (Petitioner) and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the case is Mr. Garcia’s allegation that the HOA violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1242 by failing to follow specific procedures after issuing notices for a violation of its short-term rental policy.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed Mr. Garcia’s petition in both an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The central finding was that Mr. Garcia failed to meet a critical prerequisite outlined in the statute: he did not respond to the violation notices by certified mail within the 21-day period. This failure meant that the HOA’s corresponding statutory obligations—such as providing the name of the person who observed the violation—were never triggered.

Furthermore, the judge determined that the HOA was not required to inform Mr. Garcia of his right to an administrative hearing because the violation notices themselves included instructions on the HOA’s internal process for contesting the matter. Mr. Garcia’s argument that the HOA’s rapid issuance of fines and subsequent notices prevented him from responding was found to be unsubstantiated by evidence. The decisions underscore a strict interpretation of the statute, placing the initial burden of response on the unit owner.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

This matter was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings after a petition was filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The case involved an initial hearing and a rehearing requested by the Petitioner.

Entity / Individual

Petitioner

Rogelio A. Garcia

Respondent

Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association (“Villagio”)

Respondent’s Counsel

Nathan Tennyson, Esq.

Adjudicating Body

Office of Administrative Hearings

Administrative Law Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson

Case Number (Initial)

19F-H1918009-REL

Case Number (Rehearing)

19F-H1918009-REL-RHG

Core Allegation

Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242 by the Respondent.

II. Chronology of Events

• March 8, 2018: Villagio mails the first letter to Mr. Garcia, alleging a violation of short-term lease provisions in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The letter instructs him to file an appeal with the Board of Directors within 10 days of receipt.

• March 22, 2018: Villagio mails a second notice for the same violation, informing Mr. Garcia that a $1,000 fine has been posted to his account. This notice also contains instructions for contesting the violation.

• April 5, 2018: Villagio mails a third notice, informing Mr. Garcia that a $2,000 fine has been posted to his account for the continuing violation.

• Response from Garcia: Mr. Garcia did not respond to any of the three notices within the 21-calendar-day period specified by statute. He did, at some point, file an appeal directly with Villagio, which held a hearing but did not change its position.

• August 17, 2018 (approx.): Mr. Garcia files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, formally initiating the administrative hearing process.

• October 30, 2018: The first evidentiary hearing is held before Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson.

• November 19, 2018: The initial Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued, dismissing Mr. Garcia’s petition.

• January 3, 2019 (approx.): The Arizona Department of Real Estate issues an order setting a rehearing for the matter, following a request from Mr. Garcia.

• February 12, 2019: The rehearing is held. Mr. Garcia testifies on his own behalf, and Villagio presents testimony from Community Manager Tom Gordon.

• March 4, 2019: The final Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued, again dismissing Mr. Garcia’s petition.

III. Central Legal Issue: Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1242

The entire dispute centered on the procedural requirements laid out in A.R.S. § 33-1242, which governs how an HOA must handle notices of violation to a unit owner. The key provisions are:

• Unit Owner’s Responsibility (Subsection B): A unit owner who receives a written notice of violation may provide the association with a written response. This response must be sent by certified mail within twenty-one calendar days after the date of the notice.

• Association’s Obligations upon Response (Subsection C): Within ten business days after receiving the certified mail response, the association must provide a written explanation that includes:

1. The specific provision of the condominium documents allegedly violated.

2. The date the violation occurred or was observed.

3. The first and last name of the person(s) who observed the violation.

4. The process the unit owner must follow to contest the notice.

• Association’s Obligation Regarding Administrative Hearings (Subsection D): An association must provide written notice of the owner’s option to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department unless the information required in Subsection C, paragraph 4 (the contest process) is provided in the initial notice of violation.

IV. Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Rogelio A. Garcia)

Mr. Garcia’s arguments, presented across both hearings, focused on three primary claims of statutory violation by Villagio:

1. Failure to Provide Required Information: Villagio violated the statute by not providing him with the first and last name of the person who observed the violation.

2. Failure to Notify of Hearing Rights: Villagio did not inform him of his right to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department.

3. Prevention of Response: Mr. Garcia contended that Villagio effectively prevented him from responding via certified mail within the 21-day statutory period. He argued that the notices’ demand for compliance within 10 days, combined with the issuance of a second notice and a fine just 14 days after the first, led him to believe he only had 10 days to act before incurring another violation.

Respondent’s Position (Villagio at Tempe HOA)

Villagio presented a defense based on a direct reading of the statute and Mr. Garcia’s inaction:

1. Statutory Obligations Not Triggered: Villagio’s central argument was that its obligations under A.R.S. § 33-1242(C)—including the duty to name the observer—are only triggered after a unit owner submits a written response by certified mail within 21 days. Since Mr. Garcia never sent such a response, these obligations never came into effect.

2. Internal Contest Process Satisfied Statute: Per A.R.S. § 33-1242(D), the duty to notify an owner of their right to an administrative hearing only applies if the HOA fails to provide its own contest process. Villagio argued that because all three notices explicitly stated the process for appealing to the Board of Directors, it had fulfilled its statutory duty.

