Category Archives: HOA Cases

Barry Saxion vs. Silverton II Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716023-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-05-16
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted the ALJ Decision, ordering the petition be dismissed because the governing documents require the claim be handled through internal dispute resolution prior to administrative action.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Barry Saxion Counsel —
Respondent Silverton II Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Troy B. Stratman, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Declaration Section 12.1

Outcome Summary

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted the ALJ Decision, ordering the petition be dismissed because the governing documents require the claim be handled through internal dispute resolution prior to administrative action.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to use the mandatory dispute resolution procedures set forth in the Declaration before filing the administrative action.

Key Issues & Findings

Requirement for mandatory dispute resolution procedures

The Petition was dismissed because the Declaration of Homeowners Benefits and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Silverton II requires that all covered claims must be resolved using internal dispute resolution procedures in lieu of initiating administrative proceedings.

Orders: The ALJ recommended that the Petition be dismissed, and the Commissioner accepted the ALJ decision.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Declaration Section 12.1
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Mandatory Dispute Resolution, Dismissal, Standing Issue Denied
Additional Citations:

  • Declaration Section 12.1
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716023-REL Decision – 564668.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:03:27 (51.2 KB)

17F-H1716023-REL Decision – 564672.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:03:32 (54.6 KB)

17F-H1716023-REL Decision – 568837.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:03:37 (425.5 KB)

Briefing on Case No. 17F-H1716023-REL: Saxion vs. Silverton II HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing details the administrative proceedings and final disposition of the case involving petitioners Barry and Sandra Saxion and respondent Silverton II Homeowners Association, Inc. The petition was ultimately dismissed by the Arizona Department of Real Estate, which adopted the recommendation of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The dismissal was based on a procedural failure by the petitioners to adhere to the mandatory dispute resolution process outlined in the HOA’s governing documents before initiating administrative action.

The respondent’s motion for dismissal presented two primary arguments. The first, challenging petitioner Barry Saxion’s standing due to non-ownership of property, was denied by the ALJ, who found that co-petitioner Sandra Saxion did own property and had standing. The second, and decisive, argument was that the HOA’s Declaration explicitly requires all “covered claims” to be resolved through its internal dispute resolution procedures in lieu of administrative proceedings. The ALJ agreed with this argument, leading to a recommendation for dismissal, the vacating of a scheduled hearing, and the issuance of a final order confirming the dismissal.

Case Overview

This section outlines the primary participants, key identifiers, and procedural timeline of the administrative action.

Affiliation

Petitioner

Barry Saxion

Petitioner

Sandra Saxion

Property owner within the Association

Respondent

Silverton II Homeowners Association, Inc.

Adjudicator

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings

Final Authority

Judy Lowe

Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Respondent’s Counsel

Troy B. Stratman, Esq.

Stratman Law Firm, PLC

Identifier

Case Number

HO 17-16/023

Docket Number

17F-H1716023-REL

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), Phoenix, Arizona

Referring Body

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

• Petition Filed: Both Barry and Sandra Saxion signed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition.

• Referral to OAH: The Department of Real Estate referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, creating the caption Barry Saxion v. Silverton II Homeowners Association, Inc.

• Motion for Summary Judgment: The Respondent HOA filed a motion to dismiss the petition.

• May 16, 2017: Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a decision recommending the petition be dismissed.

• May 16, 2017: A Minute Entry was issued, vacating the hearing scheduled for May 22, 2017, based on the dismissal recommendation.

• May 30, 2017: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision and officially dismissing the petition.

Analysis of the Motion for Summary Judgment

The Silverton II HOA’s Motion for Summary Judgment was the pivotal filing in this case. It presented two distinct arguments for dismissal, which were addressed separately by the Administrative Law Judge.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Lack of Standing: The initial argument was that the petitioner, identified in the case caption as Barry Saxion, did not own property within the Association and therefore lacked the legal standing necessary to pursue the action.

2. Failure to Adhere to Governing Documents: The second argument was that the petition must be dismissed because it violated the procedural requirements set forth in the HOA’s governing documents. Specifically, Section 12.1 of the Declaration of Homeowners Benefits and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Silverton II (the “Declaration”) mandates a specific internal dispute resolution process for all “covered claims.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

The ALJ’s decision, issued on May 16, 2017, analyzed both of the respondent’s arguments and made distinct recommendations for each.

• The ALJ recommended that the motion to dismiss be denied on the grounds of standing.

• The judge acknowledged the fact, undisputed by the petitioner, that Barry Saxion does not own property within the association.

• However, the judge’s review of the original HOA Dispute Process Petition revealed that Sandra Saxion, who does own property, had also signed the petition as a petitioner. The judge concluded that the case caption, which named only Barry Saxion, was an administrative creation by the Department of Real Estate upon referral.

• The finding was that Sandra Saxion clearly “has standing to pursue this action,” thereby nullifying the argument for dismissal based on a lack of standing.

• The ALJ recommended that the petition be dismissed for failing to follow the mandatory dispute resolution procedures outlined in the HOA’s Declaration.

• The judge cited Section 12.1 of the Declaration, which defines “covered claims” as “all claims, grievances, controversies, disagreements, or disputes that arise in whole or part out of . . . the interpretation, application, or enforcement of the Declaration or the other Project Documents.”

• The judge found that the current dispute fell squarely within this definition.

• The decision states that the “plain language of the Declaration prevents this dispute… to be brought in the Office of Administrative Hearings and mandates that the dispute must be handled through the dispute resolution process set forth in the Declaration and Bylaws.”

• The conclusion was that the petition was improperly filed, as the internal remedies had not been pursued first.

Final Disposition and Subsequent Actions

The ALJ’s recommendation to dismiss directly led to the final resolution of the case.

Vacating of Hearing

A Minute Entry dated May 16, 2017, formally vacated the hearing that was scheduled for May 22, 2017. The order was a direct result of the ALJ’s decision recommending the complaint be dismissed.

Final Order from the Department of Real Estate

On May 30, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order that officially concluded the matter.

• Adoption of ALJ Decision: The Order explicitly states, “The Commissioner accepts the ALJ decision that the petition in this matter be dismissed as the applicable governing documents require that the claim must be handled through the dispute resolution process prior to administrative proceedings being brought.”

• Effective Date: The Order was designated a “final administrative action” and was effective immediately from the date of service.

• Appellate Rights: The parties were informed of their right to file for a rehearing or review within 30 days of the order. They were also advised of their right to appeal for a judicial review by filing a complaint pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Title 12, Chapter 7, Article 6. A court-obtained stay would be required to delay the order during a judicial review.

Official Communications

The Final Order and related documents were formally transmitted to all parties of record via certified mail or electronic means on May 30, 2017. Recipients included:

• Barry Saxion

• Troy B. Stratman, Esq. (counsel for the HOA)

• The Office of Administrative Hearings

• Judy Lowe and other staff at the Arizona Department of Real Estate

Study Guide: Saxion v. Silverton II Homeowners Association, Inc.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.

1. Identify the primary parties involved in case number 17F-H1716023-REL and their respective roles.

2. What was the initial argument made by the Respondent, Silverton II HOA, in its Motion for Summary Judgement?

3. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) resolve the issue of Barry Saxion’s standing to pursue the action?

4. What was the second, and ultimately successful, argument presented by the Respondent for the case’s dismissal?

5. According to the HOA’s governing documents, what is the definition of a “covered claim”?

6. What was the final recommendation made by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer in her decision dated May 16, 2017?

7. What immediate procedural action was taken as a result of the ALJ’s recommended decision on May 16, 2017?

8. Who formally accepted the ALJ’s decision, and what was the title of the document that finalized this acceptance?

9. What process must the petitioners now follow to resolve their dispute with the HOA, according to the final ruling?

10. Following the issuance of the Final Order on May 30, 2017, what right did the parties have if they disagreed with the decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioners, Barry and Sandra Saxion, and the Respondent, Silverton II Homeowners Association, Inc. The Saxions initiated the dispute process, and the Homeowners Association was the entity against which the claim was filed.

2. The Respondent initially argued that the case should be dismissed because Petitioner Barry Saxion did not own property within the Association. This lack of ownership, they claimed, meant he did not possess the legal standing required to pursue the action.

3. The ALJ found that although Barry Saxion did not own property, Sandra Saxion did own property and had also signed the petition. Therefore, Sandra Saxion had standing to pursue the action, and the ALJ recommended denying the motion to dismiss on these grounds.

4. The Respondent’s successful argument was that Section 12.1 of the HOA’s Declaration required all covered claims to be resolved using the internal dispute resolution procedures set forth in the Declaration and Bylaws. They argued this must be done in lieu of initiating administrative proceedings.

5. A “covered claim” is defined as “all claims, grievances, controversies, disagreements, or disputes that arise in whole or part out of . . . the interpretation, application, or enforcement of the Declaration or the other Project Documents.”

6. On May 16, 2017, the ALJ recommended that the Petition be dismissed. She concluded that the plain language of the HOA’s governing documents required the claim to be handled through the internal dispute resolution process before any administrative proceedings could be brought.

7. As a result of the ALJ’s recommendation, an order was issued vacating the hearing that was scheduled for May 22, 2017. The parties were advised of this through a Minute Entry.

8. Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, formally accepted the ALJ’s decision. This was finalized in a document titled “Final Order,” dated May 30, 2017.

9. The petitioners must handle their claim through the dispute resolution process set forth in the Silverton II Declaration and Bylaws. The Final Order mandates that this internal process must be used prior to bringing administrative proceedings.

10. After the Final Order, pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a party had the right to file a motion for rehearing or review within thirty (30) days. They also had the right to appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions require a more detailed analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each, drawing connections between the different documents and legal concepts presented.

1. Analyze the concept of “standing” as it was presented and resolved in this case. Discuss why Barry Saxion’s lack of property ownership did not result in the case’s dismissal on those grounds, and explain the role of the original Petition in the ALJ’s finding.

2. Explain the legal hierarchy and procedural flow of this dispute. Trace the case from the initial petition to the Final Order, identifying the specific roles and actions of the Department of Real Estate, the Office of Administrative Hearings, the Administrative Law Judge, and the Commissioner.

3. Discuss the significance of Section 12.1 of the “Declaration of Homeowners Benefits and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Silverton II.” How did the “plain language” of this specific clause determine the ultimate outcome of the administrative proceeding?

4. Evaluate the two distinct arguments made by the Respondent in their Motion for Summary Judgement. Compare the legal reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge in her recommendations for each argument and explain why one argument failed while the other succeeded.

5. Describe the post-decision options available to the parties following the issuance of the Final Order on May 30, 2017. What specific steps could a party take if they disagreed with the outcome, what were the associated deadlines, and to whom would a request for rehearing be addressed?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, and issues a recommended decision. In this case, the ALJ was Tammy L. Eigenheer.

Administrative Law Judge Decision

The formal written recommendation of the ALJ. In this matter, the decision recommended that the petition be dismissed based on the HOA’s governing documents.

Commissioner

The head of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. In this case, Commissioner Judy Lowe adopted the ALJ’s decision and issued the Final Order.

Covered Claims

A specific category of disputes defined in the HOA’s Declaration. It includes all claims, grievances, or disputes related to the interpretation, application, or enforcement of the HOA’s governing documents.

Declaration

The short name for the “Declaration of Homeowners Benefits and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Silverton II.” This is a core governing document for the HOA that dictates required procedures, such as dispute resolution.

Department of Real Estate (Department)

The Arizona state agency that referred the HOA dispute to the Office of Administrative Hearings and whose Commissioner issued the Final Order.

Final Order

A binding order issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate that accepts the ALJ’s decision. This order made the dismissal of the petition official and effective immediately.

Homeowners Association (HOA)

The governing body for the Silverton II community, which was the Respondent in this case.

Minute Entry

A brief entry on the case record noting a court or judge’s order or action. In this case, a Minute Entry was issued to vacate the scheduled May 22, 2017 hearing.

Motion for Summary Judgement

A formal request made by a party (in this case, the Respondent) asking the judge to rule in their favor without a full hearing, based on the argument that there are no disputed facts and the law is on their side.

Office of Administrative Hearings

The state office where the case was heard. It provides a neutral forum for resolving disputes involving state agencies.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this case, the petitioners were Barry and Sandra Saxion.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the respondent was the Silverton II Homeowners Association, Inc.

Standing

The legal right to bring a lawsuit or administrative action. In this context, standing was initially questioned based on property ownership within the HOA.

Why This Homeowner’s Complaint Against Their HOA Was Dismissed Before It Began

Dealing with a Homeowners Association (HOA) can be one of the most frustrating aspects of homeownership. When you feel the association is overstepping its bounds or failing to enforce the rules fairly, the natural impulse is to seek a formal resolution. Homeowners have rights, and there are official channels, like administrative hearings, designed to address these disputes.

But what if the path to justice has a mandatory detour you didn’t know about? The case of Saxion vs. Silverton II HOA is a powerful cautionary tale for any homeowner who believes they have a legitimate grievance. A close look at the official documents reveals surprising lessons, and it’s a stark reminder that in an HOA dispute, being right is not enough; you must also be procedurally perfect.

1. The Fine Print Is Your First Hurdle

The primary reason the homeowners’ petition was dismissed had nothing to do with the merits of their actual complaint. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) never weighed in on whether the homeowners were right or the HOA was wrong. Instead, the case was dismissed because the homeowners failed to follow the mandatory dispute resolution process required by their own HOA’s governing documents before they filed for an administrative hearing.

The association’s own rules legally required an internal process to be completed first. By going straight to an administrative filing, the homeowners had unintentionally bypassed a mandatory first step outlined in their governing documents. The ALJ pointed to the specific language in the HOA’s Declaration, which was the ultimate authority on the matter.

all covered claims “must be resolved using the dispute resolution procedures set forth . . . in [the] Declaration and the Bylaws in lieu of filing a lawsuit or initiating administrative proceedings.”

2. A Simple Clerical Error Can Jeopardize Your Entire Case

Before even getting to the core procedural issue, the HOA made another challenge that could have ended the case immediately. They argued that the petitioner officially named in the case caption, Barry Saxion, didn’t actually own property in the association and therefore had no legal standing.

This error, however, wasn’t made by the homeowners. The case documents reveal a critical lesson: when the Arizona Department of Real Estate referred the matter for a hearing, it was the agency that created the incorrect caption. This bureaucratic mistake could have been fatal, but the petition was saved because the ALJ noted that the original paperwork was signed by both Barry Saxion and Sandra Saxion, who did own property. Because both their names and signatures were on the petition, the ALJ could overlook the agency’s error. This highlights the need for homeowners to be vigilant, double-checking all official documents—even those prepared by a state agency.

3. A “Win” Doesn’t Always Mean Justice Was Served

The final outcome was not a judgment on the underlying disagreement. The petition was simply “dismissed.” This means the core issues the homeowners wanted to resolve were never actually heard or ruled on by the Administrative Law Judge.

The process itself is revealing. On May 16, 2017, the ALJ, Tammy L. Eigenheer, issued a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed. This recommendation was then reviewed by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, who accepted it and issued a FINAL ORDER making the dismissal official on May 30, 2017. For the HOA, this was a victory won on a technicality. For the homeowners, it was a procedural dead end, preventing their core complaints from being heard in the administrative hearing. This shows how a legal victory can be won entirely on procedure, preventing the central conflict from ever being addressed.

Conclusion

The core lesson from the Saxion vs. Silverton II HOA case is clear: in a dispute with your HOA, understanding the procedural rules in your governing documents is just as important as the substance of your complaint. Failing to read and follow these rules can render your entire effort, no matter how justified, completely invalid. It can cost you time, money, and the opportunity to have your case heard at all. Before you take on your HOA, have you read the rulebook they require you to play by?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Barry Saxion (petitioner)
  • Sandra Saxion (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Troy B. Stratman (Respondent attorney)
    Stratman Law Firm, PLC

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • L. Dettorre (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • D. Jones (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • J. Marshall (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • N. Cano (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • M. Aguirre (Staff)

Kurt Gronlund vs. Cottonfields Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716024-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-05-11
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome The Commissioner accepted the ALJ decision granting the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, recommending dismissal of the petition due to the Department's lack of statutory jurisdiction over the dispute, which involved a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA) and the rights of a third-party Golf Course Owner.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kurt Gronlund Counsel —
Respondent Cottonfields Community Association Counsel Troy B. Stratman, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Outcome Summary

The Commissioner accepted the ALJ decision granting the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, recommending dismissal of the petition due to the Department's lack of statutory jurisdiction over the dispute, which involved a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA) and the rights of a third-party Golf Course Owner.

