Category Archives: HOA Cases

Catherine Mullane vs.Thunder FE Condominium Group

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1515016-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2015-09-22
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Catherine Mullane Counsel —
Respondent Thunder Fe Condominium Group Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article V, paragraph i, number 1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the bylaws. The evidence showed the HOA membership had previously voted to increase the board's spending authority limit from $50 to $7,500, covering the phased landscaping costs.

Why this result: Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to show a violation; the HOA successfully demonstrated the spending limit had been validly amended by the membership.

Key Issues & Findings

Unapproved Capital Expenditure

Petitioner alleged the HOA Board spent $13,700 on a landscape project to remove grass and install desert landscaping without a vote of all unit owners, violating the $50 limit in the Bylaws.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

15F-H1515016-BFS Decision – 458291.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:57 (111.0 KB)

15F-H1515016-BFS Decision – 463668.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:57 (59.9 KB)

**Case Summary: Mullane v. Thunder Fe Condominium Group**
**Case No. 15F-H1515016-BFS**

**Proceedings and Parties**
On September 2, 2015, the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings convened a hearing regarding a petition filed by homeowner Catherine Mullane (Petitioner) against the Thunder Fe Condominium Group (Respondent). Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky presided over the matter to determine if the Respondent’s Board of Management (BOM) violated the community’s Bylaws and applicable Arizona statutes.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Article V, paragraph i, number 1 of the Bylaws by authorizing a $13,700 landscape project without a vote of all unit owners. Specifically, the Petitioner argued:
* The Bylaws required a vote of all owners for expenditures exceeding $50.00.
* The conversion of common areas from grass to desert landscaping was unpopular with residents and required a two-thirds majority vote.
* Proper voting procedures regarding absentee owners were not followed.

The Respondent, represented by Board Chairman Cliff DeVlieg, defended the Board's actions with the following arguments:
* **Bylaw Amendment:** The $50.00 spending limit was unanimously raised to $7,500.00 by the members during the Annual General Meeting on January 29, 2014.
* **Prior Approval:** The transition to desert landscaping was originally approved by a vote of 20 to 3 at the November 2010 Annual Meeting.
* **Phased Implementation:** The work was conducted in phases (e.g., $6,500 for sod removal) to stay within budget constraints and the amended spending limits.
* **Financial Necessity:** The landscaping change was urgent due to an 86% rate increase by the water utility and rising costs from the previous landscaping vendor.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ found that the Respondent successfully established that the Bylaws had been validly amended. Evidence showed that "qualified owners in the community unanimously voted to raise the expenditure allowed… to $7,500.00" at a duly noticed meeting. Because the spending limit had been raised, the Petitioner failed to prove that the Board violated the Bylaws by entering into the landscaping contracts.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be dismissed.

Following the hearing, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety had until October 26, 2015, to accept, reject, or modify the decision. As the Department took no action by that date, the ALJ’s decision was certified as the final administrative decision on October 28, 2015.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Catherine Mullane (Petitioner)
    Thunder Fe Condominium Group (Unit Owner)
    Appeared on her own behalf; has macular degeneration/is blind,
  • Jacque Ledbetter (Witness)
    Thunder Fe Condominium Group (Resident)
    Drove Petitioner to hearing; testified regarding landscape changes,

Respondent Side

  • Cliff DeVlieg (Board Member)
    Thunder Fe Condominium Group (Chairman of the Board of Management)
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Rod Beale (Board Member)
    Thunder Fe Condominium Group (Treasurer)
    Appointed to fill vacancy; testified at hearing,,
  • Terry Lord (Former Treasurer)
    Thunder Fe Condominium Group
    Resigned late summer/early fall 2014; discussed in testimony,

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding Administrative Law Judge,
  • Debra Blake (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Interim Director; recipient of decision,
  • Greg Hanchett (OAH Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Interim Director; signed Certification of Decision
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Debra Blake
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk/Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/faxed copy of certification

Ferne Skidmore vs. Velda Rose Estates Homeowner Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1515006-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2015-09-14
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Ferne Skidmore Counsel Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association Counsel Clint G. Goodman

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Section 3

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the HOA's restriction of the 'Stocking Project' from the clubhouse violated the non-discrimination provisions of the CC&Rs (Article IV, Section 3). The ALJ determined the project was charitable, not religious, and that the HOA had historically allowed non-members and other activities.