3. No Prevention of Response: Mr. Garcia was never legally or physically prevented from sending a certified letter. During cross-examination, he admitted he was not under any court order prohibiting him from responding.

4. Statute Inapplicability (Argument from Rehearing): Villagio further contended that A.R.S. § 33-1242 applies specifically to violations concerning the “condition of the property,” not the “use” of the property. Since short-term renting is a use, Villagio argued the statute did not apply to this situation at all.

Key Testimony from Rehearing

During the February 12, 2019 rehearing, Villagio’s Community Manager, Tom Gordon, testified.

• On direct examination, Mr. Gordon stated that Villagio does not restrict homeowners from responding to violation notices within the 21-day period.

• On cross-examination, when asked by Mr. Garcia if Villagio would have abided by “this statute” had he responded in 21 days, Mr. Gordon replied, “No.” He explained this by stating that homeowners are given 10 days to contest a notice with Villagio pursuant to its own short-term rental policy.

V. Administrative Law Judge’s Decisions and Rationale

The judge’s findings were consistent across both the initial decision and the rehearing decision, leading to the same conclusion in each instance.

Initial Decision (November 19, 2018)

• Finding of Fact: It was undisputed that Mr. Garcia did not respond to the March 8, March 22, or April 5, 2018 notices within 21 calendar days.

• Conclusion 1: Because Mr. Garcia did not respond within the 21-day period, Villagio was not required to provide him with the first and last name of the person(s) who observed the violation.

• Conclusion 2: Because Villagio notified Mr. Garcia of the process for contesting the notice, it was not required under A.R.S. § 33-1242(D) to provide him with notice of the right to petition for an administrative hearing.

• Outcome: Mr. Garcia failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation occurred. The petition was dismissed.

Rehearing Decision (March 4, 2019)

The judge reaffirmed the initial findings and addressed Mr. Garcia’s argument that he was prevented from responding.

• Finding on “Prevention”: The judge found no evidence that Villagio informed Mr. Garcia he could not respond within 21 days or otherwise prevented him from doing so. The issuance of a second notice 14 days after the first was not deemed a preventative act that nullified Mr. Garcia’s statutory window to respond to the first notice.

• Statutory Construction: The decision invoked the legal principle that “what the Legislature means, it will say,” indicating a strict, literal interpretation of the statute’s requirements.

• Reaffirmed Conclusions: The judge again concluded that because Mr. Garcia failed to submit a written response by certified mail, Villagio’s obligations under A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) were not triggered, and its inclusion of an internal appeal process satisfied the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1242(D).

• Outcome: Mr. Garcia’s petition was dismissed for a second time, with Villagio deemed the prevailing party.

VI. Final Disposition

The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Mr. Garcia’s petition be dismissed. The decision issued after the rehearing on March 4, 2019, is binding on the parties. Any party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.

Study Guide: Garcia v. Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association

This guide is designed to review the key facts, legal arguments, and outcomes of the administrative case between Rogelio A. Garcia and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association, as detailed in case number 19F-H1918009-REL.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

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

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

2. What specific violation did the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association initially accuse Mr. Garcia of committing?

3. What was the core of Mr. Garcia’s legal complaint against the Homeowners Association?

4. According to the court’s findings, what crucial step did Mr. Garcia fail to take after receiving the violation notices?

5. What was Villagio’s main argument for why it was not obligated to provide Mr. Garcia with the name of the person who observed the violation?

6. Under what circumstance did Villagio argue it was not required to provide Mr. Garcia with notice of his right to petition for an administrative hearing?

7. What new fines were imposed on Mr. Garcia in the notices dated March 22, 2018, and April 5, 2018?

8. At the rehearing, what was Mr. Garcia’s explanation for why he was unable to respond to the notices within the statutory 21-day period?

9. What argument did Villagio introduce at the rehearing concerning the distinction between a property’s “condition” and its “use”?

10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Rogelio A. Garcia, the Petitioner who brought the complaint, and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association, the Respondent defending against the complaint. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson.

2. Villagio accused Mr. Garcia of violating the short-term lease provisions located in the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The association alleged that Mr. Garcia’s unit was being rented in violation of its short-term rental policy.

3. Mr. Garcia alleged that Villagio violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242. He claimed Villagio failed to provide him the opportunity to respond by certified mail within 21 days, did not inform him of his right to an administrative hearing, and did not provide the name of the person who observed the violation.

4. The court found that Mr. Garcia did not respond to the violation notices sent on March 8, March 22, and April 5, 2018. Specifically, he failed to provide the association with a written response by sending it via certified mail within 21 calendar days after the date of the notices.

5. Villagio argued that its obligation to provide the observer’s name under A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) is only triggered if the unit owner first submits a written response by certified mail within the 21-day period. Because Mr. Garcia did not do so, Villagio was not required to provide that information.

6. Villagio argued it was not required to provide notice of the right to petition for a hearing because it had already fulfilled its legal obligation under A.R.S. § 33-1242(D). The violation notices it sent to Mr. Garcia contained instructions on the process for contesting the notice with the Board of Directors.