Why this result: The Department lacked jurisdiction to resolve the dispute because the REMA was not considered a 'community document' under A.R.S. § 33-1802(2) and the requested relief implicated the rights of a non-party (the Golf Course Owner) over whom the Department has no jurisdiction.

Key Issues & Findings

Jurisdiction over REMA Amendment Dispute

Petitioner sought a finding that REMA Amendments 2 and 3 were void because the HOA board unilaterally amended the REMA without the required member vote (two-thirds majority) as specified in the CC&Rs and REMA, and sought an order for the removal of the amendments from the record.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge recommended granting Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing the Complaint.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1802(2)
  • CC&Rs 14.2
  • REMA Article 12

Analytics Highlights

Topics: jurisdiction, summary judgment, golf course, REMA, third party
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1802(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • CC&Rs 14.2
  • REMA 5.1
  • REMA Article 12

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

17F-H1716024-REL Decision – 563660.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T10:12:19 (99.8 KB)

17F-H1716024-REL Decision – 568840.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T10:12:24 (854.5 KB)

Briefing Document: Gronlund vs. Cottonfields Community Association (Case No. 17F-H1716024-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and decision in the case of Kurt Gronlund versus the Cottonfields Community Association, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute centers on the petitioner’s allegation that the Homeowners Association (HOA) board improperly amended a critical land-use agreement in 2011 without a required vote of the membership, ultimately enabling the commercial rezoning of an adjacent golf course.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the HOA’s motion for summary judgment, and the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate adopted this decision, dismissing the petition. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the petitioner’s claim but on a crucial lack of jurisdiction. The ALJ determined that the Department of Real Estate could not rule on the matter for two primary reasons:

1. The governing agreement in question (the REMA) is not a “community document” as defined by the relevant Arizona statute, placing it outside the Department’s purview.

2. The relief sought by the petitioner would directly implicate the property rights of a third party (the Golf Course Owner) and a prior legal settlement, which exceeds the Department’s statutory authority.

While acknowledging the petitioner’s concerns about the golf course development may be “well-founded,” the decision concluded that the petitioner’s available remedies lie in electing a new HOA board, filing a lawsuit in a judicial forum, or seeking legislative change.

Case Overview

This case involves a dispute between a homeowner and his HOA regarding the amendment of a land-use agreement governing a golf course property.

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Description

Petitioner

Kurt Gronlund

A homeowner within the Cottonfields community and a member of the Respondent association.

Respondent

Cottonfields Community Association

The Homeowners Association (HOA) for the Cottonfields development.

Third Party

The Golf Course Owner

A separate legal entity that owns the golf course property adjacent to the community.

Case Chronology

• December 11, 2001: The developer records both the Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA) and the community’s CC&Rs.

• March 2011: The Cottonfields HOA board votes 3-2 to amend the REMA.

• March 3 & May 16, 2011: Amendments 2 and 3 to the REMA, which alter the legal description of the golf course property, are officially recorded.

• 2014: Litigation (Case No. CV2014-000639) begins in Maricopa County Superior Court between the HOA and the Golf Course Owner regarding the REMA and its amendments.

• July 2015: The HOA and the Golf Course Owner execute a settlement agreement.

• August 7, 2015: The superior court lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice.

• October 5, 2016: The HOA president represents to the City Council that homeowners favor rezoning the golf course. The Council approves a rezone from “GC” (Golf Course) to Commercial, relying on the 2011 REMA amendments.

• February 3, 2017: Kurt Gronlund files a Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• April 27, 2017: The HOA files a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing a lack of jurisdiction.

• May 10, 2017: Oral arguments on the motion are held.

• May 11, 2017: The Administrative Law Judge issues a decision recommending dismissal.

• May 11, 2017: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issues a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision and dismissing the case.

Core Dispute: Unilateral Amendment of the REMA

The petitioner’s case is founded on the claim that the HOA board acted in violation of its own governing documents when it facilitated changes to the REMA without consulting the community’s homeowners.

Petitioner’s Allegations

On February 3, 2017, Kurt Gronlund filed a petition asserting that the HOA board’s actions in 2011 were illegal and directly led to the loss of protection for homeowner property values.

• The Unilateral Action: The petition states, “[In] March 2011 the HOA board voted 3-2 to unilaterally amend REMA 5.1’s use restriction on the golf course property without the required vote of the approximately 450 eligible class members…”

• The Consequence: These amendments were used as justification for the HOA president to support a commercial rezoning of the golf course property before the City Council on October 5, 2016. The petitioner argues this “stripped away that last layer of protection” for homeowners who believed the golf course could not be developed without their approval.

• Homeowner Reliance: During oral arguments, the petitioner testified that members relied on the protections within the CC&Rs and REMA when purchasing their homes, believing development required a two-thirds majority vote.

Petitioner’s Requested Relief

The petitioner respectfully requested that the Administrative Court issue the following orders:

1. Find that REMA Section 5.1 may not be amended without the member vote required by REMA Article 12 and CC&Rs Section 14.2.

2. Find that Amendments 2 and 3 to the REMA are void and unenforceable.

3. Order the HOA Board to remove Amendments 2 and 3 from the public record.

Analysis of Governing Document Provisions

The dispute hinges on the interpretation of and interaction between two key legal documents: the REMA and the HOA’s CC&Rs.

Document

Section

Description

Key Language

Section 5.1

Use Restriction: Restricts the golf course property’s use to either a golf course or open space.

“The Golf Course Property shall be used solely and exclusively for Golf Course Use or as open space, and for no other purposes.”

Article 12

Amendment Procedure: Stipulates that changes to Section 5.1 require the same member vote as an amendment to the HOA’s Declaration (CC&Rs).

“…no termination, cancellation, change, modification or amendment of paragraph 5.1… shall be made without the written approval thereof by the number of Members… required to amend the Declaration pursuant to Section 13.2 thereof.”

Section 14.2

Member Vote Requirement: Defines the threshold for amending the CC&Rs.

“…may be amended only by the affirmative vote (in person or by proxy) or written consent of: (a) Members holding not less than two-thirds (2/3) of all Class A votes then entitled to be cast; and (b) Members holding not less than two thirds (2/3) of all Class B votes…”

Section 14.17

Third-Party Rights: Protects the rights of the Golf Course Owner, stating that provisions benefiting them cannot be amended without their written consent.

“…no provision of this Declaration… which grants to or confers upon the Golf Course Owner or the Golf Course Property any rights… shall be modified, amended or revoked in any way without the express written consent of the Golf Course Owner.”

Jurisdictional Challenge and Legal Rationale for Dismissal

The HOA’s defense focused not on the factual allegations but on the argument that the Department of Real Estate was the improper forum for this dispute. The ALJ ultimately agreed with this position.

Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment

The Cottonfields Community Association argued that the Department could not grant the petitioner’s requested relief because:

1. The REMA is not a “community document” as defined under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)).

2. The Golf Course Owner is a third party over whom the Department lacks jurisdiction.

3. Any ruling would affect the rights of this third party and could impact the 2015 settlement agreement from the superior court case.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions of Law

The ALJ’s decision was based on a strict interpretation of the Department’s statutory authority.

• REMA is Not a “Community Document”: The judge found that although the REMA references the CC&Rs, it does not meet the legal definition of a community document under A.R.S. § 33-1802(2), which defines them as “the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, if any, and rules, if any.” The Department’s authority under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A) is limited to violations of these specific documents.

• Implication of Third-Party Rights: The decision states that the petitioner’s request to void the amendments “implicates the Golf Course Owner’s interests in its property and may affect the settlement that the Golf Course Owner entered into with Respondent.” The law does not grant the Department “jurisdiction over disputes that implicate the rights of third parties.”

• Petitioner’s Available Remedies: While validating the petitioner’s underlying worries, the judge outlined specific alternative courses of action. The decision states: “Petitioner’s concerns about development of the golf course may be well-founded. However, under applicable statutes, at this time, his available remedies are to elect a board that will better protect members’ interest in maintaining the golf course, to file suit in a judicial forum against Respondent and the Golf Course Owner, or to ask the legislature to amend A.R.S. §§ 33-1802(2) and 32-2199.01(A).”

Final Order and Disposition

Based on the legal conclusions regarding jurisdiction, the case was dismissed.

• ALJ Recommendation: On May 11, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky recommended that the complaint be dismissed.

• Commissioner’s Final Order: On May 11, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner for the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order stating: “The Commissioner accepts the ALJ decision that the petition in this matter be dismissed.”

• Further Action: The Final Order noted that a party may file for a rehearing or review within thirty days, or may appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.

Study Guide: Gronlund v. Cottonfields Community Association

This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case Kurt Gronlund v. Cottonfields Community Association (No. 17F-H1716024-REL), focusing on the key legal arguments, governing documents, and the court’s final decision regarding jurisdiction.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who are the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what is their relationship?

2. What central allegation did the Petitioner make regarding the HOA board’s actions in March 2011?

3. What specific relief did the Petitioner request from the Administrative Court in his petition?

4. Identify the two key legal documents at the heart of the dispute and briefly explain their respective roles.

5. According to REMA Article 12 and CC&Rs Section 14.2, what was the required procedure to amend the use restriction on the golf course property?

6. On what primary grounds did the Respondent, Cottonfields Community Association, file a motion for summary judgment?

7. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s key legal conclusion regarding the status of the Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA)?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately find that the Arizona Department of Real Estate lacked the jurisdiction to grant the Petitioner’s requested relief?

9. What alternative remedies did the Administrative Law Judge suggest were available to the Petitioner?

10. What was the final outcome of the case as determined by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is Kurt Gronlund, a homeowner and member of the Cottonfields Community Association. The Respondent is the Cottonfields Community Association, which is the Homeowners Association (HOA) for the residential development where the Petitioner owns a home.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the HOA board voted 3-2 to unilaterally amend REMA Section 5.1’s use restriction on the golf course property. This action was allegedly taken without the required vote of the approximately 450 eligible class members, which constituted a violation of the governing documents.

3. The Petitioner requested that the court find Amendments 2 and 3 to the REMA to be void and unenforceable, order the HOA Board to remove these amendments from the public record, and issue a finding that REMA 5.1 may not be amended without the member vote required by the CC&Rs.

4. The key documents are the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA). The CC&Rs are the primary governing documents for the HOA, while the REMA is a separate agreement between the developer/HOA and the Golf Course Owner specifically governing the use of the golf course property.

5. REMA Article 12 required that any amendment to Section 5.1 (the use restriction) receive written approval from the number of Members specified in the CC&Rs. CC&Rs Section 14.2 stipulates this requires an affirmative vote or written consent of members holding at least two-thirds (2/3) of all Class A and Class B votes.

6. The Respondent argued that the Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction to rule on the matter. This argument was based on two points: the REMA was not a “community document” as defined by Arizona statute, and the dispute involved the rights of the Golf Course Owner, a third party over whom the Department had no authority.

7. The Judge concluded that although the REMA references the CC&Rs, it is not a “community document” as defined in A.R.S. § 33-1802(2). This determination was central to the case, as the Department’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes concerning community documents.

8. The Department’s jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A) does not extend to disputes that implicate the rights of third parties. Because the Petitioner’s request would affect the property interests of the Golf Course Owner and a 2015 legal settlement, the Department was not statutorily authorized to resolve the issue.

9. The Judge suggested three potential remedies: elect a new HOA board that will better protect members’ interests, file a lawsuit in a judicial forum against both the HOA and the Golf Course Owner, or ask the state legislature to amend the relevant statutes governing HOAs and community documents.

10. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s recommendation in a Final Order dated May 11, 2017. The Commissioner accepted the decision that the Department lacked jurisdiction and ordered that the Petitioner’s complaint be dismissed.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed to encourage a deeper analysis of the case. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the distinction between a “community document” and the REMA as presented in this case. Why was this distinction the pivotal point in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to recommend dismissal for lack of jurisdiction?

2. Discuss the procedural history of the dispute over the golf course property, beginning with the REMA amendments in 2011 and including the 2014 litigation, the 2015 settlement, and the 2016 rezoning. How did these prior events impact the arguments and outcome of Gronlund’s 2017 petition?

3. Explain the conflict between the powers granted to the HOA Board and Golf Course Owner in REMA Article 12 and the protections afforded to homeowners in the same article’s reference to CC&Rs Section 14.2. How did the Petitioner and Respondent interpret these clauses differently?

4. Evaluate the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction over third parties like the Golf Course Owner. Why would resolving Gronlund’s petition necessarily implicate the rights of this third party?

5. The Judge outlines three potential remedies for the Petitioner: electoral, judicial, and legislative. Describe each of these remedies and discuss the potential challenges and benefits of each path in seeking to protect the golf course from development.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who presides over administrative hearings at a government agency, in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The ALJ in this matter was Diane Mihalsky.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The collection of all the laws passed by the Arizona state legislature. Specific statutes, such as A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A) and § 33-1802(2), were central to this case.

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

The primary governing legal documents for a planned community or homeowners’ association that outline the rules and member obligations.

Commissioner

The head of a government department. In this case, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued the Final Order.

Community Documents

As defined by A.R.S. § 33-1802(2), these include a planned community’s declaration (CC&Rs), bylaws, articles of incorporation, and rules. The REMA was determined not to fall under this definition.

Dismissed with Prejudice

A legal term for a final judgment that prevents the plaintiff from filing another case on the same claim. The 2014 lawsuit between the HOA and the Golf Course Owner was dismissed with prejudice.

Golf Course Owner

A separate legal entity that owned the golf course property and was a primary party to the REMA, but was not a party to this administrative case.

• HOA (Homeowners Association) | An organization in a subdivision or planned community that creates and enforces rules for the properties within its jurisdiction. In this case, the Cottonfields Community Association. | | Jurisdiction | The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The central legal issue of the case was whether the Arizona Department of Real Estate had jurisdiction over the dispute. | | Motion for Summary Judgment | A request made by a party asking the court to decide a case in their favor without a full trial, arguing that there are no material facts in dispute and that they are entitled to win as a matter of law. | | Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) | An independent Arizona state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies to ensure fair and impartial decisions. | | Petitioner | The party who files a petition or brings an action before a court or administrative body. In this case, Kurt Gronlund. | | REMA (Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement) | A recorded legal agreement between the original developer/HOA and the Golf Course Owner that established mutual rights, easements, and obligations, including the critical use restriction on the golf course property. | | Respondent | The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, the Cottonfields Community Association. |

⚖️

17F-H1716024-REL

2 sources

The provided sources consist of an Administrative Law Judge Decision and a subsequent Final Order from the Arizona Department of Real Estate concerning a dispute between homeowner Kurt Gronlund, the Petitioner, and the Cottonfields Community Association, the Respondent. The administrative law judge recommended granting the Association’s motion for summary judgment because the Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction over the matter, a recommendation which the Commissioner ultimately accepted. The core of the conflict was Gronlund’s petition challenging the Association’s 2011 amendments to a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA), which governed the use of a golf course adjacent to the community. The decision clarified that the REMA was not classified as a “community document” under the relevant statutes, and furthermore, the requested relief would improperly implicate the rights of the Golf Course Owner, a third party over whom the Department had no authority. The final ruling therefore dismissed the petition, suggesting judicial action or legislative change as alternative remedies for the petitioner.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kurt Gronlund (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Troy B. Stratman (attorney)
    Stratman Law Firm, PLC

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Responsible for processing rehearing requests and listed on ADRE service email list.
  • LDettorre (administrative staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email contact listed ([email protected])
  • djones (administrative staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email contact listed ([email protected])
  • jmarshall (administrative staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email contact listed ([email protected])
  • ncano (administrative staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email contact listed ([email protected])

John Sellers vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the Respondent HOA complied with A.R.S. § 33-1258 by providing documents related to expenditures, and was not required to provide bank signature cards or read-only online access credentials.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John Sellers Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Madera Condominium Association Counsel Lydia Peirce Linsmeier, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the Respondent HOA complied with A.R.S. § 33-1258 by providing documents related to expenditures, and was not required to provide bank signature cards or read-only online access credentials.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 because the statute does not require the association to provide records (like signature cards or usernames/passwords) which are not financial records showing actual expenditures and are often held by the financial institution.