Key Issues & Findings

Discrimination in Common Area Use

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated the CC&Rs non-discrimination clause by prohibiting the 'Christmas Stocking Project' from using the clubhouse. The HOA argued the project had a religious affiliation and non-members participated. The ALJ found the project was a charitable organization for homeless children without religious affiliation and that the HOA's exclusion was discriminatory.

Orders: Respondent ordered to fully comply with CC&Rs; Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $550.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article IV, Section 3
  • Article VII, paragraph 2

Decision Documents

15F-H1515006-BFS Decision – 457186.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:36 (107.1 KB)

15F-H1515006-BFS Decision – 463653.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:36 (63.1 KB)

**Case Summary: Ferne Skidmore v. Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association**
**Case No. 15F-H1515006-BFS**

**Proceedings Overview**
This administrative hearing, held on August 27, 2015, before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, addressed a petition filed by homeowner Ferne Skidmore against the Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association (HOA). The dispute centered on the HOA Board's decision to prohibit a group known as the "Stocking Project" from using the community clubhouse.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The Petitioner, Ms. Skidmore, had organized the Stocking Project for approximately six years. The group utilized the clubhouse to assemble Christmas stockings filled with donated items (e.g., toiletries and toys) for needy and homeless children,.

* **Respondent’s Position:** The HOA Board argued that it restricted the project to adhere to CC&Rs and Bylaws regarding "religious affiliation." Board members testified they excluded the group to avoid liability associated with religious organizations, because the project's funds did not pass through the HOA treasurer, and because the group included non-members,,.
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Ms. Skidmore argued the ban was discriminatory and violated the HOA's non-discrimination clauses. She testified that the project was purely charitable, had no religious affiliation, and that religion was never mentioned during activities,.

**Evidence and Testimony**
Testimony revealed inconsistencies in the HOA's enforcement of rules. While the Board cited religious affiliation as a reason for the ban, a Board member admitted the Board opens its own sessions with prayer and displays Christmas decorations in the clubhouse,. Additionally, evidence showed the clubhouse was open to other activities involving non-members and monetary prizes (such as card games) without restriction.

**Legal Findings**
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas ruled in favor of the Petitioner based on the preponderance of the evidence,.

1. **Definition of Religious Activity:** The Tribunal found the Stocking Project was a non-profit charitable organization existing to help children, not to promote a specific belief in a deity. Therefore, it did not constitute a "religious activity",.
2. **Violation of CC&Rs:** The Judge concluded the Board's actions were discriminatory, violating Article IV, Section 3 of the Velda Rose CC&Rs, which prohibits discrimination among owners,.

**Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:
* The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party.
* The HOA must fully comply with applicable CC&R provisions in the future.
* The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $550.00 filing fee.
* No civil penalty was assessed.

The decision became the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on October 28, 2015, following a review period during which the Department took no action to reject or modify the ruling.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Ferne Skidmore (Petitioner)
    Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association (Member)
    Homeowner; organizer of the Stocking Project
  • Jonathan A. Dessaules (Attorney)
    Dessaules Law Group
    Represented Petitioner
  • F. Robert Connelly (Attorney)
    Dessaules Law Group
    Listed on service list for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Clint G. Goodman (Attorney)
    Goodman Law Office, P.C.
    Represented Respondent
  • Brodie Poole (Witness)
    Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
    Board Member since January 2015; testified Stocking Project had no religious affiliation
  • Gwendolyn Krogstad (Witness)
    Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
    Board Member since January 2015
  • Darrell Walklin (Witness)
    Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
    Former Board President
  • Gloria Denesen (Witness)
    Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
    Board Treasurer
  • Roger A. Walklin (Witness)
    Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
    Board President (appointed/elected 2013)

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Debra Blake (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Interim Director
  • Greg Hanchett (Agency Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Interim Director; certified the decision
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Debra Blake
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/faxed the decision

Thomas Satterlee vs. Green Valley Country Club Vistas

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1515008-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2015-08-27
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas Satterlee Counsel —
Respondent Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA Counsel Michael Steven Shupe

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Articles XIII, XIV, XV
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA's 2015 amendment vote was valid under the 1990 CC&Rs because the 1992 updates relied upon by Petitioner were never properly adopted. No open meeting violations were found.