7. The notice dated March 22, 2018, informed Mr. Garcia that a fine of $1,000 had been posted to his account. The subsequent notice on April 5, 2018, stated that an additional $2,000 fine had been posted for the same violation.

8. Mr. Garcia contended that Villagio prevented him from responding because it did not wait 21 days before issuing subsequent notices and fines. He believed he only had 10 days to comply based on language in the notices, which created confusion and pressure.

9. At the rehearing, Villagio argued that A.R.S. § 33-1242 did not apply because the statute addresses violations related to the “condition of the property.” Villagio asserted its notices concerned the “use” of Mr. Garcia’s property (short-term renting), not its physical condition.

10. In both the initial hearing decision issued on November 19, 2018, and the rehearing decision issued on March 4, 2019, the Administrative Law Judge found that Mr. Garcia failed to prove Villagio had violated the statute. Consequently, Mr. Garcia’s petition was dismissed in both instances.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to provoke deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, drawing evidence and reasoning exclusively from the case documents.

1. Analyze the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson to dismiss Mr. Garcia’s petition. How did the judge interpret and apply the specific subsections of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 to the facts presented in the initial hearing and the rehearing?

2. Trace the progression of arguments made by both Rogelio A. Garcia and Villagio from the initial petition through the rehearing. How did their claims and defenses evolve, and what new evidence or legal theories were introduced in the second hearing?

3. Discuss the significance of the “burden of proof” in this case, which rested upon Mr. Garcia. Explain the standard of a “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the legal decision and detail why the judge concluded Mr. Garcia failed to meet this standard.

4. Evaluate the strength and potential implications of Villagio’s argument, introduced at the rehearing, that A.R.S. § 33-1242 applies only to the “condition” of a property and not its “use.” Although the judge did not base the final decision on this point, discuss how this interpretation could affect future disputes between homeowners and associations.

5. Based on the dates and actions described in the two decisions, construct a detailed procedural timeline of this case. Begin with the first violation letter from Villagio and conclude with the notice of the right to appeal the rehearing decision, including all key notices, filings, hearings, and fines.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Velva Moses-Thompson.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. (A.R.S.)

The Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. The central statute in this case was A.R.S. § 33-1242.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove its allegations. In this matter, Mr. Garcia bore the burden of proof to show that Villagio committed the alleged violation.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing documents that dictate how a condominium or planned community must be operated and maintained, and which contain the rules that unit owners must follow. Mr. Garcia was accused of violating the short-term lease provisions of Villagio’s CC&Rs.

Certified Mail

A type of mail service that provides the sender with a mailing receipt and electronic verification that an article was delivered or that a delivery attempt was made. A.R.S. § 33-1242(B) specifies this method for a unit owner’s written response to a violation notice.

Evidentiary Hearing

A formal proceeding, similar to a trial, where parties present evidence (such as testimony and documents) to a neutral decision-maker. Hearings were held in this case on October 30, 2018, and February 12, 2019.

Office of Administrative Hearings

A state agency that conducts impartial hearings for other state agencies, boards, and commissions. This office was responsible for conducting the hearings in this case.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Rogelio A. Garcia was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as “The greater weight of the evidence…sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to reconsider the original decision, often granted to review the evidence or arguments. Mr. Garcia requested and was granted a rehearing after the initial decision was issued.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association was the Respondent.

Unit Owner

A person who owns a unit within a condominium or planned community and is subject to the association’s governing documents. Mr. Garcia is a unit owner in the Villagio at Tempe community.

Select all sources

671673.pdf

692638.pdf

No emoji found

19F-H1918009-REL-RHG

2 sources

These sources consist of two Administrative Law Judge Decisions from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Rogelio A. Garcia (Petitioner) and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association (Respondent). The first document records the initial decision from October 2018, which dismissed Mr. Garcia’s petition alleging the HOA violated Arizona statute § 33-1242 by not providing required information following a notice of violation for short-term leasing. The second document details the rehearing decision from February 2019, which again found that Mr. Garcia failed to prove the HOA violated the statute because he did not respond to the violation notices by certified mail within the mandatory 21-day period to trigger the HOA’s legal obligations. Both rulings concluded that since the HOA provided him with the process for contesting the notices, they were not required to provide written notice of his option to petition for an administrative hearing. Consequently, both decisions dismissed Mr. Garcia’s petition and designated the HOA as the prevailing party.

What are the legal requirements concerning notice and response for HOA violations?

How did the unit owner’s failure to respond impact their statutory rights?

What legal interpretation was key to dismissing the homeowner’s administrative petition?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Rogelio A. Garcia (petitioner)
Appeared on behalf of himself,

Respondent Side

Nathan Tennyson (HOA attorney)
Brown Olcott, PLLC
Appeared on behalf of Respondent Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association,
Tom Gordon (Community Manager/witness)
AAM LLC
Community Manager for Villagio; testified on behalf of Villagio

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Administrative Law Judge,
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of electronic transmission of the decision,

Other Participants

Amanda Shaw (Representative/Contact)
AAM LLC
Listed as c/o for service of process for Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association