Key Issues & Findings

Association financial and other records; applicability

Petitioner, a member of the HOA, alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing access to bank account signature cards and read-only user names/passwords. The ALJ found that these items were not 'financial and other records' that the association was statutorily required to provide, as they related to mechanisms for disbursement rather than actual expenditure, and would be maintained by the bank, not the association.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied and dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, Condominium Act, Access to Records, Financial Records, Bank Records
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 549566.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:03:00 (60.9 KB)

17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 554490.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:03:04 (88.6 KB)

17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 558591.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:03:09 (757.3 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case John Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association. The core of the dispute was Petitioner John Sellers’s allegation that the Respondent, Rancho Madera Condominium Association, violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258 by refusing to produce specific records: bank account signature cards and read-only online banking credentials for the association’s account with Mutual of Omaha.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately recommended the petition be denied, a decision that was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The ruling hinged on a narrow interpretation of the statute. The ALJ concluded that the requested items were not “financial and other records of the association” as required by law. Key findings supporting this conclusion were:

• Custody: The signature cards, if they exist, are records held by the bank (Mutual of Omaha), not the association.

• Nature of Request: Online user names and passwords constitute “information,” not a “document” or “record” in the statutory sense.

• Sufficient Disclosure: The association had already provided a comprehensive set of financial documents (bank statements, contracts, resolutions, etc.) sufficient for a member to ascertain whether the association was prudently managing its funds, thereby satisfying the plain-meaning purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

The petitioner’s arguments that such records must exist under federal banking regulations and that electronic access is superior to paper records were deemed policy arguments to be addressed to the legislature, not grounds for finding a statutory violation.

Case Overview

Case Name

John Sellers, Petitioner, vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association, Respondent

Case Number

No. 17F-H1716021-REL (also listed as DOCKET NO. 17F-H1716021-REL and CASE NO. HO 17-16/021)

Petitioner

John Sellers (Appeared on his own behalf)

Respondent

Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Respondent’s Counsel

Lydia Peirce Linsmeier, Esq., Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Reviewing Body

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Administrative Law Judge

Diane Mihalsky

Commissioner

Judy Lowe, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Core Allegation and Legal Framework

Petitioner’s Claim

On or about December 20, 2016, John Sellers, a condominium owner and member of the Rancho Madera Condominium Association, filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged that the association had violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing to provide two specific items related to its bank account at Mutual of Omaha:

1. Bank account signature cards.

2. Read-only user names and passwords for online access to the account.

Sellers argued that these documents must exist, citing federal banking statutes and regulations intended to combat terrorism.

Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1258

The case revolved around the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, “Association financial and other records.” The key provisions of this statute state:

• A. Right to Examine: “Except as provided in subsection B of this section, all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”

• Timeline: An association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination and ten business days to provide copies upon request.

• Fees: An association may charge a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page for copies.

• B. Withholdable Records: The statute allows an association to withhold records related to:

1. Privileged attorney-client communication.

2. Pending litigation.

3. Records of board meetings not required to be open to all members.

4. Personal, health, or financial records of individual members or employees.

5. Records related to job performance or complaints against employees.

• C. Legal Prohibitions: An association is not required to disclose records if doing so would violate state or federal law.

The Uniform Condominium Act, of which this statute is a part, does not provide a more specific definition of “financial and other records.”

Factual Findings and Evidence Presented

Records Provided by the Association

Prior to the hearing, the Respondent had already provided the Petitioner with a substantial volume of financial records. Emails attached to the initial petition indicated that the following documents were furnished:

• All bank statements

• Account opening documentation

• Forms for members’ direct debit authorizations

• The Board’s resolution authorizing the opening of the bank account

• Agreements between the property management company, Trestle Management Group, and Mutual of Omaha regarding fees, indemnities, and netting

• The association’s insurance certificate

• The association’s management contract with Trestle Management Group

Witness Testimony

A hearing was held on March 7, 2017, where testimony was presented by both parties.

• Petitioner’s Testimony: John Sellers testified on his own behalf and submitted ten exhibits.

• Respondent’s Witnesses:

◦ Marc Vasquez (Vice President of Trestle Management Group): Testified that all signature cards for the association’s bank accounts were held by the bank at which the accounts were opened. He stated that Mutual of Omaha was the custodian of those cards.

◦ Alan Simpson (Vice President of Respondent’s Board) & Marc Kaplan (President of Respondent’s Board): Both testified that they did not have user names and passwords for the association’s Mutual of Omaha account. They believed, however, that the association’s treasurer may have had such credentials to access the account online.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision, issued on March 29, 2017, denied the Petitioner’s petition. The reasoning was based on a direct interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 and the evidence presented.

• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent had violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that “convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

• Statutory Interpretation: The ALJ determined that the “plain meaning” of A.R.S. § 33-1258 is to provide members with access to documents that allow them to “ascertain whether the association is prudently managing its members’ assessments.” The decision explicitly states that the numerous documents already provided by the Respondent fulfilled this purpose.

• Custody and Control: A central finding was that the requested items were not “records of the association.” The signature cards were records held and maintained by a third party, Mutual of Omaha. The statute does not compel an association to produce records that are not in its possession or under its control.

• Information vs. Documents: The decision drew a distinction between records and information, stating, “The user names and passwords are information, not a document.” Furthermore, it noted that these items “do not relate to Respondent’s actual expenditure of members’ assessments” but rather to the mechanisms for disbursing funds.

• Scope of the Statute: The ALJ concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1258 does not require an association to “create, maintain, or provide this information or documentation to Petitioner, either to serve his convenience or to allow him to ascertain Respondent’s or Mutual of Omaha’s compliance with federal banking statutes that are not incorporated in the Uniform Condominium Act.”

• Policy Arguments: The Petitioner’s contention that “paper access to the account information is inferior to electronic access” was dismissed as “a policy argument that should be addressed to the Legislature.” The statute only requires that records be made “reasonably available,” which the Respondent had done.

Procedural History and Final Outcome

c. Dec. 20, 2016

John Sellers files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Mar. 7, 2017

An evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Diane Mihalsky. An order is issued holding the record open for the parties to submit legal memoranda regarding the scope of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Mar. 21, 2017

The deadline for submitting legal memoranda passes, and the record on the matter is closed.

Mar. 29, 2017

ALJ Diane Mihalsky issues the “Administrative Law Judge Decision,” which includes Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a Recommended Order to deny the Petitioner’s petition.

Mar. 30, 2017

Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issues a “Final Order.” This order formally accepts and adopts the ALJ’s decision, and the petition is denied.

The Final Order, effective immediately upon service, represented the final administrative action in the matter. The order noted that parties could file a motion for rehearing within 30 days or appeal the final administrative decision through judicial review.

Study Guide:Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case John Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association, Case No. 17F-H1716021-REL. It covers the key parties, legal arguments, statutory interpretations, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. What was the central allegation made by the Petitioner, John Sellers, against the Rancho Madera Condominium Association?

2. Identify the specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) that formed the basis of the legal dispute and summarize its primary requirement for homeowners’ associations.

3. What specific documents or information did John Sellers request that the association refused to provide?

4. In its defense, what was the association’s stated reason for not producing the requested items?

5. List the documents that the association did provide to the Petitioner prior to the hearing.

6. Who testified on behalf of the Respondent association at the March 7, 2017 hearing?

7. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) distinguish between “information” and “documents” in her legal conclusions?

8. What is the “burden of proof” in this case, and which party was responsible for meeting it?

9. What was the final outcome of the petition as determined by the Administrative Law Judge and subsequently adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate?

10. According to the ALJ’s decision, what is the plain meaning and purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1258?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner, John Sellers, alleged that the Respondent, Rancho Madera Condominium Association, had violated A.R.S. § 33-1258. The specific violation was the association’s refusal to provide him with certain records related to its bank account at Mutual of Omaha.

2. The statute at the center of the dispute was A.R.S. § 33-1258, titled “Association financial and other records.” This statute generally requires that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association be made reasonably available for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.

3. John Sellers requested bank account signature cards for the association’s Mutual of Omaha account. He also requested read-only user names and passwords for online access to that same account.

4. The association denied the request because it asserted that the requested documents and information either did not exist or were not included in the association’s records. It was testified that the signature cards were held by the bank, Mutual of Omaha, as their custodian.

5. The association provided copies of all bank statements, account opening documentation, direct debit authorization forms, the Board’s resolution to open the account, agreements between its management company (Trestle) and the bank, its insurance certificate, and its management contract with Trestle.

6. Three witnesses testified for the Respondent: Alan Simpson (Vice President of the Board), Marc Kaplan (President of the Board), and Marc Vasquez (Vice President of Trestle Management Group).

7. The ALJ concluded that the requested user names and passwords constituted “information,” not a “document” as covered by the statute. She further reasoned that neither the signature cards nor the online credentials related to the actual expenditure of funds, but rather to the mechanisms for disbursement, and were maintained by the bank, not the association.

8. The burden of proof rested on the Petitioner, John Sellers, to establish by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent had violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

9. The Administrative Law Judge issued a recommended order denying the Petitioner’s petition. This decision was then adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate in a Final Order, formally denying the petition and making the decision binding on the parties.

10. The ALJ determined the plain meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1258 is that associations must provide members with access to documents that allow them to ascertain whether the association is prudently managing its members’ assessments. The judge noted that arguments for different types of access (e.g., electronic vs. paper) are policy arguments that should be addressed to the Legislature.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive responses based on the facts, legal reasoning, and conclusions presented in the source documents.

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of “financial and other records” under A.R.S. § 33-1258. How did this interpretation, particularly the distinction between disbursement mechanisms and actual expenditures, lead to the denial of John Sellers’ petition?

2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means and detail why the Petitioner, according to the ALJ’s findings, failed to meet this standard.

3. Trace the procedural timeline of the case from the initial petition filed around December 20, 2016, to the Final Order dated March 30, 2017. Identify the key legal bodies involved (Office of Administrative Hearings, Department of Real Estate) and their respective roles in the process.

4. Evaluate the Petitioner’s argument that federal banking statutes and regulations intended to fight terrorism necessitated the existence and disclosure of the requested records. Why was this argument ultimately unpersuasive to the court?

5. Examine the exceptions to disclosure outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1258(B). Although not the central issue in the final decision, explain how these exceptions frame the limits of a homeowner’s right to association records.

——————————————————————————–

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 or recommended orders. In this case, Diane Mihalsky served as the ALJ.

A.R.S. § 33-1258

The specific Arizona Revised Statute at the heart of the case, part of the Uniform Condominium Act. It governs a homeowner association’s duty to make its “financial and other records” available for examination by members.

Burden of Proof

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

Commissioner

The head of a government department. In this case, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, adopted the ALJ’s decision and issued the Final Order.

Evidentiary Hearing

A formal proceeding where parties present evidence (such as documents and testimony) before a judge or hearing officer. The hearing in this case was held on March 7, 2017.

Final Order

A binding decision issued by an administrative agency that concludes a case. In this matter, the Final Order was issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate on March 30, 2017, denying the petition.

Homeowners’ Association

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium development that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. In this case, the Rancho Madera Condominium Association.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, John Sellers.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It means that the evidence presented is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other, establishing that a claim is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Madera Condominium Association.

Trestle Management Group (“Trestle”)

The property management company for the Rancho Madera Condominium Association. The Vice President of Trestle, Marc Vasquez, testified at the hearing.

Uniform Condominium Act

The section of Arizona law (Chapter 9 of Title 33, Arizona Revised Statutes) that governs condominiums. A.R.S. § 33-1258 is part of this act.

⚖️

17F-H1716021-REL

3 sources

These sources document the administrative legal proceedings of a dispute between John Sellers (Petitioner) and the Rancho Madera Condominium Association (Respondent) before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core issue of the case, No. 17F-H1716021-REL, was the Association’s alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing to provide bank account signature cards and read-only user credentials for online access to their bank account. The initial order, dated March 7, 2017, held the record open to allow both parties to submit legal memoranda concerning the scope of corporate records required under the statute. The subsequent Administrative Law Judge Decision, dated March 29, 2017, denied the Petitioner’s petition, concluding that the requested items were not considered financial records the association was legally required to create, maintain, or disclose. Finally, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate adopted the ALJ Decision as a Final Order on March 30, 2017.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Sellers (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Lydia Peirce Linsmeier (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
  • Alan Simpson (board member/witness)
    Rancho Madera Condominium Association
    Vice President of Respondent's board
  • Marc Kaplan (board member/witness)
    Rancho Madera Condominium Association
    President of Respondent's Board
  • Marc Vasquez (property manager/witness)
    Trestle Management Group
    Vice President of Trestle
  • Annette Graham (attorney staff)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Derived from email address (Annette.graham)

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Also listed as AHansen

Other Participants

  • M. Johnson (clerical staff)
    Signatory on document transmission
  • LDettorre (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Email recipient
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Email recipient
  • jmarshall (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Email recipient
  • ncano (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Email recipient

Jay Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-03-14
Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil
Outcome The Petitioner's petition was granted. The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1817 by invalidly adopting the 'Declaration of Scrivener's Error' (Exhibit C) as an amendment without the required lot owner vote. However, the $10.00 annual increased assessment that Petitioner objected to was permitted to stand because the authority for differential assessments was established by the valid First Amendment to the Declaration, independent of the invalid Exhibit C. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jay Janicek Counsel —
Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA Counsel Evan Thomson, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition was granted. The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1817 by invalidly adopting the 'Declaration of Scrivener's Error' (Exhibit C) as an amendment without the required lot owner vote. However, the $10.00 annual increased assessment that Petitioner objected to was permitted to stand because the authority for differential assessments was established by the valid First Amendment to the Declaration, independent of the invalid Exhibit C. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500 filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner objected to the increased assessment resulting from Exhibit C, but the Tribunal determined that Respondent had the right to impose the increased assessment pursuant to the language of Section 6.8 in the valid First Amendment to the Declaration, regardless of the invalidity of Exhibit C.

Key Issues & Findings

Improper Amendment of Declaration (Declaration of Scrivener's Error)

Petitioner claimed Respondent HOA improperly adopted a Declaration of Scrivener's Error (Exhibit C) to revise the definition of developed/undeveloped lots, arguing it was a substantive amendment requiring a 75% lot owner vote, which Respondent failed to obtain.

Orders: The Tribunal found that Exhibit C constituted an amendment and Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1817 by adopting it without a vote. Exhibit C was deemed invalid, but this invalidity did not nullify the subsequent assessment increase, which was authorized by a prior, valid declaration amendment. Respondent was ordered to refund the filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Declaration Amendment, Scrivener's Error, Assessments, Statutory Violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811

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

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 551057.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:02:31 (83.7 KB)

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 559875.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:02:41 (794.0 KB)

Briefing Document: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative legal dispute between petitioner Jay Janicek and respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (HOA), culminating in the case No. 17F-H1716019-REL. The core of the conflict was the HOA Board’s attempt to amend its governing Declaration via a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” without the required 75% vote from lot owners. This action was intended to reinsert a definition of “Completed Lots” that had been omitted from a 2009 amendment and was followed by a $10 annual assessment increase on developed lots.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting his petition and invalidating the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error.” The judge found that the change was a substantive amendment, not a correction of a clerical error, and the Board’s unilateral action violated Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817). However, in a critical distinction, the ALJ ruled that the $10 assessment increase on developed lots was permissible and should stand, as the authority to set different rates for completed and uncompleted lots was already established in the valid 2009 First Amendment to the Declaration.

The judge also rejected the petitioner’s conflict of interest claim against three Board members with financial ties to the developer, deeming the petitioner’s interpretation of the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811) to be overbroad. The final order, adopted by the Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner, required the HOA to pay the petitioner’s $500 filing fee and to comply with state statutes regarding amendments and conflicts of interest in the future.

Case Details

Details

Case Name

Jay Janicek, Petitioner, vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, Respondent

Case Number

HO 17-16/019

Docket Number

17F-H1716019-REL

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings / Arizona Department of Real Estate

Petitioner

Jay Janicek (appeared personally)

Respondent

Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA (represented by Evan Thomson, Esq.)

Administrative Law Judge

Suzanne Marwil

Hearing Date

March 2, 2017

ALJ Decision Date

March 14, 2017

Final Order Date

March 16, 2017

Commissioner

Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Background and Core Dispute

The conflict originated from changes to the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (Declaration).