Why this result: Petitioner relied on invalid governing documents to assert procedural defects and failed to prove statutory violations.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Amendment Procedures

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to follow the amendment procedures set forth in the 1992 updated Bylaws/Articles, specifically regarding the format of the ballot. The ALJ found that the 1992 updates were never validly approved by the members, and thus the HOA was not bound by them.

Orders: Petition dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Open Meeting Violation

Petitioner alleged the Board did not provide members sufficient time to review changes or discuss them at the annual meeting. The ALJ found the evidence failed to support a finding that the open meeting requirements were violated.

Orders: Petition dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

15F-H1515008-BFS Decision – 454928.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:41 (112.9 KB)

15F-H1515008-BFS Decision – 460537.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:41 (60.1 KB)

**Case Summary: Thomas Satterlee v. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA**
**Case No. 15F-H1515008-BFS**

**Proceedings Overview**
This matter was heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings on August 14, 2015. Petitioner Thomas Satterlee, a homeowner, filed a complaint against the Respondent, Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owners Association ("Association"), alleging violations of the Association’s Bylaws and Arizona statutes regarding the amendment of governing documents.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The dispute centered on an Association vote held on January 29, 2015, to amend and restate the Articles of Incorporation, CC&Rs, and Bylaws.

* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Satterlee alleged the Association failed to follow specific ballot formatting requirements found in a document recorded in March 1992 (the "1992 Update"). Specifically, he argued the Association failed to list the original sections alongside proposed changes on the ballot. He asserted that "no prudent man" would have recorded the 1992 Update unless it had been properly voted on.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The Association argued the 1992 Update was never validly approved by the membership and was therefore unenforceable. Instead, the Association relied on the 1990 CC&Rs as the valid governing document. They contended the 2015 amendments were necessary to correct errors and were properly adopted by a majority of owners as required by the 1990 CC&Rs.
* **Testimony:** The Association’s Secretary testified she could find no evidence—such as certification or voting records—that the 1992 Update was ever approved by the members. Satterlee admitted under cross-examination that he had no proof the 1992 Update had been voted on by the membership.

**Legal Findings**
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas issued a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence:

1. **Validity of Governing Documents:** The evidence established that the 1990 CC&Rs were duly approved and recorded. However, the evidence failed to show that the 1992 Update was ever voted on or approved by the members as required. Consequently, the strict formatting provisions of the 1992 Update were not binding.
2. **Compliance with Voting Procedures:** The Judge determined that the January 29, 2015 vote complied with the valid 1990 CC&Rs.
3. **Open Meeting Statutes:** The Judge concluded the evidence did not support a finding that the Association violated open meeting requirements under A.R.S. § 33-1804.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to satisfy his burden of proof and ordered the petition dismissed, requiring no action from the Respondent.

On October 7, 2015, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, as the Department took no action to reject or modify the Judge's decision within the statutory review period.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas Satterlee (Petitioner)
    Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA (Member)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Michael Simpson (witness)
    Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA
    Member for approx 2.5 years; testified regarding insufficient review time
  • Mike Koning (witness)
    Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA
    Testified regarding lack of time to present questions

Respondent Side

  • Michael Steven Shupe (attorney)
    Goldschmidt and Shupe PLLC
    Attorney for Respondent
  • Howard Marvin (witness)
    Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA
    Former President of the Association (2012-2015)
  • Linda Clemens (witness)
    Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA
    Board Secretary

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Debra Blake (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Interim Director
  • Greg Hanchett (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Interim Director; certified the decision
  • Joni Cage (staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Debra Blake
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/faxed the certification

John & Debborah Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1515003-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2015-07-07
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John & Debborah Sellers Counsel —
Respondent The Crossings at Willow Creek Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ concluded that Petitioners established a violation regarding the Giambanco affidavit and Manager's Report, as these were association records not provided. However, Petitioners failed to establish violations regarding other requested documents (insurance, policy amendments, bids) as the evidence showed these documents did not exist or were not in Respondent's possession at the time of the request.