• 2005 Declaration: The original “2005 Amended and Restated Declaration” contained Section 6.8, which established a uniform assessment rate for all lots. Crucially, it exempted the Declarant and Developer from payments on any property except for “Completed Lots.” This section provided a specific definition for “Completed Lots,” describing them as any lot with a dwelling unit ready for occupancy.

• 2009 First Amendment: On December 4, 2008, after securing a vote from 75% of lot owners, the HOA adopted the “First Amendment to the 2005 Declaration.” This amendment deleted the original Section 6.8 in its entirety and replaced it with new language stating: “annual dues may be assessed at one uniform rate for Completed Lots and a different uniform rate for Uncompleted Lots.” This amendment, however, omitted the definition of a “Completed Lot” that was present in the 2005 version.

• Seven-Year Period: For seven years following the 2009 amendment, the revised Section 6.8 remained unchanged, without the specific definition.

The “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error”

In June or July 2016, the HOA Board proposed a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” to address the omitted definition.

• Board’s Position: The Respondent, represented by its president Steven Russo, argued that the purpose of the declaration was simply to correct a clerical error by reinserting the definition of a developed versus undeveloped lot, which was “inadvertently omitted” from the 2009 First Amendment. The Board stated it was acting on the advice of its legal counsel.

• Petitioner’s Position: Mr. Janicek contended that this declaration was not a correction of a minor error but was a substantive change to the Declaration. As such, he argued it required the approval of 75% of the lot owners, a process that was not followed.

• Adoption: On August 3, 2016, the Board adopted the Declaration of Scrivener’s Error by a 3-2 vote. Petitioner Janicek and another Board member representing developed lot owners voted against the measure.

• Immediate Consequence: Following the adoption, the Board voted to increase the annual assessment for developed lot owners by $10.00, while the assessment for undeveloped lots remained unchanged. This action prompted Mr. Janicek to file his petition.

Allegations of Fiduciary Duty and Conflict of Interest

Petitioner Janicek accused the Respondent of a violation of its fiduciary duty and a conflict of interest. He noted that three members of the Board had a financial interest in NT Properties, the company that owned the community’s undeveloped lots. These lots directly benefited from the assessment structure that placed a higher burden on developed lots.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision, issued on March 14, 2017, contained three central conclusions of law that addressed the distinct issues raised in the petition.

1. The “Scrivener’s Error” was an Invalid Amendment

The judge found decisively in favor of the petitioner on the core issue of the amendment process.

• Substantive Change, Not Clerical Error: The Tribunal found that the change constituted an amendment to the Declaration, not a correction of a simple clerical error.

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1817: The judge ruled that the procedure for amending the Declaration requires a vote by the lot owners, as specified in the Declaration and state law. The HOA violated this statute by attempting to amend the document via a simple Board vote.

• Key Judicial Reasoning: The judge noted that the same section had been properly amended by a homeowner vote in 2009. The ruling states, “after a period of seven years, it defies logic to suggest that a further change to section was simply a clerical error.”

• Conclusion: The Declaration of Scrivener’s Error (Exhibit C) was declared invalid and could not operate to amend the Declaration.

2. The Assessment Increase Was Valid

Despite invalidating the method used by the Board, the judge upheld the Board’s right to implement the assessment increase.

• Existing Authority: The ruling stated that the invalidity of Exhibit C “does not implicate Respondent’s right to impose an increased assessment on the developed lots.”

• Basis in 2009 Amendment: The judge found that the language of the valid 2009 First Amendment—which expressly states that “annual dues may be assessed at one uniform rate for Completed Lots and a different uniform rate for Uncompleted Lots”—provided the Board with sufficient authority to set differential rates.

• Conclusion: The raised assessment was allowed to stand.

3. Conflict of Interest Claim Rejected

The Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s argument that Board members with ties to NT Properties had a conflict of interest under A.R.S. § 33-1811.

• “Overbroad” Interpretation: The judge found the petitioner’s interpretation of the conflict-of-interest statute to be “overbroad.”

• Rationale: The ruling stated that this interpretation “ignores that make-up of the Board as outlined in the Declaration and disregards the express language permitting the Board to assess annual dues.”

• Conclusion: The Board members were not required to declare a conflict of interest and were permitted to vote on the issue.

Final Order

The petition filed by Jay Janicek was granted. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was officially adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate in a Final Order dated March 16, 2017. The final order mandated the following:

• The Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA must pay the petitioner, Jay Janicek, the $500.00 filing fee.

• The HOA must comply with the applicable provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1817 (regarding the proper procedure for amending a declaration) and § 33-1811 (regarding conflicts of interest) in the future.

Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

This study guide provides a review of the administrative law case Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA (No. 17F-H1716019-REL). It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to aid in understanding the facts, arguments, and legal conclusions of the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. What was the central action taken by the Respondent’s Board that led to this legal dispute?

3. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument against the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error”?

4. How did the Respondent justify its use of a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” instead of a full vote by lot owners?

5. Describe the conflict of interest alleged by the Petitioner against the Respondent’s Board.

6. How did the 2009 First Amendment alter Section 6.8 of the HOA’s 2005 Declaration?

7. What was the direct financial consequence for developed lot owners following the Board’s actions in 2016?

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final ruling regarding the validity of the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error”?

9. Despite invalidating the Board’s action, what did the Judge decide regarding the increased assessment on developed lots?

10. What was the final order issued in the case, and what was the Respondent required to do?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Jay Janicek and Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA. Janicek, a lot owner, brought the petition against the Homeowner’s Association to challenge a decision made by its Board of Directors.

2. The Respondent’s Board, by a 3-2 vote, adopted a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” on August 3, 2016. This action was intended to reinsert a definition of “Completed Lots” that had been omitted from a 2009 amendment to the HOA’s governing documents.

3. The Petitioner argued that the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” was not a simple correction but a substantive change to the Declaration. As such, he contended it was an amendment that required approval by a vote of seventy-five percent of the lot owners, not just a Board vote.

4. The Respondent argued that the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” was merely intended to correct a clerical error by reinserting the definition of developed versus undeveloped lots, which was inadvertently deleted from the 2009 revision. The Board’s President, Steven Russo, testified that they acted on the recommendation of their legal counsel.

5. The Petitioner alleged a conflict of interest because three members of the Respondent’s Board had a financial interest in NT Properties, the company that owns the undeveloped lots. The Petitioner argued that these members stood to benefit from assessment changes that favored undeveloped lots.

6. The 2009 First Amendment deleted the original Section 6.8 and replaced it with new language. This new language explicitly allowed annual dues to be assessed at different uniform rates for “Completed Lots” and “Uncompleted Lots,” a distinction not present in the original uniform rate structure.

7. Following the adoption of the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error,” the Board voted to increase the annual assessment for developed lot owners by $10.00. The assessment for undeveloped lots was left unchanged.

8. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” was an invalid amendment to the Declaration. The Judge found that it was a substantive change that required a vote of the lot owners as specified in A.R.S. §33-1817, and that calling it a correction of a clerical error after seven years “defies logic.”

9. The Judge ruled that the increased assessment on developed lots could stand. The ruling was based on the language of the valid 2009 First Amendment, which expressly permitted the HOA to assess different rates for completed and uncompleted lots, independent of the invalidated “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error.”

10. The final order granted the Petitioner’s petition. The Respondent, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Consider the following questions. Formulate a comprehensive response drawing upon the specific facts, legal arguments, and conclusions presented in the case documents.

1. Analyze the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to invalidate the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” while simultaneously upholding the increased assessment on developed lots. Explain how both parts of this ruling were supported by different governing documents.

2. Discuss the conflict of interest allegation raised by Jay Janicek under A.R.S. § 33-1811. Why did the Tribunal ultimately reject this argument, and what does this rejection imply about the Board’s authority to set assessments under the Declaration?

3. Trace the evolution of Section 6.8 of the Declaration from the original 2005 version, through the 2009 First Amendment, to the attempted 2016 change. Explain the significance of the “Completed Lots” definition and how its omission and attempted reinsertion became the central point of the dispute.

4. Evaluate the Respondent’s argument that it was simply correcting an inadvertent clerical error. What evidence and reasoning did the Administrative Law Judge use to conclude that this was, in fact, an improper amendment?

5. Describe the legal requirements for amending an HOA declaration as outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1817. Explain precisely how the actions of the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA Board violated this statute.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding judge in the administrative hearing, in this case, Suzanne Marwil. The ALJ hears evidence and issues a decision based on the facts and applicable laws.

A.R.S. § 33-1811

An Arizona Revised Statute cited in the case that addresses conflicts of interest for members of an HOA board of directors. The Tribunal found the Petitioner’s interpretation of this statute to be overbroad.

A.R.S. § 33-1817

An Arizona Revised Statute cited in the case that outlines the legal requirements and procedures for amending an HOA’s declaration. The ALJ found the Respondent violated this statute.

Completed Lots

As defined in the original 2005 Declaration, this refers to any lot with a dwelling unit ready for occupancy, including installed carpets, cabinets, plumbing, etc. This definition was central to the dispute.

Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (Declaration)

The primary governing legal document of the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, which outlines the rules, assessments, and rights of the property owners.

Declaration of Scrivener’s Error

The legal instrument adopted by the Respondent’s Board in a 3-2 vote on August 3, 2016. It was purported to correct a clerical error but was ruled to be an invalid substantive amendment to the Declaration.

First Amendment

The amendment to the 2005 Declaration adopted on December 4, 2008, after a vote of 75% of the lot owners. It changed Section 6.8 to allow for different assessment rates for completed and uncompleted lots but inadvertently omitted the definition of a “Completed Lot.”

NT Properties

A company with a financial interest in the undeveloped lots within the HOA. Three members of the Respondent’s Board also had a financial interest in this company, forming the basis of a conflict of interest allegation.

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, Jay Janicek.

Respondent

The party against whom the petition was filed. In this case, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA.

Tribunal

A term used within the decision to refer to the adjudicating body, specifically the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

Uniform Rate of Assessment

A principle laid out in the 2005 Declaration requiring that annual and special assessments be fixed at a uniform rate for all lots. This was modified by the 2009 First Amendment.

He Sued His HOA and Won. Here’s Why He Still Had to Pay.

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath of Neighborhood Disputes

For many homeowners, the relationship with their Homeowners’ Association (HOA) can feel like a constant source of tension. It’s a world of rules, fees, and board decisions that can seem arbitrary or unfair. So when a single homeowner decides to take on their entire HOA in a legal battle, it feels like a classic David vs. Goliath story. This is one of those stories—about a homeowner who challenged an improper rule change and an unexpected fee increase. He took his HOA to court and, on paper, he won. But as he discovered, the outcome was far more surprising and nuanced than a simple victory.

——————————————————————————–

1. You Can’t Fix a Seven-Year-Old “Mistake” with a Simple Board Vote.

The core of the dispute began when the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA tried to amend its governing documents with a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error.” Their goal was to reinsert definitions of “Completed Lots” versus “Undeveloped Lots” that they claimed had been “inadvertently deleted” from a revision seven years prior.

Instead of seeking approval from the homeowners, the Board of Directors passed this “correction” on August 3, 2016, with a simple 3-2 vote. This procedural shortcut triggered the legal challenge.

The Administrative Law Judge unequivocally rejected the HOA’s move. The judge’s reasoning was sharp and logical: the seven-year gap since the original amendment was a critical factor. The sheer passage of time had transformed what the HOA called a clerical correction into what the law considered a substantive change. As such, it required a vote by 75% of the lot owners, not a simple board action.

The judge’s decision underscored this point with a powerful rebuke:

…after a period of seven years, it defies logic to suggest that a further change to section was simply a clerical error.

This finding was a crucial victory for the homeowner. It affirmed that HOAs must follow the proper procedures outlined in their own governing documents and cannot use shortcuts to rewrite history, no matter how they frame their intentions.

——————————————————————————–

2. A Legal “Win” Doesn’t Always Mean You Get the Financial Outcome You Want.

Even though the judge invalidated the HOA’s “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error,” she made another, more surprising ruling: the $10.00 annual assessment increase on developed lots—the very fee that sparked the lawsuit—was valid and would stand.

The legal reasoning was buried in the fine print of the HOA’s own documents. A different amendment, one legally passed with a 75% homeowner vote on December 4, 2008, already gave the Board the explicit authority to set different assessment rates. The key language in that valid amendment stated, “annual dues may be assessed at one uniform rate for Completed Lots and a different uniform rate for Uncompleted Lots.”

This created the central irony of the case: the HOA took a legally improper path to arrive at a destination they already had a legal right to reach. Interestingly, the HOA board president testified they were acting on the advice of their counsel, suggesting this was less a malicious act and more of a costly legal misstep.

The petitioner, Jay Janicek, won his case on principle. The judge’s order granted his petition and even awarded him his $500.00 filing fee. But he lost on the practical financial issue that started the dispute. The $10 increase remained. It’s a stark illustration of how complex legal documents can be, where one legally sound clause can override a victory on another front.

——————————————————————————–

3. Proving a Conflict of Interest Is Harder Than It Looks.

The homeowner also accused the board of a conflict of interest. He pointed out that three members of the five-person board had a financial stake in NT Properties, the company that owned the community’s undeveloped lots. These were the very lots that benefited from the new assessment structure, as their fees remained unchanged while only the developed lots saw the $10 increase. On the surface, it appeared to be a clear-cut case of self-dealing.

However, the judge rejected this claim, ruling that the petitioner’s interpretation of the conflict of interest statute was “overbroad.” The judge’s analysis provided a crucial distinction: the board members were not inventing a new power for their own benefit; they were exercising a power explicitly granted to the Board by the homeowners themselves in the 2009 Declaration. The ruling noted that the petitioner’s argument “disregards the express language permitting the Board to assess annual dues.”

This takeaway is a sobering one for homeowners. It demonstrates that what might look like a glaring conflict of interest to a layperson may not meet the specific legal standard required to invalidate a board’s actions, especially when those actions fall within the powers already granted by the community’s governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: A Victory of Principle

In the end, the homeowner walked away with a strange and dual outcome. He successfully proved his HOA acted improperly by trying to amend its rules without a proper vote, yet he could not reverse the financial consequence that drove him to file the suit. The case stands as a powerful reminder for all homeowners: understanding both the procedural rules your HOA must follow and the precise wording hidden deep within its governing documents is absolutely critical. This ruling created a clear divide between procedural justice and financial reality.

This case was a victory of principle over practice—how much is a principle worth when the bottom line doesn’t change?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jay Janicek (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Evan Thomson (attorney)
    Represented Respondent
  • Steven Russo (board member)
    Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
    President of Respondent; testified
  • Dane Dehler (attorney)
    Thompson Kron, P.L.C.
    Received copy of final order
  • Whitney Cunningham (HOA contact)
    Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
    Received copy of final order c/o

Neutral Parties

  • Suzanne Marwil (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Recipient for rehearing request

Jerry and Patricia Gravelle vs. Village Parc Homeowners Assoc. of

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716008-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-01-03
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome The Department adopted the ALJ's recommendation to dismiss the petition. The ALJ found that the HOA's insurance policy and CC&Rs did not require coverage for damage to the Petitioners' individual unit (finished surfaces and personal property) resulting from a sewer backup. The HOA was only responsible for common elements.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jerry and Patricia Gravelle Counsel —
Respondent Village Parc Homeowners Assoc. of Havasu Counsel Kenneth E. Moyer

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 11, Section 11.7.3 and 11.7.6

Outcome Summary

The Department adopted the ALJ's recommendation to dismiss the petition. The ALJ found that the HOA's insurance policy and CC&Rs did not require coverage for damage to the Petitioners' individual unit (finished surfaces and personal property) resulting from a sewer backup. The HOA was only responsible for common elements.

Why this result: The CC&Rs explicitly state that the Association is not required to insure personal property within an individual unit and that owners are responsible for their own unit coverage. The ALJ found that past minor payments by the Board for similar damages did not amend the governing documents.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide insurance coverage for unit damages

Petitioners alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to provide insurance coverage for damages to their unit (interior/personal property) caused by a sewer backup, requesting $6,697.70 reimbursement.

Orders: The petition is dismissed; no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(1)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1247(A)
  • CC&Rs Article 11 Section 11.7.3
  • CC&Rs Article 11 Section 11.7.6

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716008-REL Decision – 528194.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:00:56 (58.8 KB)

17F-H1716008-REL Decision – 528432.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:01:04 (63.1 KB)

17F-H1716008-REL Decision – 535933.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:01:08 (131.6 KB)

17F-H1716008-REL Decision – 539997.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:01:18 (1010.1 KB)

Briefing: Gravelle v. Village Parc Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the key findings and legal determinations from an administrative case between homeowners Jerry and Patricia Gravelle and the Village Parc Homeowners Association of Havasu (HOA). The dispute centered on liability for damages within the Gravelles’ condominium unit caused by a sewer backup.

The petition, filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, was ultimately dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded, and the Department Commissioner affirmed, that the HOA’s governing documents—the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—unambiguously place the responsibility for insuring the interior of an individual unit on the unit owner, not the HOA.

The ruling established that the HOA’s master insurance policy, provided by Travelers, was only obligated to cover what the CC&Rs required. Arguments based on the HOA’s past payments for minor damages in other units, an erroneous initial statement by an insurance adjuster on a prior claim, and the HOA Board’s own mistaken interpretation of its duties were all found to be insufficient to override the plain written language of the governing documents. The final decision reinforces the principle that unit owners are responsible for understanding their CC&Rs and securing adequate personal insurance for their property.

I. Case Overview and Final Disposition

• Case Identification: No. 17F-H1716008-REL

• Parties:

◦ Petitioners: Jerry and Patricia Gravelle, owners of Unit 14 in the Village Parc development.

◦ Respondent: Village Parc Homeowners Assoc. of Havasu (“the Association”).

• Adjudicating Body: The case was heard in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Diane Mihalsky. The final order was issued by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• Key Dates:

◦ Hearing Date: November 10, 2016

◦ ALJ Decision: December 22, 2016

◦ Final Order: January 3, 2017

• Final Disposition: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, accepted the ALJ’s recommendation and ordered that the petition be dismissed. This constituted a final administrative action, effective immediately. Parties were advised of their right to file for rehearing or appeal for judicial review.

II. The Core Dispute: Insurance for Sewer Backup Damage

On or about October 23, 2015, the Petitioners’ condominium (Unit 14), along with two other units, suffered damage from a sewer backup. The central conflict arose from determining which party was financially responsible for the repairs inside the Petitioners’ unit.

• Petitioners’ Claim: The Gravelles filed a petition on August 31, 2016, alleging the Association violated Articles 11.7.3 and 11.7.6 of the CC&Rs by failing to provide insurance coverage for the full extent of the damages. Their personal insurance policy did not cover sewer backups. They requested the Association pay $6,697.70 to reimburse them for the loss that the Association’s insurer, Travelers, declined to cover.

• Insurance Claim Outcome:

◦ The Association submitted a claim for the sewer backup damages to its insurer, Travelers.

◦ Travelers determined that its policy covered damages to the common elements associated with the unit and issued a check to the Petitioners for $338.64.

◦ Travelers concluded there was no coverage under the policy for damage to the interior of the Petitioners’ unit. This denial was based on the CC&Rs, which establish that the unit owner is responsible for the finished surfaces and personal property within their unit.

III. Analysis of Governing Documents and Legal Framework

The ALJ’s decision was grounded in a strict interpretation of the Association’s CC&Rs, its insurance contract, and the Arizona Condominium Act.

Document / Statute

Key Provisions and Implications

Village Parc CC&Rs

Unit Definition (Sec. 2.2.1): A unit is defined as the space “bounded by and contained within the interior finished surfaces of the perimeter walls, floors and ceilings.”

Insurance Responsibility (Sec. 11.7.3): The Association’s master policy is explicitly “not be required to insure the personal property within any individual Unit, which insurance shall be the responsibility and risk of the Unit Owners.”

Liability Limitation (Sec. 11.7.5): The Association is not liable to any owner “if any risk or hazard is not covered by insurance or the amount is inadequate.” It places the burden on each owner to ascertain the Association’s coverage and procure their own additional insurance.

Travelers Insurance Policy

Conditional Coverage Endorsement: The policy covers certain property (fixtures, alterations, appliances) contained within a unit, but only “if your Condominium Association Agreement requires you to insure it.” Since the CC&Rs do not require the Association to insure unit interiors, this coverage was not triggered.

Primary Insurance: The policy states it is “intended to be primary, and not to contribute with such other insurance” a unit-owner may have.

Arizona Condominium Act

Unit Definition (A.R.S. § 33-1212(1)): Reinforces the CC&Rs by defining finished surfaces—”lath, furring, wallboard… tiles, wallpaper, paint, finished flooring”—as part of the unit. All other portions of walls, floors, or ceilings are common elements.

Maintenance Responsibility (A.R.S. § 33-1247(A)): The law specifies that “the association is responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of the common elements and each unit owner is responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of the unit.”

IV. Petitioners’ Arguments and the ALJ’s Rejection

The Petitioners presented evidence of past practices by both the Association and Travelers, arguing these created an expectation of coverage. The ALJ systematically rejected these arguments.

• Argument 1: The Association’s Past Payments for Unit Repairs

◦ Petitioners’ Evidence: The Association had authorized payments for repairs inside other units on prior occasions:

▪ June 2011: $153.74, $75.00, and $296.11 for damage to Units 3 and 5 from a broken shower drain.

▪ January 2012: $449.45 to repair kitchen cabinets in Unit 6 damaged by a broken roof vent.

◦ ALJ’s Conclusion: The fact that the Association’s Board made “actual payments of small amounts for damages to individually owned units” does not legally amend the plain language of the CC&Rs. Notably, the Association did not submit these prior incidents to its insurer.

• Argument 2: Travelers’ Prior Actions

◦ Petitioners’ Evidence: In a 2014 claim, a Travelers adjuster initially determined that the policy did provide coverage for damage done to a unit, not just limited common elements.

◦ ALJ’s Conclusion: Travelers later stated the adjuster had erred and confirmed no claim for unit damage was ultimately paid. The ALJ found that the “adjuster’s initial error in the 2014 claim does not estop Travelers from denying the claim for damages to Petitioners’ unit” in 2015.

• Argument 3: The Association Board’s Own Interpretation

◦ Petitioners’ Evidence: At a November 2015 board meeting, where Mr. Gravelle served as secretary/treasurer, the Board itself determined that the CC&Rs did require the Association to provide insurance coverage for all damages to Unit 14.

◦ ALJ’s Conclusion: The Board’s “erroneous opinion” does not have the legal power to amend the CC&Rs or the binding terms of the Travelers insurance policy.

V. Core Legal Principles and Final Decision

The dismissal of the petition was based on several foundational legal principles.

• Primacy of Written Documents: The decision gave superior weight to the “plain language” of the CC&Rs and the insurance contract over inconsistent past practices or mistaken interpretations.

• Burden of Proof: As the filing party, the Petitioners had the burden to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association violated the CC&Rs. The ALJ determined they failed to meet this standard.

• Clear Delineation of Responsibility: Both the CC&Rs and Arizona state law create a clear separation of financial and maintenance responsibilities: the Association is responsible for common elements, while individual owners are responsible for their units.

• Presumption of Knowledge: The decision cited the legal principle that “Everyone is presumed to know the law.” The CC&Rs put the Petitioners on constructive notice that they were responsible for insuring their individual unit against risks like a sewer backup. Their failure to procure such coverage was their own responsibility.

Study Guide: Gravelle v. Village Parc Homeowners Association

This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case No. 17F-H1716008-REL, involving Jerry and Patricia Gravelle and the Village Parc Homeowners Association of Havasu. It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the facts, legal arguments, and final decision presented in the case documents.

Short Answer Quiz

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

1. Who were the primary parties in case No. 17F-H1716008-REL, and what were their official roles?

2. What specific event on October 23, 2015, initiated the dispute between the parties?

3. What was the total monetary amount the Petitioners requested, and for what purpose?

4. According to the Travelers insurance policy held by the Association, what property inside a unit could be covered, and under what specific condition?

5. How did the Arizona Condominium Act (A.R.S. § 33-1212(1)) and the CC&Rs define the boundaries and components of an individual “Unit”?

6. What was the key reasoning provided by Travelers for denying coverage for the interior damage to the Petitioners’ unit?

7. The Petitioners cited past instances where the Respondent paid for repairs in other units. Why did the Administrative Law Judge rule that these “past practices” did not legally bind the Respondent in this case?

8. What is the definition of “preponderance of the evidence” as cited in the legal decision?

9. What was the final, official outcome of the case as determined by the Administrative Law Judge and adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate?

10. According to Section 11.7.5 of the CC&Rs, who is ultimately responsible for procuring additional insurance coverage if the Association’s policy is deemed inadequate?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Jerry and Patricia Gravelle, who were designated as the “Petitioners,” and the Village Parc Homeowners Assoc. of Havasu, which was the “Respondent.” The Petitioners owned a condominium unit and were members of the Respondent homeowners’ association.

2. On or about October 23, 2015, the Petitioners’ Unit 14, as well as Units 15 and 16, suffered damage from a sewer backup. The Petitioners discovered that their personal insurance policy did not provide coverage for this type of damage, leading them to seek coverage under the Respondent’s policy.

3. The Petitioners requested that the Respondent pay $6,697.70. This amount was to reimburse them for the loss that the insurance company, Travelers, refused to cover for the damages inside their unit caused by the sewer backup.

4. The Travelers policy endorsement stated it could cover property contained within a unit, regardless of ownership, under one specific condition: if the “Condominium Association Agreement requires you to insure it.” This included fixtures, improvements, alterations, and certain appliances.

5. The CC&Rs (Section 2.2.1) and the Arizona Condominium Act defined a unit as being bounded by the interior finished surfaces of its perimeter walls, floors, and ceilings. The Act specifies that materials like tiles, paint, finished flooring, and wallpaper are part of the unit, while other portions of the walls, floors, or ceilings are part of the common elements.

6. Travelers concluded there was no coverage for the interior damage because the CC&Rs make the unit owner responsible for damages within a unit. The policy was intended to cover common elements and structural damage, not the finished surfaces and personal property that constitute the interior of the unit.

7. The judge ruled that the Board’s past payments for small damages and its erroneous opinion that the policy should cover the damage did not amend the plain language of the CC&Rs. The legally binding CC&Rs put Petitioners on notice about insurance requirements, and these past actions were not sufficient to override the written documents.

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

9. The Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Order that the petition be dismissed and that no action was required of the Respondent. This recommendation was accepted and adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate in a Final Order dated January 3, 2017.

10. Section 11.7.5 of the CC&Rs explicitly states that “Each Owner is responsible for ascertaining the Association’s coverage and for procuring such additional coverage as such owner deems necessary.” It also shields the Association from liability if a risk is not covered or the insurance amount is inadequate.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each question based on the provided source materials.

1. Analyze the role of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in this case. How did specific sections of the CC&Rs support the Respondent’s position and ultimately lead to the dismissal of the petition?

2. The Petitioners argued that the Respondent’s “past practices” and an initial, erroneous determination by a Travelers adjuster should have set a precedent. Explain what the legal concept of “estoppel” means in this context and detail the judge’s reasoning for why it did not apply to the Gravelles’ situation.

3. Discuss the division of responsibility for maintenance and insurance as defined by the Arizona Condominium Act and the Village Parc CC&Rs. How does this case illustrate the critical distinction between “Common Elements,” “Limited Common Elements,” and the “Unit” itself?

4. Trace the procedural path of this dispute, from the initial petition filing to the Final Order. Identify the key government bodies involved (e.g., Department of Real Estate, Office of Administrative Hearings) and the roles they played in adjudicating the case.

5. Imagine you are advising a new condominium owner at Village Parc. Based on the outcome and reasoning of this case, what advice would you give them regarding insurance policies and understanding their responsibilities versus those of the Homeowners Association?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official (Diane Mihalsky) from the Office of Administrative Hearings who conducted the hearing, analyzed the evidence and legal arguments, and issued a recommended decision in the case.

Arizona Condominium Act

A set of Arizona state statutes that define legal terms and responsibilities related to condominiums. In this case, it was used to define the boundaries of a “unit” versus “common elements” (A.R.S. § 33-1212(1)) and to assign responsibility for their maintenance (A.R.S. § 33-1247(A)).

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents for the Village Parc development. These documents define the rights and obligations of the unit owners and the homeowners’ association, including insurance requirements.

Common Elements

Portions of the condominium project designated for common ownership by all unit owners. Under the Arizona Condominium Act, portions of walls, floors, or ceilings that are not part of the finished surfaces of a unit are considered common elements.

Estoppel

A legal principle defined in the case as meaning “that a party is prevented by his own acts from claiming a right to detriment of other party who was entitled to rely on such conduct and has acted accordingly.” The judge ruled it did not apply because the plain language of the CC&Rs prevented the Petitioners from claiming they reasonably relied on the Board’s or Travelers’ past practices.

Limited Common Elements

A portion of the Common Elements allocated for the exclusive use of one or more, but fewer than all, of the Units. An example given is a “chute, flue, duct, wire, conduit… [that] serve only that Unit.”

Petitioner

The party that filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, Jerry and Patricia Gravelle, owners of Unit 14.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required for the Petitioners to win their case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with the “most convincing force.”

Project

As defined in Section 1.27 of the CC&Rs, this refers to “the entire Property… portions of which are designated for separate ownership and the remainder of which are designated for common ownership solely by the owners of the Units therein.”

Respondent

The party against whom the petition was filed. In this case, the Village Parc Homeowners Assoc. of Havasu (“the Association”).

As defined in the CC&Rs, “the elements of an individual unit… which are not owned in common with the Owners of other Condominium Units.” Its physical boundaries are defined as the interior finished surfaces of the perimeter walls, floors, and ceilings.

Case

Docket No
17F-H1716008-REL
Case Title
Jerry and Patricia Gravelle v. Village Parc Homeowners Assoc. of Havasu
Decision Date
2017-01-03
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Individuals

Name
Jerry Gravelle
Role
petitioner
Side
petitioner
Affiliation
Village Parc Homeowners Assoc. of Havasu
Notes
Homeowner; also served as Secretary/Treasurer on the Board in Nov 2015
Name
Patricia Gravelle
Role
petitioner
Side
petitioner
Affiliation
Village Parc Homeowners Assoc. of Havasu
Notes
Homeowner
Name
Kenneth E. Moyer
Role
attorney
Side
respondent
Affiliation
Law Offices of Kenneth E. Moyer, PLLC
Notes
Attorney for Respondent
Name
Gary Himango
Role
affiant
Side
respondent
Affiliation
Village Parc Homeowners Assoc. of Havasu
Notes
Submitted affidavit for Respondent
Name
Diane Mihalsky
Role
ALJ
Side
neutral
Affiliation
Office of Administrative Hearings
Notes
Administrative Law Judge
Name
Judy Lowe
Role
Commissioner
Side
neutral
Affiliation
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Name
Abby Hansen
Role
HOA Coordinator
Side
neutral
Affiliation
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Name
M. Aguirre
Role
clerk
Side
neutral
Affiliation
Office of Administrative Hearings
Notes
Transmitted documents
Name
L. Dettorre
Role
ADRE staff
Side
neutral
Affiliation
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Notes
Email recipient ([email protected])
Name
D. Jones
Role
ADRE staff
Side
neutral
Affiliation
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Notes
Email recipient ([email protected])
Name
J. Marshall
Role
ADRE staff
Side
neutral
Affiliation
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Notes
Email recipient ([email protected])
Name
N. Cano
Role
ADRE staff
Side
neutral
Affiliation
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Notes
Email recipient ([email protected])

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jerry Gravelle (petitioner)
    Village Parc Homeowners Assoc. of Havasu
    Homeowner; also served as Secretary/Treasurer on the Board in Nov 2015
  • Patricia Gravelle (petitioner)
    Village Parc Homeowners Assoc. of Havasu
    Homeowner

Respondent Side

  • Kenneth E. Moyer (attorney)
    Law Offices of Kenneth E. Moyer, PLLC
    Attorney for Respondent
  • Gary Himango (affiant)
    Village Parc Homeowners Assoc. of Havasu
    Submitted affidavit for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • M. Aguirre (clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transmitted documents
  • L. Dettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient ([email protected])
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient ([email protected])
  • J. Marshall (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient ([email protected])
  • N. Cano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient ([email protected])

Brian Sopatk vs. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Assoc., Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716004-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-08-10
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1260. The contested $660 fee was determined to be a working capital contribution authorized by the Association's CC&Rs (section 8.13), which is distinct from the resale disclosure fees limited by statute.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brian Sopatyk Counsel Nathan Andrews, Esq. and Jill Kennedy, Esq.
Respondent The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc. Counsel Bradley R. Jardine, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1260. The contested $660 fee was determined to be a working capital contribution authorized by the Association's CC&Rs (section 8.13), which is distinct from the resale disclosure fees limited by statute.