Why this result: For the specific records not awarded, the ALJ found the documents did not exist or were not retained by the Respondent at the time of the request.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records (Giambanco affidavit and Manager's Report)

Petitioners alleged Respondent failed to provide requested documents (affidavit, insurance records, policy amendments, RV road access, manager's report, and bids) within the statutory 10-day timeframe.

Orders: Respondent is ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 and provide Petitioners with copies of the Giambanco affidavit and the Manager's Report within ten days. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Decision Documents

15F-H1515003-BFS Decision – 447655.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:29 (126.7 KB)

15F-H1515003-BFS Decision – 453308.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:29 (64.6 KB)

**Case Title:** *John & Debborah Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek*
**Case Number:** 15F-H1515003-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

### Hearing Proceedings
An administrative hearing was conducted on June 17, 2015, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Tammy L. Eigenheer. The hearing addressed a petition filed by homeowners John and Debborah Sellers (Petitioners) alleging that their homeowners association, The Crossings at Willow Creek (Respondent), violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The core issue was whether Respondent failed to provide specific association records requested by the Petitioners on January 29, 2015, within the statutory ten-day timeframe.

### Key Facts and Arguments
Petitioners requested multiple documents, including a specific affidavit signed by a board member ("Giambanco affidavit"), a "Manager's Report" from a January 2015 board meeting, insurance records, and competing bids from management companies. They also requested inspection of the Association's electronic records.

* **Petitioners' Position:** They argued that the Association was required to maintain these records under its record retention policy and that the records should be available for review.
* **Respondent's Defense:** Respondent argued it did not possess the requested documents or that they did not exist.
* Regarding the **Giambanco affidavit**, Respondent claimed it was not in their possession and they did not know why Petitioners wanted it.
* Regarding the **Manager's Report**, Respondent initially claimed the relevant pages were blank, but later acknowledged the existence of bullet points.
* Regarding **electronic records**, Respondent testified that all records had been converted to hard copies by the management company (AMCOR) and were no longer maintained electronically.
* Regarding **competing bids**, Respondent stated they were destroyed after the contract was awarded.

### Legal Analysis and Findings
The ALJ ruled that Petitioners established a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, which mandates that financial and other records be made reasonably available for examination. The ALJ provided specific findings on the disputed records:

1. **Constructive Possession:** The ALJ rejected Respondent's defense regarding the Giambanco affidavit. Although the document was not physically held by the Respondent, it was created by the Association's counsel. The ALJ ruled it was an association record accessible to Respondent through its attorney, and failure to obtain it constituted a violation.
2. **Manager's Report:** The ALJ found that the Manager's Report (containing bullet points) existed. The potential usefulness of the information was not a valid basis for denial, and no statutory exception applied.
3. **Non-Existent Records:** For the remaining items (such as the destroyed bids), the ALJ concluded Petitioners failed to prove the documents existed at the time of the request. The ALJ noted that whether Respondent violated its own internal record retention policy was irrelevant to determining a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
4. **Electronic Records:** The ALJ found no violation regarding the refusal to allow electronic inspection, accepting the evidence that the Association no longer maintained records in an electronic medium.

### Final Outcome and Decision
The ALJ granted the petition in part, issuing the following orders:
* **Production of Records:** Respondent was ordered to provide copies of the Giambanco affidavit and the Manager's Report within ten days.
* **Filing Fee:** Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioners the $550.00 filing fee.

The decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on August 18,

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Sellers (petitioner)
    Appeared on own behalf
  • Debborah Sellers (petitioner)
    Appeared on own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Brenda Dozier (representative)
    The Crossings at Willow Creek
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Peter Giambanco (board member)
    The Crossings at Willow Creek
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Dennis May (property manager)
    AMCOR Property Professionals, Inc.
    President of AMCOR
  • Mrs. Giambanco (unknown)
    The Crossings at Willow Creek
    Alleged note keeper for board meetings
  • Robin Thomas (property manager)
    AMCOR Property Professionals Inc
    Copied on final certification

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Debra Blake (Interim Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Joni Cage (staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Debra Blake
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed mailing certification

Morris, Deana vs. Sundance Residential HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1515001-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2015-06-23
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deanna Morris Counsel —
Respondent Sundance Residential HOA Counsel Mark Sahl

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article VII, Sections 7.01, 7.03, 7.04; Article 1, Sections 1.64, 1.65; Article II, Section 2.08; Article X, Section 10.16
N/A

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ordered that the petition be dismissed and the Respondent be deemed the prevailing party. The HOA was found to have properly approved the architectural changes, and the billing dispute was resolved prior to the hearing.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sundance violated its governing documents regarding the architectural approval, and the billing issue was moot.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs regarding neighbor's gazebo and balcony

Petitioner alleged that the HOA improperly approved a neighbor's walkout balcony and gazebo, claiming the structures blocked views, violated privacy, and were not compliant with the CC&Rs or design guidelines.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Improper invoice charge

Petitioner alleged the HOA added an unexplained invoice for $1,076.00 to her quarterly bill.

Orders: Petition dismissed (Issue resolved: HOA removed the charge as an administrative error before hearing).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: resolved_prior_to_hearing

Decision Documents

15F-H1515001-BFS Decision – 446035.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:20 (111.5 KB)

15F-H1515001-BFS Decision – 464029.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:20 (49.6 KB)

**Case Summary: Deanna Morris v. Sundance Residential HOA**
**Case No. 15F-H1515001-BFS**

**Proceedings and Parties**
This administrative hearing was held on June 10, 2015, before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a petition filed by homeowner Deanna Morris (Petitioner) against Sundance Residential HOA (Respondent),. The Petitioner represented herself, while the Respondent was represented by counsel.

**Main Issues and Key Facts**
The dispute centered on the HOA’s approval of a walkout balcony and gazebo constructed on a property neighboring the Petitioner's residence.
* **Architectural Violations:** The Petitioner alleged the structures violated the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding "harmony and compatibility," blocked her scenic views of the sunset, and were not completed within approved timeframes,,. She further argued the Architectural Committee used incorrect rules during the approval process and that the structures included unapproved, intrusive lighting,.
* **Billing Dispute:** The Petitioner contested an unexplained invoice for $1,076.00 added to her account.

**Key Arguments and Testimony**
* **Petitioner's Position:** Ms. Morris argued that the Committee failed to protect her property value and privacy. She claimed the neighbor's project deviated from approved plans and that the Committee should have utilized rules effective April 1, 2014, rather than the 2011 rules used,.
* **Respondent's Position:** The HOA denied the allegations, asserting the project complied with all governing documents,.
* **Witness Testimony:** The neighbor, Martha Duran, testified that she obtained necessary approvals from the HOA and the City of Buckeye and completed construction within the allowed period,. Committee member Willard Brunner testified that the Committee reviews plans for harmony and view impact but noted that neighbors do not possess "veto power" over approved projects,. He confirmed the structures were within community standards.
* **Billing Resolution:** The HOA’s community manager testified that the disputed $1,076.00 fee was an administrative error and had been removed from the Petitioner’s account prior to the hearing,.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, placing the burden of proof on the Petitioner,.
* **Compliance:** The ALJ found credible testimony established that the Committee properly reviewed the plans and that the "as-built" structures complied with the approved specifications and community standards,.
* **Governing Documents:** The ALJ cited Article VII of the CC&Rs, which authorizes the Committee to review plans for harmony and location, and noted that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated these documents,.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
* **Hearing Decision:** The ALJ recommended that the petition be dismissed, ruling that Sundance Residential HOA was the prevailing party. The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the CC&Rs.
* **Subsequent Action:** A rehearing was initially granted and scheduled for November 2, 2015. However, on October 29, 2015, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety rescinded the Order Granting Rehearing Request. Consequently, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order vacating the hearing and mooting all pending motions.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Deanna Morris (Petitioner)
    Sundance Residential HOA member
    Appeared on her own behalf; owner of residence in Sundance
  • Rod Fleishman (Witness)
    Co-owner of Petitioner's residence
    Testified regarding scenic view blockage