Why this result: The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to show a statutory violation because the fee in question was a valid working capital fee collected under the CC&Rs, not an illegal transfer fee under A.R.S. § 33-1260.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of statutory maximum fee for resale disclosure/transfer documents.

Petitioner alleged the Association charged a $660 transfer fee, plus a $30 statement fee, violating A.R.S. § 33-1260, which limits aggregate fees for resale disclosure and transfer services to $400. The ALJ found the $660 fee was a working capital fee authorized by CC&R section 8.13, not a statutory disclosure fee, despite being mislabeled by the Association.

Orders: Petitioner Brian D. Sopatyk's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA fees, transfer fee, working capital fund, statutory compliance, burden of proof, condominium association, resale disclosure
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 1-243

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17f-H1716004-REL Decision – 531040.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:44:10 (67.9 KB)

17f-H1716004-REL Decision – 540004.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:44:12 (154.0 KB)

Briefing Document: Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of the case Brian Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc. (Case No. 17F-H1716004-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was Petitioner Brian Sopatyk’s allegation that the Respondent Condominium Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1260 by charging a $660 “transfer fee” upon the sale of a condominium unit, which exceeded the statutory maximum of $400 for resale disclosure services.

The Association’s defense centered on the argument that the $660 charge was not a disclosure fee but a separate “working capital fee” authorized by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Association contended that this fee had been erroneously mislabeled as a “transfer fee” due to a clerical error inherited by its current manager. The actual statutory fee for disclosure documents, the Association argued, was a separate $30 charge paid by the seller.

After an initial hearing in November 2016 and a subsequent re-hearing in June 2017, the Administrative Law Judge consistently found that Mr. Sopatyk failed to prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that the evidence supported the Association’s claim of a mislabeled working capital fee. Consequently, Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed on both occasions, and the Association was deemed the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Parties and Jurisdiction

Representation

Petitioner

Brian Sopatyk

On his own behalf (Initial Hearing); Nathan Andrews, Esq. & Jill Kennedy, Esq. (Re-Hearing)

Respondent

The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Bradley R. Jardine, Esq. (Both Hearings)

Jurisdiction

Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

Authority under A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, AZ

Core Allegation and Governing Statute

• Allegation: Brian Sopatyk alleged that The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by charging fees exceeding the statutory maximum for resale disclosure services. Specifically, a $660 fee labeled as a “transfer fee” was charged when he purchased his unit.

• Petitioner’s Request: Mr. Sopatyk sought an order for the Association to comply with the statute, issue refunds to all who paid fees in excess of the maximum, and for a civil penalty to be imposed.

• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1260 stipulates that a condominium association “may charge the unit owner a fee of no more than an aggregate of four hundred dollars to compensate the association for the costs incurred in the preparation of a statement or other documents furnished… for purposes of resale disclosure, lien estoppel and any other services related to the transfer or use of the property.” The statute explicitly forbids charging any other fees for these services except as authorized.

——————————————————————————–

Chronology of Legal Proceedings

March 2, 2015

The Association issues a “Disclosure Form” for Mr. Sopatyk’s purchase, listing a $660 transfer fee and a $30 statement fee.

May 18, 2016

The Association’s Board of Directors meets to address Mr. Sopatyk’s claim. They conclude the $660 fee was a mislabeled working capital fee and direct corrective accounting.

August 9, 2016

Mr. Sopatyk files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

November 14, 2016

The initial hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

November 29, 2016

ALJ Shedden issues a decision dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

December 13, 2016

The ADRE Commissioner, Judy Lowe, adopts the ALJ’s decision, issuing a Final Order dismissing the case.

February 7, 2017

A Notice of Re-Hearing is issued after Mr. Sopatyk requests one.

June 9, 2017

A re-hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

June 26, 2017

ALJ Shedden issues a new decision, again dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

August 1, 2017

The deadline passes for the ADRE to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s re-hearing decision. No action is taken.

August 10, 2017

The Office of Administrative Hearings certifies the ALJ’s decision from the re-hearing as the final administrative decision in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Brian Sopatyk)

• Primary Argument: The Association’s own documents, specifically the Disclosure Form and the HUD-1 settlement statement, explicitly labeled the $660 charge as a “Transfer Fee.” This amount is a prima facie violation of the $400 statutory cap in A.R.S. § 33-1260.

• Evidence Presented:

◦ March 2, 2015 Disclosure Form: Showed a required payment of a $660 “transfer fee” and a $30 “statement fee.”

◦ HUD-1 Settlement Statement: Documented that the $660 Transfer Fee was paid to the Association, with $330 paid from the Borrower’s (Sopatyk’s) funds and $330 from the Seller’s funds. It also showed the Seller paid a separate $30 Resale Statement Fee.

• Contradictory Testimony: In his sworn petition, Mr. Sopatyk stated the $660 fee was “split between the seller and the buyer.” However, during the re-hearing, he testified that he had “in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price of the unit.” The ALJ noted this discrepancy, stating “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.”

Respondent’s Position (The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association)

• Primary Argument: The $660 fee was not for resale disclosure services but was a working capital fee authorized by the Association’s CC&Rs. The “transfer fee” label was a historical clerical error that the Board had since identified and corrected.

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ CC&R Section 8.13 (“Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund”): This provision authorizes the Association to assess each new owner a fee of “at least twice the average monthly assessment” to be deposited into the working capital fund (referred to as the Reserve Fund). The monthly assessment was $328.83, making the $660 fee consistent with this rule.

◦ Testimony of Amy Telnes (Association Manager): Ms. Telnes testified that when she became manager, she was incorrectly informed that the working capital fee was the transfer fee. She affirmed that the $660 fee was deposited into the Association’s reserve fund and that the separate $30 fee was the one charged pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1260.

◦ May 18, 2016 Board Meeting Minutes: These minutes, entered into evidence, documented the Board’s conclusion that it was collecting a working capital contribution but “erroneously calling it a transfer fee.” The Board directed Ms. Telnes to perform an accounting and transfer all such fees collected after October 1, 2013, to the Reserve Account. The minutes also show the Board voted to change its fee structure moving forward to a single $400 fee to avoid future confusion.

——————————————————————————–

Judicial Findings and Final Disposition

Standard and Burden of Proof

Across both hearings, the ALJ established that the standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.” The burden of proof rested entirely on the petitioner, Mr. Sopatyk, to demonstrate that a violation had occurred.

Initial Hearing Decision (November 29, 2016)

• Findings of Fact: The ALJ found that the Association was charging a $660 working capital fee in accordance with its CC&Rs but had been mislabeling it. It was also charging a separate $30 document preparation fee.

• Conclusion of Law: Mr. Sopatyk did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.

• Order: The petition was dismissed, and the decision was adopted as final by the ADRE Commissioner on December 13, 2016.

Re-Hearing Decision (June 26, 2017)

• Findings of Fact: The re-hearing produced more detailed findings but led to the same conclusion. The ALJ found that the Association had authority under its CC&Rs to collect the $660 working capital fee and that the statutory disclosure statute did not apply to this charge. The fee applicable to the statute was the $30 charge paid by the seller.

• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ reiterated that Mr. Sopatyk failed to meet his burden of proof. The Association’s argument that the claim should fail because Sopatyk did not personally pay over $400 was deemed “not persuasive,” as the statute applies to all violations regardless of particularized harm.

• Order: The petition was again ordered to be dismissed.

Final Administrative Disposition

The ADRE took no action to modify or reject the ALJ’s re-hearing decision by the statutory deadline of August 1, 2017. As a result, the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the June 26, 2017 decision as the final administrative decision on August 10, 2017, concluding the matter in favor of the Respondent Association.

Study Guide: Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions based on the provided case documents. Each answer should be two to three sentences in length.

1. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did petitioner Brian Sopatyk allege that The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association violated, and what is the core requirement of that statute?

2. Identify the two fees charged in connection with Mr. Sopatyk’s unit purchase, the amount of each fee, and how they were documented on the HUD-1 disclosure statement.

3. What was the Association’s central argument for why the $660 fee did not violate the statute in question?

4. Who was the Association’s manager, and what explanation did she provide for the labeling of the $660 fee?

5. According to the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), what is the purpose of the fee outlined in section 8.13?

6. What was the outcome of the initial administrative hearing held on November 14, 2016?

7. During the rehearing, a discrepancy was noted between Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn petition and his testimony regarding the payment of the $660 fee. What was this discrepancy?

8. What corrective actions did the Association’s Board vote to take during its meeting on May 18, 2016, after Mr. Sopatyk raised the issue?

9. What is the standard of proof the petitioner was required to meet in this case, and did the Administrative Law Judge find that he met it?

10. What was the final, certified administrative decision in this matter after the rehearing on June 9, 2017?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Brian Sopatyk alleged a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260. This statute requires a condominium association to provide specific disclosure documents to a prospective purchaser and limits the aggregate fee for preparing these documents and other related services to no more than four hundred dollars.

2. The two fees were a $660 “Transfer Fee” and a $30 “Resale Statement Fee.” The HUD-1 disclosure statement shows the $660 fee was split, with $330 paid by the borrower (Sopatyk) and $330 paid by the seller, while the seller alone paid the $30 fee.

3. The Association’s central argument was that the $660 fee was not a transfer fee for disclosure services but was actually a “working capital fee” collected pursuant to section 8.13 of its CC&Rs. They contended that the fee had been incorrectly labeled as a “transfer fee” due to a clerical error.

4. The Association’s manager was Amy Telnes. She testified that when she became manager, she was incorrectly told the working capital fee was the transfer fee, and these fees had been mislabeled since that time.

5. According to CC&R section 8.13 (“Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund”), each new unit owner is to be assessed a fee of at least twice the average monthly assessment. These fees are to be deposited into the working capital fund, which the Association refers to as its Reserve Fund.

6. Following the initial hearing, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden found that Mr. Sopatyk had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the statute. The Judge’s decision was to dismiss Mr. Sopatyk’s petition, and this decision was adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.

7. In his sworn petition, Mr. Sopatyk stated that the $660 fee was split between him and the seller. However, at the hearing, he testified that he had in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price of the unit, meaning one of his statements had to be false.

8. The Board directed Ms. Telnes to account for all working capital fees and transfer them to the Reserve Account to correct the error. The Board also determined its system was confusing and voted to assess a single transfer fee of $400 (and no other fees) on all future transactions.

9. The petitioner, Mr. Sopatyk, bore the burden of proof and was required to meet the standard of a “preponderance of the evidence.” The Administrative Law Judge concluded in both hearings that Mr. Sopatyk did not meet this burden.

10. The final decision was that Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed again. On August 10, 2017, the Administrative Law Judge’s decision from the rehearing was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Real Estate because the Department took no action to reject or modify it.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

1. Analyze the legal concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain in detail why the evidence presented by the Association was deemed to have greater convincing force than the evidence presented by the Petitioner, leading to the dismissal of his petition.

2. Discuss the critical role of the Association’s governing documents, specifically CC&R section 8.13, in its successful defense. How did the language of this section allow the Association to re-characterize the disputed $660 fee and differentiate it from the fees regulated by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260?

3. Trace the procedural history of case No. 17F-H1716004-REL, from the filing of the petition to the final certified order. Identify the key dates, participants (judges, legal counsel, witnesses), and the function of the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Department of Real Estate in the process.

4. Examine the actions taken by the Association’s Board during its May 18, 2016, meeting. Evaluate whether these actions demonstrated good-faith governance and a proactive attempt to correct a procedural error, and discuss how the minutes from this meeting were used as evidence in the hearing.

5. Despite losing the case, Mr. Sopatyk’s petition prompted significant changes in the Association’s fee structure. Argue whether the petitioner’s actions ultimately served the public interest for future condominium purchasers in the Lakeshore Village community, even though he did not prevail in his specific legal claim.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Thomas Shedden, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision based on the evidence presented.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260

The Arizona statute that requires a condominium association to furnish a prospective purchaser with disclosure documents and other information. It explicitly limits the fee an association can charge for these services to “no more than an aggregate of four hundred dollars.”

Burden of Proof

The responsibility of a party in a legal case to prove their claims. In this matter, the burden of proof was on the petitioner, Brian Sopatyk.

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, which are the governing documents for the condominium association. Section 8.13 of the Lakeshore Village CC&Rs authorizes the collection of a fee for a working capital fund.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Brian Sopatyk.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case, defined as “The greater weight of the evidence… by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Respondent

The party defending against a petition. In this case, The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Reserve Fund

The account into which the Association deposits its working capital fees. It is also referred to as the Working Capital Fund.

Statement Fee / Resale Statement Fee

A $30 fee, separate from the disputed $660, that was paid by the seller to the Association for the preparation of the resale statement. This fee was considered part of the allowable charges under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260.

Transfer Fee

The label erroneously applied to the $660 fee on the disclosure statement and HUD-1 form. The central dispute of the case was whether this was a true transfer fee subject to the statutory cap or a mislabeled working capital fee.

Working Capital Fee

A fee authorized by CC&R section 8.13 to be assessed from each new unit owner for the purpose of funding the Association’s working capital fund (Reserve Fund). The Association successfully argued the $660 charge was this type of fee.

How a $660 Fee Sparked a Legal Showdown: 5 Surprising Lessons from a Homeowner vs. HOA Dispute

We sign, we initial, we pay—assuming every line item on our closing documents is gospel. When buying a home in a condominium association, the stack of paperwork and list of fees can feel overwhelming. But what if one of those “standard” fees wasn’t standard at all?

For homeowner Brian Sopatyk, a single $660 charge from The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association wasn’t just a number; it was a thread he pulled that unraveled a surprising story of HOA governance, legal strategy, and the power of asking “why?” This post breaks down the five most impactful takeaways from a seemingly minor dispute that went all the way through a formal hearing and re-hearing.

1. A Simple Label Can Ignite a Legal Firestorm

A clerical error triggers a full-blown legal dispute.

The entire case hinged on a single, crucial mistake: the HOA mislabeled a “working capital fee” as a “transfer fee” on its disclosure forms.

Why was this one word so important? Because Mr. Sopatyk’s formal petition alleged that by charging a “$660 transfer fee,” the HOA violated Arizona statute 33-1260, which caps fees for resale disclosure services at a maximum of $400. On its face, the $660 charge looked like a clear violation of state law.

The Association’s manager, Amy Telnes, testified that when she took over her position, she was given erroneous information that the working capital fee was the transfer fee. As a result, the charge had been incorrectly labeled ever since. This simple administrative error was enough to trigger a formal petition to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, a full administrative hearing, and eventually, a re-hearing, proving how a small clerical mistake can escalate into a significant legal conflict.

2. In the Eyes of the Law, Substance Can Trump Form

Why the fee’s purpose mattered more than its name.

The Association’s core defense was that while the name of the fee was wrong, its purpose and authority were legitimate. The $660 charge, they argued, wasn’t for resale documents (the service capped by state law), but was a “working capital fee” authorized by an entirely different rule: the Association’s own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Specifically, Section 8.13 of the CC&Rs allowed for this assessment, with the funds designated for the Association’s reserve fund. This working capital fee, in contrast, was an assessment on the new owner as mandated by the CC&Rs to ensure the association’s financial health. The actual fee for the statutory disclosure documents was a separate, compliant $30 “Resale Statement Fee,” which was paid by the seller.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately agreed. The fee’s underlying purpose and the HOA’s authority to collect it (its substance) were deemed more important than its incorrect name on the form (its form). This is a crucial lesson for any homeowner challenging an HOA: it’s not enough to find a mistake on a form. You must be prepared to argue against the underlying authority and purpose of the action itself.

3. You Can Lose the Battle but Win the War

How a dismissed case led to a major policy victory.

Perhaps the most counter-intuitive outcome is that although Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed, his actions were the direct catalyst for a significant and positive policy change by the HOA.

In a summary of the Association’s May 18, 2016, Board Meeting, which was entered as evidence, the judge noted that the Board reviewed the very issue Mr. Sopatyk had raised. Under the pressure of his legal challenge, they came to a powerful conclusion about their own system, determining it was “confusing and unfair.”

As a direct result of this internal review prompted by the dispute, the Board voted to simplify its process. It resolved to assess a single, clear transfer fee of $400 on all future transactions, eliminating the other confusing fees. This proves that even an unsuccessful legal challenge can be a powerful tool, forcing an organization to confront and correct its own problematic practices for the benefit of all future members.

4. The ‘Burden of Proof’ Is More Than Just a Phrase

What it really means to have to prove your case.

In both the original decision and the re-hearing, the judge repeatedly stated that Mr. Sopatyk, as the petitioner, bore the “burden of proof.” This legal standard was critical to the outcome. It meant he had to prove his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which the court documents defined as:

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

In this case, it meant Mr. Sopatyk’s job was to prove that the $660 fee was, more likely than not, an illegal charge for resale documents. The HOA’s defense—that it was a legally separate “working capital fee” that was simply mislabeled—created enough doubt that he couldn’t clear this hurdle.

5. A Small Contradiction Can Damage Credibility

When every word you say (and write) is on the record.

A fascinating detail appeared in the re-hearing decision, highlighting how every word matters in a legal proceeding.

There was a discrepancy in Mr. Sopatyk’s statements. His sworn petition, filed on August 9, 2016, stated the $660 fee was “split between the seller and the buyer.” However, during the hearing, he testified that he had “in fact paid the entire $660.”

The judge noted this contradiction directly in footnote 3 of the re-hearing decision, stating: “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.” While not the deciding factor, this kind of inconsistency can subtly erode a petitioner’s standing. Remember the “burden of proof” from Takeaway 4? It requires convincing a judge to “incline a fair and impartial mind” to your side. Contradictions, even small ones, make that inclination much harder to achieve.

Conclusion: The Devil Is in the Details

This case is the perfect microcosm of community association disputes. It began with a clerical error (form), was adjudicated on intent (substance), was lost on a technicality (the burden of proof), yet resulted in a victory for transparency. Mr. Sopatyk may not have won his case, but he won a better system for his neighbors.

The ultimate lesson? In an HOA, the most powerful tool isn’t always a lawsuit—sometimes, it’s a magnifying glass. It leaves us with a thought-provoking question: When is it worth challenging the system for clarity and fairness, even if the outcome isn’t a clear ‘win’ on paper?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brian Sopatyk (petitioner)
  • Nathan Andrews (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Jill M. Kennedy (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Chance Peterson (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Judy Sopatyk (party)
    Wife of petitioner and co-purchaser of the unit

Respondent Side

  • Bradley R. Jardine (HOA attorney)
    Jardine Baker Hickman & Houston
    Attorney for Respondent
  • Amy Telnes (property manager/witness)
    The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.
    Association manager who testified
  • Michael Cibellis (association president/witness)
    The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.
    Association president who testified at rehearing

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    OAH
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    ADRE
    Administrative contact for rehearing requests
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (administrative staff)
    Involved in copy mailing/distribution

Barbara Printy vs. Olive Grove Village Association Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 16F-H1616010-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-11-14
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) and governing documents by failing to complete the required 2014 audit by March 31, 2015. The audit was not completed until October 2016. The ALJ imposed a $5,000 civil penalty due to the ongoing refusal to comply.
Filing Fees Refunded $750.00
Civil Penalties $5,000.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Barbara Printy Counsel Phil Whitaker
Respondent Olive Grove Village Association Inc. Counsel Jonathan Ebertshauser

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) and governing documents by failing to complete the required 2014 audit by March 31, 2015. The audit was not completed until October 2016. The ALJ imposed a $5,000 civil penalty due to the ongoing refusal to comply.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to obtain annual financial audit

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to obtain an audit of the 2014 financials. Respondent's fiscal year ended Dec 31, 2014. The audit was not received until Oct 11, 2016, despite multiple requests by Petitioner. ALJ found Respondent violated statute and governing documents.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $750.00 filing fee and pay Department $5,000.00 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $750.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $5,000.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

16F-H1616010-BFS Decision – 528449.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:10 (81.5 KB)

16F-H1616010-BFS Decision – 538188.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:10 (60.7 KB)

16F-H1616010-BFS Decision – 540732.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:10 (61.9 KB)

16F-H1616010-BFS Decision – 562623.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:11 (82.3 KB)

16F-H1616010-BFS Decision – 564331.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:11 (58.7 KB)

16F-H1616010-BFS Decision – 564332.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:11 (60.5 KB)

Administrative Decision Briefing: Printy v. Olive Grove Village Association Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the administrative law proceedings and final decision regarding the dispute between Barbara Printy (Petitioner) and the Olive Grove Village Association Inc. (Respondent). The central conflict involved the Respondent’s failure to conduct a timely financial audit for the 2014 fiscal year, as mandated by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the Association’s own governing documents.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Respondent committed a clear violation of A.R.S. § 33-1243(J). Despite multiple requests from the Petitioner starting in early 2015, the Association did not receive the required audit until October 2016—nearly eighteen months past the deadline set in its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Consequently, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $750 filing fee and pay a civil penalty of $5,000 to the Department of Real Estate.

——————————————————————————–

Factual Background and Parties

The dispute involves the following entities and legal context:

• Petitioner: Barbara Printy, a condominium owner within the Association.

• Respondent: Olive Grove Village Association Inc., a condominium owners association located in Phoenix, Arizona.

• Subject Matter: Failure to provide a required financial audit for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2014.

• Jurisdiction: Originally filed with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, the matter was transferred to the Department of Real Estate on July 1, 2016, under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

——————————————————————————–

Governing Regulatory Framework

The ALJ’s decision was based on three distinct but overlapping requirements for financial transparency and reporting:

Authority

Requirement

Deadline

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Annual financial audit, review, or compilation must be completed.

No later than 180 days after fiscal year-end.

Association CC&Rs

Books and records must be audited by an independent auditor.

Results submitted to Owners within 90 days of fiscal year-end.

Association By-Laws

Treasurer must cause an audit by a CPA.

Complete audit in even-numbered years; review allowed in odd years.

While the state statute allows up to 180 days for a financial review, the Association’s CC&Rs established a stricter 90-day deadline for a full audit. The 2014 fiscal year audit was therefore legally due by March 31, 2015.

——————————————————————————–

Chronology of Non-Compliance

The Petitioner made repeated attempts to obtain the 2014 audit, which were met with delays and conflicting information from the Association:

1. April 15, 2015: Petitioner requested the audit at an Association meeting. She was informed it would be ready by June.

2. October 15, 2015: Petitioner submitted a formal written request.

3. October 21, 2015: At a meeting, the Association directed the Petitioner to contact the management company for the information.

4. March 17, 2016: The Association informed homeowners that they would be charged $35.00 each for a copy of the audit.

5. March 23, 2016: The Petitioner filed a formal Petition with the state, paying a $750.00 filing fee.

6. August 2016: The Respondent finally engaged a CPA to perform the 2014 audit.

7. October 11, 2016: The Respondent received the audit report, one day before the scheduled administrative hearing.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Analysis and Conclusions

Violation of Statutory and Governing Documents

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(J). The Association admitted that an audit was required for the 2014 financials under both the CC&Rs and the By-Laws.

Defense and Rebuttal

• Respondent’s Defense: The Association argued that inconsistencies between the CC&Rs and By-Laws caused confusion regarding the level of review required. They also argued against a civil penalty, suggesting the cost would ultimately be passed on to homeowners via assessments.

• Petitioner’s Evidence: The Petitioner testified to the ongoing and “flagrant refusal” of the Association to comply with its governing documents. She further noted that the audit received on the eve of the hearing revealed discrepancies in financial records when compared to previously received compilations.

Final Ruling

The ALJ found that the audit should have been completed by March 31, 2015. The Respondent’s failure to engage a CPA until August 2016 constituted a clear breach of duty.

——————————————————————————–

Sanctions and Orders

The ALJ issued a Recommended Order, which was subsequently certified as the final administrative decision:

• Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner $750.00 within 30 days of the order’s effective date.

• Civil Penalty: Due to the nature of the violation, the ALJ imposed a civil penalty of $5,000.00, payable to the Department of Real Estate within 60 days.

• Method of Payment: The civil penalty must be paid via cashier’s check or money order.

——————————————————————————–

Administrative Certification and Finality

The decision-making process followed a strictly defined administrative timeline:

1. November 14, 2016: ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer issued the initial decision.

2. December 20, 2016: Deadline for the Department of Real Estate to accept, reject, or modify the decision. Since no action was taken by the Department, the ALJ decision was certified as final per A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D).

3. January 9, 2017: A “Nunc Pro Tunc” order was issued by Interim Director Greg Hanchett to correct the date of issuance of the certification to January 9, 2017.

Notice to Parties: The final decision includes the right to request a rehearing from the Department of Real Estate or seek judicial review through the Superior Court, provided such actions are taken within the statutory timeframes. Failure to act in a timely manner results in the loss of these rights.

Study Guide: Barbara Printy v. Olive Grove Village Association Inc.

This study guide reviews the administrative legal proceedings regarding the dispute between a condominium owner and her homeowners association. It focuses on the statutory requirements for financial audits, the hierarchy of governing documents, and the administrative process for resolving such disputes in Arizona.

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

1. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against Olive Grove Village Association Inc.?

2. According to A.R.S. § 33-1243(J), what are the default requirements for an association’s annual financial report if the condominium documents do not specify an audit by a CPA?

3. How did the Respondent’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) differ from the state statute regarding the timing of the audit?

4. What inconsistency existed between the Association’s CC&Rs and its By-Laws regarding financial reviews?

5. Describe the progression of the Petitioner’s requests for the audit from April 2015 to March 2016.

6. When did the Respondent finally engage a CPA, and when was the audit eventually received?

7. What is the legal definition of “preponderance of the evidence” as used in this administrative proceeding?

8. What was the Respondent’s primary argument against the imposition of a civil penalty?

9. Which state departments have held jurisdiction over disputes between property owners and condominium associations according to the source?

10. What was the purpose of the “Order Nunc Pro Tunc” issued on January 9, 2017?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. The Core Allegation: The Petitioner, Barbara Printy, alleged that the Olive Grove Village Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) by failing to obtain a required audit of the 2014 financials. She claimed the Association failed to complete this audit within the 90-day timeframe mandated by its own governing documents.

2. Statutory Requirements: In the absence of stricter requirements in condominium documents, the board must provide for an annual financial audit, review, or compilation. This must be completed within 180 days of the fiscal year’s end and made available to owners within 30 days of request following its completion.

3. CC&R vs. Statute Timing: While the state statute allows up to 180 days for a financial report, the Association’s CC&Rs specifically required the audit to be completed and submitted to owners within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year. This established a more stringent deadline of March 31, 2015, for the 2014 fiscal year.

4. Governing Document Inconsistency: The CC&Rs mandated an audit by an independent auditor at the close of every fiscal year. However, the By-Laws suggested a “complete August” (audit) was only required in even-numbered years, while a review could be conducted in odd-numbered years.

5. Progression of Requests: Printy first requested the audit at a meeting in April 2015, followed by a written request in October 2015 and further verbal requests in October 2015 and March 2016. Throughout this period, she was told various things, including that the information was with the CPA, that she should contact the management company, or that she would be charged $35.00 for the audit.

6. Timeline of Compliance: Despite the audit being due in early 2015, the Respondent did not engage a CPA to perform the work until August 2016. The Association did not actually receive a copy of the completed audit until October 11, 2016, which was the eve of the administrative hearing.

7. Preponderance of the Evidence: This legal standard requires that the evidence presented is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposing evidence. It means that the facts sought to be proved are shown to be “more probable than not.”

8. Argument Against Penalties: The Respondent argued that a civil penalty was inappropriate because the CC&Rs and By-Laws were inconsistent, leading to confusion regarding the necessary level of review. Furthermore, they contended that any penalty would ultimately be a burden on the homeowners themselves through increased assessments.

9. Jurisdictional Departments: Originally, the matter was filed with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. As of July 1, 2016, jurisdiction over these disputes was transferred to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

10. Order Nunc Pro Tunc: This order was issued to correct a clerical error regarding the date of the decision’s certification. It retroactively established January 9, 2017, as the official date of issuance for the certification of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

1. The Hierarchy of Governing Documents: Analyze how the conflict between the CC&Rs and the By-Laws impacted the Association’s compliance. Discuss the legal implications when internal documents provide conflicting instructions for fiduciary duties like financial audits.

2. Fiduciary Transparency and Homeowner Rights: Evaluate the Association’s conduct in responding to the Petitioner’s repeated requests for financial records. Discuss whether the Association’s suggestions—such as charging $35 for a copy of the audit—align with the statutory requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1243(J).

3. Administrative Law Processes: Explain the process by which an Administrative Law Judge’s decision becomes a final agency action. Refer specifically to the role of the Department of Real Estate in accepting, rejecting, or modifying a decision within the statutory 30-day window.

4. The Significance of Civil Penalties: Assess the ALJ’s decision to impose a $5,000 civil penalty. Consider the Petitioner’s claim of “ongoing and flagrant refusal” versus the Respondent’s claim that penalties harm innocent homeowners.

5. Financial Discrepancies and Audit Importance: The Petitioner testified that the final audit showed discrepancies compared to previous financial compilations. Discuss why an independent audit is a critical tool for condominium associations compared to simpler financial “compilations” or “reviews.”

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding officer who conducts hearings and issues recommendations or decisions in disputes involving government agencies.

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

The Arizona Revised Statute governing the financial reporting and audit requirements for condominium associations.

An official examination and verification of financial accounts and records by an independent certified public accountant (CPA).

By-Laws

The internal rules and regulations that govern the administration and management of an association.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

Legal documents that lay out the rules of a community or condominium and are binding on all property owners within that association.

Civil Penalty

A financial punishment imposed by a government agency or court for a violation of laws or regulations, distinct from criminal fines.

Compilation

A basic financial report that organizes an association’s financial data into financial statement format without providing any assurance or auditing.

Nunc Pro Tunc

A Latin legal phrase meaning “now for then,” used to correct an order retroactively to correct a previous clerical error or omission.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal proceeding or petition, in this case, the homeowner Barbara Printy.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning the evidence shows that a claim is more likely to be true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a legal petition is filed, in this case, Olive Grove Village Association Inc.

Review

A financial reporting service that is more analytical than a compilation but less thorough than a full audit.

Case

Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Docket No
16F-H1616010-BFS
Case Title
Barbara Printy v. Olive Grove Village Association Inc.
Decision Date
2016-11-14
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer

Parties

Party Id
P1
Role
petitioner
Name
Barbara Printy
Party Type
homeowner
Attorney Name
Phil Whitaker
Attorney Firm
STEGALL KATZ & WHITAKER P.C.
Party Id
R1
Role
respondent
Name
Olive Grove Village Association Inc.
Party Type
HOA
Attorney Name
Jonathan Ebertshauser
Attorney Firm
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen PLC

Issues

Summary

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to obtain an audit of the 2014 financials. Respondent's fiscal year ended Dec 31, 2014. The audit was not received until Oct 11, 2016, despite multiple requests by Petitioner. ALJ found Respondent violated statute and governing documents.

Issue Id

ISS-001

Type

statute

Citation

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Caption

Failure to obtain annual financial audit

Violation(S)

Failure to complete 2014 financial audit within 90 days (CC&Rs) or 180 days (Statute) of fiscal year end.

Outcome

petitioner_win

Filing Fee Paid

750.0

Filing Fee Refunded

True

Civil Penalty Amount

5000.0

Orders Summary

Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $750.00 filing fee and pay Department $5,000.00 civil penalty.

Cited

  • A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Money Summary

Issues Count
1
Total Filing Fees Paid
750.0
Total Filing Fees Refunded
750.0
Total Civil Penalties
5000.0

Outcomes

Petitioner Is Hoa

False

Petitioner Win

yes

Summarize Judgement

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) and governing documents by failing to complete the required 2014 audit by March 31, 2015. The audit was not completed until October 2016. The ALJ imposed a $5,000 civil penalty due to the ongoing refusal to comply.