Respondent Side

  • Mark Sahl (Respondent Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Represented Sundance Residential HOA
  • Martha Duran (Witness)
    Neighbor/Homeowner
    Testified regarding her construction of the gazebo/balcony at issue
  • Willard Brunner (Witness)
    Sundance Architectural Committee
    Member of the Committee; testified regarding approval process
  • Tom Campanella (Witness)
    Sundance Residential HOA
    Community Manager

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presided over the hearing and issued the decision
  • Debra Blake (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Interim Director
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Order Vacating Hearing in related docket 15F-H1515001-BFS-rhg
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    CC'd on Order Vacating Hearing
  • Dawn Vandeberg (Administrative Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed/Processed Order Vacating Hearing

Deanna Morris v. Sundance Residential HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1515001-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2015-06-23
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deanna Morris Counsel —
Respondent Sundance Residential HOA Counsel Mark Sahl

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article VII, Sections 7.01, 7.03, 7.04; Article 1, Sections 1.64, 1.65; Article II, Section 2.08; Article X, Section 10.16
N/A

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ordered that the petition be dismissed and the Respondent be deemed the prevailing party. The HOA was found to have properly approved the architectural changes, and the billing dispute was resolved prior to the hearing.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sundance violated its governing documents regarding the architectural approval, and the billing issue was moot.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs regarding neighbor's gazebo and balcony

Petitioner alleged that the HOA improperly approved a neighbor's walkout balcony and gazebo, claiming the structures blocked views, violated privacy, and were not compliant with the CC&Rs or design guidelines.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Improper invoice charge

Petitioner alleged the HOA added an unexplained invoice for $1,076.00 to her quarterly bill.

Orders: Petition dismissed (Issue resolved: HOA removed the charge as an administrative error before hearing).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: resolved_prior_to_hearing

Attila Revesz vs. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1415008-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2015-05-22
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Attila Revesz Counsel —
Respondent Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix Counsel Craig Boates

Alleged Violations

Article 2.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge deemed Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association the prevailing party and dismissed Attila Revesz's petition. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws regarding the annual meeting and quorum requirements.

Why this result: The ALJ found credible testimony that a quorum was present (including a member via telephone) and Petitioner offered no substantial evidence to the contrary.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold valid annual meeting

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated Bylaws Article 2.1 by failing to hold a valid annual meeting. Petitioner claimed a quorum was not present because a board member attended by telephone, which Petitioner disputed. The ALJ found credible testimony that the board member attended by phone and a quorum of homeowners was present.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Article 2.1 of Bylaws

Decision Documents

15F-H1415008-BFS Decision – 442072.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:10 (83.9 KB)

15F-H1415008-BFS Decision – 447098.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:10 (62.5 KB)

**Case Title:** *Attila Revesz v. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix*
**Case Number:** 15F-H1415008-BFS (and rehearing 15F-H1415008-BFS-rhg)
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

### **Summary of Proceedings**

**1. Initial Hearing and Decision (May 2015)**
The Petitioner, Attila Revesz, filed a Single Issue Petition alleging that the Respondent, Shadow Mountain Villas, violated Article 2.1 of its Bylaws by failing to hold a valid annual meeting in 2014.

* **Key Arguments:**
* **Petitioner:** Revesz argued that although a meeting occurred on May 22, 2014, it was invalid because a quorum of Board members was not present. Specifically, he alleged Board member Angelo Peri was not present by telephone, noting the absence of a visible landline or speakerphone in the room.
* **Respondent:** Represented by counsel and the management agent (RealManage), the Respondent argued that a quorum was present. The management agent testified that Mr. Peri attended via cell phone and that a quorum of homeowners was established in person or by proxy.