Tags

  • audit
  • financial records
  • civil penalty
  • untimely performance

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Barbara Printy (Petitioner)
  • Phil Whitaker (Petitioner's Attorney)
    Stegall Katz & Whitaker P.C.
    Also listed as Philip B. Whitaker

Respondent Side

  • Olive Grove Village Association Inc. (Respondent)
    Association of condominium owners
  • Jonathan Ebertshauser (Respondent's Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen PLC
    Affiliation inferred from mailing list address for Respondent's counsel

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed mailing/transmission certification

Paul Gounder vs. Royal Riviera Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716002-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-12
Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Paul Gounder Counsel —
Respondent Royal Riviera Condominium Association Counsel Mark Kristopher Sahl

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) by using two substantively different ballots during the 2016 board election,. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee,. The Administrative Law Judge concluded Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4),.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4), which specifies timing requirements for ballots; the ALJ noted that a meeting ballot did not need to contain a received-by date or be mailed seven days in advance if it had been substantively the same as the compliant absentee ballot,,,.

Key Issues & Findings

Ballot must provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.

The use of two substantively different ballots in the March 2016 election violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) because members who did not attend the meeting were unaware of an additional candidate (Eric Thompson) listed on the meeting ballot, thereby denying those members the opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action contained in the meeting ballot,. This finding does not require ballots to be identical, but substantive changes must be presented to all members,,.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition was granted, and Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00,. No other relief was available.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium, Board Election, Absentee Ballot, Statutory Violation, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • Article VII CC&Rs

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 564851.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:59:29 (44.2 KB)

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 567887.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:59:37 (79.0 KB)

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 575055.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:59:43 (689.5 KB)

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 523915.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:59:47 (103.0 KB)

Briefing Document: Gounder v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the key events, arguments, and legal conclusions from the administrative case of Paul Gounder versus the Royal Riviera Condominium Association (Case No. 17F-H1716002-REL-RHG). The central issue revolved around the Association’s use of two substantively different ballots for its March 14, 2016, board member election.

The Petitioner, Paul Gounder, alleged that the use of a separate mail-in ballot and an in-person meeting ballot, which contained different candidate lists, violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2). Specifically, the ballot distributed at the meeting included the name of a seventh candidate, Eric Thompson, who was not listed on the mail-in ballot, thereby denying absentee voters the opportunity to vote for all candidates.

After an initial hearing resulted in a recommended dismissal, a rehearing was granted. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Suzanne Marwil ultimately concluded that the Association’s actions constituted a statutory violation. The Judge found that because members voting by mail were not informed of Mr. Thompson’s candidacy, they were denied their right to vote “for or against each proposed action.” The Respondent’s argument that the matter was moot due to a subsequent election was rejected.

The Department of Real Estate adopted the ALJ’s decision, issuing a Final Order on June 12, 2017. The Order granted the petition and required the Royal Riviera Condominium Association to reimburse Mr. Gounder’s $500.00 filing fee. The ruling establishes that while election ballots are not required to be identical, any substantive changes must be presented to all members to ensure an equal opportunity to vote.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview and Background

This matter was brought before the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Petitioner: Paul Gounder, a condominium owner and member of the Association.

• Respondent: Royal Riviera Condominium Association, a homeowners’ association for a development of approximately 32 condominiums.

• Initial Petition: Filed on or about June 23, 2016.

• Core Allegation: The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) and its own CC&Rs by using two substantively different ballots to elect Board members at its March 14, 2016, annual meeting.

II. Procedural History

1. Initial Hearing (October 17, 2016): A hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.

2. Recommended Dismissal (October 18, 2016): Judge Mihalsky recommended the petition be dismissed, concluding:

3. Rehearing Granted (February 17, 2017): The Petitioner requested a rehearing, which the Department of Real Estate granted. The Department’s order specifically requested a review of A.R.S. § 33-1250, with a focus on subsection (C)(4).

4. Rehearing (May 17, 2017): A rehearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil. At this hearing, the Respondent raised a procedural question regarding the correct statutory subsection for review, leading to a temporary order holding the record open until May 24, 2017, for clarification.

5. ALJ Decision (June 2, 2017): Judge Marwil issued a decision finding that the Respondent had committed a statutory violation.

6. Final Order (June 12, 2017): The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, accepted the ALJ’s decision and issued a Final Order making the decision binding.

III. The Core Dispute: The Two-Ballot System

The parties stipulated that two different ballots were used for the March 14, 2016, board election, which had seven open positions. The key differences are outlined below.

Feature

Mail Ballot (Absentee)

Meeting Ballot (In-Person)

“Mail Ballot”

“Ballot”

Candidates Listed

Six names

Seven names (added Eric Thompson)

Write-in Option

Included a blank line for a write-in candidate

No space provided for write-in candidates

Distribution

Distributed at least seven days before the meeting

Handed out to members attending the meeting

Return Deadline

Specified the date by which it had to be returned

Did not specify when it needed to be returned

IV. Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner’s Position (Paul Gounder)

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2): The addition of Eric Thompson’s name to the meeting ballot deprived members who voted by mail of their right “to vote for or against each proposed action,” as they had no opportunity to vote for Mr. Thompson.

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4): The meeting ballot violated this subsection because it was not mailed to all members at least seven days in advance of the meeting and did not provide a date by which it had to be received to be counted.

B. Respondent’s Position (Royal Riviera Condominium Association)

• No Violation: The statutes do not explicitly require the use of identical ballots for an election.

• Common Practice: It is a common practice for homeowners’ associations to use a different absentee ballot and meeting ballot.

• Mootness: The issue is moot because the Association had already held another election in 2017 and seated a new board, which included the Petitioner’s wife as a member.

V. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

In her June 2, 2017 decision, ALJ Suzanne Marwil made the following key legal conclusions:

The ALJ found that the Association’s use of two substantively different ballots did violate this statute.

• Reasoning: Members who did not attend the meeting in person were not notified of Mr. Thompson’s willingness to run for the board. As a result, “these members did not have the opportunity to vote for him and hence were denied their right to vote for or against each proposed action contained in the meeting ballot.”

• Clarification: The ruling explicitly states that this finding does not impose a requirement that all ballots must be identical; however, it establishes that “substantive changes to ballots must be presented to all members.”

The ALJ concluded that no violation of this subsection occurred.

• Reasoning: The Petitioner conceded that the absentee ballot itself complied with the statutory requirements (e.g., being mailed seven days in advance with a return-by date). The judge reasoned that a meeting ballot handed out in person would not need to contain this information if it were “substantively the same as the absentee ballot.” The legal problem arose not from a failure to mail the second ballot, but from the substantive difference between the two.

The ALJ determined that the matter was not rendered moot by the 2017 election and the seating of a new board. The Judge affirmed that the tribunal “can and does find that Respondent committed a statutory violation in the course of holding its 2016 election.”

VI. Final Order and Outcome

• ALJ Recommended Order (June 2, 2017):

◦ The Petitioner’s petition should be granted.

◦ The Respondent must reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.

◦ No other relief was available to the Petitioner.

• Department of Real Estate Final Order (June 12, 2017):

◦ The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted and adopted the ALJ’s decision.

◦ The Order is a final administrative action, effective immediately.

◦ The Royal Riviera Condominium Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.

◦ The parties were notified that the Order could be appealed via a complaint for judicial review.

Study Guide: Gounder v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case Paul Gounder v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association, Case No. 17F-H1716002-REL-RHG. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms based on the provided legal documents.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. What was the central allegation made by the Petitioner, Paul Gounder, in his initial petition?

2. Describe the two different ballots used by the Royal Riviera Condominium Association for its March 14, 2016, board election.

3. What were the two primary legal arguments made by the Respondent, Royal Riviera Condominium Association, to defend its actions?

4. What was the initial outcome of the hearing held on October 17, 2016, before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky?

5. What was Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil’s final conclusion regarding the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2)?

6. How did Judge Marwil explain her finding that A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4), which deals with ballot delivery timelines, was not violated?

7. How did the Respondent argue that the case was moot, and why did Judge Marwil reject this argument?

8. According to the Final Order issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, what specific relief was granted to the Petitioner?

9. What is the standard of proof in this matter, and which party has the burden of proof?

10. What specific action did the Department of Real Estate request be reviewed when it granted the request for a rehearing?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner, Paul Gounder, alleged that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) and its own CC&Rs. The violation occurred by using two substantively different ballots for the election of Board members at the annual meeting on March 14, 2016.

2. The first ballot was an absentee “Mail Ballot” with six candidate names and a blank line for a write-in. The second ballot, handed out at the meeting, was titled “Ballot” and included the names of seven candidates (adding Eric Thompson) but had no space for a write-in candidate.

3. The Respondent argued that it committed no violation because the statutes do not explicitly require the use of identical ballots and that using different absentee and meeting ballots is common practice. It also maintained that the matter was moot because a new election had already occurred in 2017.

4. Following the initial hearing, Judge Diane Mihalsky recommended the dismissal of the Petition on October 18, 2016. She concluded that no statute or bylaw prevented the Respondent from adding the names of willing members to the ballot used at the annual election.

5. Judge Suzanne Marwil found that the use of two substantively different ballots did violate A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2). Because members voting by mail were not informed of Eric Thompson’s candidacy, they were denied their right to vote for or against each proposed action.

6. Judge Marwil concluded A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4) was not violated because the absentee ballot itself complied with the statute’s requirements for delivery timelines. She reasoned that a meeting ballot would not need to meet these requirements if it were substantively the same as the compliant absentee ballot; the problem arose only because the ballots were different.

7. The Respondent argued the case was moot because a new board had been seated in a 2017 election. Judge Marwil rejected this, stating that the fact a new board is seated does not prevent an Administrative Law Judge from finding that a statutory violation occurred in a past election.

8. The Final Order, issued by Commissioner Judy Lowe on June 12, 2017, granted the Petitioner’s petition. It ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.

9. The standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence,” as stated in A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), the Petitioner has the burden of proof in the matter.

10. In its February 17, 2017, Order Granting Request for Rehearing, the Department of Real Estate specifically requested a review of A.R.S. § 33-1250, and in particular, A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4).

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

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

1. Analyze the legal distinction Judge Marwil makes between ballots being “identical” versus “substantively different.” How did this distinction become the central point upon which her decision on A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) turned?

2. Trace the procedural history of this case, from the filing of the initial petition to the issuance of the Final Order. Discuss the role and decisions of each key actor, including Petitioner Gounder, Respondent Royal Riviera, ALJ Mihalsky, ALJ Marwil, and Commissioner Lowe.

3. Evaluate the legal arguments presented by the Respondent. Why was the argument about “common practice” for homeowners’ associations ultimately unpersuasive, and why did the “mootness” doctrine not apply?

4. Discuss the significance of the specific provisions within A.R.S. § 33-1250(C). How do subsections (C)(2) and (C)(4) work together to ensure fair voting rights for all members of a condominium association, including those who vote by absentee ballot?

5. Examine the relationship between the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings as demonstrated in this case. How do they interact to adjudicate disputes between homeowners and their associations?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and makes legal findings and recommendations. In this case, Diane Mihalsky and Suzanne Marwil served as ALJs.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified collection of laws for the state of Arizona. This case centered on the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1250.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (the Department)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona. It granted the rehearing and accepted the final ALJ decision.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or condominium. The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated Article VII of its CC&Rs.

Final Order

The concluding and binding decision in an administrative case. In this matter, the Final Order was issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate on June 12, 2017, accepting the ALJ’s decision.

A legal term for a matter that is no longer in controversy or has become irrelevant. The Respondent unsuccessfully argued the case was moot because a subsequent election had been held.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency that conducts administrative hearings for other state agencies. The Department of Real Estate referred this case to the OAH for a hearing.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, the Petitioner was Paul Gounder.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It means the party with the burden of proof must convince the judge that there is a greater than 50% chance that their claim is true.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to review the decision made in the first hearing. The Petitioner requested and was granted a rehearing after the initial recommendation to dismiss his petition.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Royal Riviera Condominium Association.

Your HOA’s Election Rules Might Be Unfair. This Court Case Explains Why.

Introduction: The Devil in the Details

Living in a community governed by a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) often means navigating a complex web of rules, regulations, and procedures. While most are designed to maintain property values and community standards, the enforcement of these rules can sometimes feel arbitrary. But what happens when the very process for electing the board that enforces those rules is flawed?

A fascinating legal challenge demonstrates that even a single, seemingly minor discrepancy in an HOA election can have significant consequences. But the victory was anything but certain. In the case of Paul Gounder versus the Royal Riviera Condominium Association, the homeowner’s initial petition was actually recommended for dismissal by the first judge. It was only through persistence—requesting a rehearing—that the homeowner ultimately prevailed. This case serves as a powerful real-world example of why procedural fairness in community governance is not just important—it’s legally required—and reveals several surprising lessons for any homeowner who values a fair and transparent election process.

Takeaway 1: “Common Practice” Isn’t a Legal Defense

When challenged on its election procedures, the Royal Riviera Condominium Association’s defense was simple: it was merely following “common practice.” The board argued that many HOAs use a different absentee and in-person ballot, so they had done nothing wrong. However, the Administrative Law Judge disregarded this argument entirely, focusing instead on the explicit requirements of Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2). This decision provides a crucial lesson for all homeowners: an association’s internal habits or traditions do not override clear legal statutes. If a state law or the community’s own governing documents dictate a specific procedure, the HOA must follow it, regardless of what other associations might be doing. This empowers homeowners by showing that the law, not just internal tradition, is the ultimate authority governing their association’s actions.

Takeaway 2: A “Small” Change Can Invalidate an Election

The dispute in the March 14, 2016 election centered on two different ballots used for the same board election. The mail-in ballot, sent to members voting absentee, listed six names and included a blank line for a write-in candidate. The in-person ballot, distributed to members at the meeting, listed seven names—adding candidate Eric Thompson—and provided no space for write-ins. This difference was not seen as a minor error but as a “substantive” change that fundamentally altered the election. The judge reasoned that members who voted by mail “did not have the opportunity to vote for him and hence were denied their right to vote for or against each proposed action contained in the meeting ballot.”

The judge made a critical distinction about what constitutes a fair process, clarifying that the issue wasn’t about perfection, but equality of opportunity.

Finding this violation does not impose a requirement that ballots be identical; it simply states that substantive changes to ballots must be presented to all members.

This point is not about minor cosmetic differences like fonts or paper color. It’s about ensuring every single voting member has the exact same set of choices. Adding or removing a candidate on one version of a ballot creates two different elections, disenfranchising one group of voters. This ruling affirms that a fair election requires that all members have an equal opportunity to vote on all candidates and measures.

Takeaway 3: Accountability Matters, Even After the Fact

The association attempted to have the case dismissed by arguing that the issue was “moot.” Because a new election had already been held in 2017 and a new board was in place, the HOA claimed the flawed 2016 election no longer mattered. The Administrative Law Judge explicitly rejected this argument. The decision stated that “the fact that a new board is currently seated does not render the matter moot as the Administrative Law Judge can and does find that Respondent committed a statutory violation in the course of holding its 2016 election.” The final order granted the homeowner’s petition and required the Royal Riviera Condominium Association to reimburse his $500.00 filing fee. This is an impactful takeaway for any homeowner who feels it’s too late to act. It demonstrates that an HOA can be held legally accountable for past procedural violations, establishing an important precedent for the community and putting the board on notice for future conduct.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

The case of Gounder v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association is a powerful reminder that procedural fairness, strict adherence to legal statutes, and the vigilance of individual homeowners are essential checks on the power of an HOA board. The core lesson is clear: seemingly small details in an election process can have major legal consequences. Homeowners who take the time to understand the specific laws and bylaws governing their community can successfully challenge their associations. But this case also teaches a deeper lesson about perseverance. Faced with an initial recommendation for dismissal, the homeowner could have given up. Instead, he challenged the ruling and won on rehearing, proving that knowledge combined with conviction is a powerful force for ensuring the principles of fairness and equality are upheld.

Does your own community’s voting process ensure every member has an equal voice, and would it stand up to this kind of scrutiny?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Paul Gounder (petitioner)
  • Frederick C. Zehm (witness)
    Royal Riviera Condominium Association member
    Testified for Petitioner
  • Marlys Kleck (witness)
    Royal Riviera Condominium Association member
    Testified for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Mark Kristopher Sahl (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen PLC
  • Dan Peterson (property manager)
    Owner of Respondent's management company

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Presided over initial hearing
  • Suzanne Marwil (ALJ)
    Presided over rehearing
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (ADRE staff/HOA Coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Also listed as AHansen
  • LDettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • jmarshall (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • ncano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • M. Aguirre (staff)
    Transmitted order

Other Participants

  • Eric Thompson (member/candidate)
    Candidate added to meeting ballot
  • Al DeFalco (member/candidate)
    Nominated from the floor