* **Evidence and Findings:**
* The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the management agent’s testimony credible regarding the presence of a quorum.
* The ALJ noted significant inconsistencies in the Petitioner’s position. Revesz and his witness, Rick Sanchez, were elected to the Board during the disputed May 22, 2014 meeting. Evidence showed they subsequently acted in the capacity of Board members throughout 2014. The ALJ concluded that acting as a director demonstrated Revesz accepted the validity of the election held at the meeting he sought to challenge.
* Conflicting minutes were presented; however, the Respondent’s minutes showing Mr. Peri as present were accepted as credible over the Petitioner’s draft minutes.

* **Outcome:** The ALJ ruled that Revesz failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The petition was dismissed on May 22, 2015. This decision was certified as final on July 1, 2015.

**2. Rehearing Proceedings (October 2015)**
A rehearing was scheduled for October 22, 2015, regarding the same matter.

* **Procedural Default:** The Petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled hearing time. Although Respondent’s counsel indicated the Petitioner had sent them a Motion to Continue, the ALJ confirmed that no such motion was filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings.
* **Procedural Violations:** The Respondent noted that the Petitioner had failed to file or serve a required list of witnesses and exhibits.
* **Final Decision:** Due to the Petitioner's failure to appear, prosecute the matter, or comply with evidentiary filings, the ALJ dismissed the petition. This dismissal was certified as the final administrative decision on December 8, 2015.

### **Final Legal Conclusion**
The Petitioner failed to prove a violation of the Association's Bylaws regarding the 2014 annual meeting quorum. The matter was ultimately dismissed with prejudice following the Petitioner’s failure to prosecute the rehearing. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association was deemed the prevailing party.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Attila Revesz (Petitioner)
    Homeowner
    Also referred to erroneously as Attilla Balbo in board minutes
  • Rick Sanchez (witness)
    Testified for Petitioner; acted as board member in 2014

Respondent Side

  • Craig Boates (attorney)
    Boates & Crump, PLLC; Boates Law Firm, PLLC
    Full name Craighton T. Boates
  • Jo-Ann Greenstein (witness)
    RealManage
    Vice-president of RealManage (agent for Respondent)
  • Russell Hutchinson (board member)
    Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association
    Present at May 22, 2014 meeting
  • Shelly Rothgeb (board member)
    Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association
    Present at May 22, 2014 meeting
  • Angelo Peri (board member)
    Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association
    Present via telephone at May 22, 2014 meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presided over hearing and rehearing dismissal
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of transmitted decision
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decisions
  • Debra Blake (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Interim Director; recipient of transmitted decision
  • Joni Cage (staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Care of for Debra Blake
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/e-mailed/faxed copies of decisions

Kenneth Nowell vs. Greenfield Village RV Resort

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 14F-H1415011-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2015-05-11
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kenneth Nowell Counsel —
Respondent Greenfield Village RV Resort Association, Inc. Counsel Steven D. Leach

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs 6.4, 6.5; Bylaws 6.4, 10.2
Bylaws 6.4
CC&Rs 3.25, 6.4(b)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the CC&Rs or Bylaws regarding land acquisition, financial assessments, or construction projects.

Why this result: Burden of proof not met; Association actions were found to be within their authority and properly voted upon where required.

Key Issues & Findings

Land Purchase and Funding of Improvements

Petitioner alleged the Association violated governing documents by purchasing land and levying assessments/loans without a 2/3 vote. The ALJ found the Association had authority and the required majority votes were obtained.

Orders: Dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 3
  • 4
  • 12
  • 15
  • 16
  • 24

The $20,000 Option

Petitioner alleged the Board required a membership vote to purchase a $20,000 land option. The ALJ found the expenditure did not exceed the threshold requiring a vote.

Orders: Dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 18
  • 19
  • 20

The Beverage Serving Center

Petitioner alleged the Board constructed a serving center without a vote (changing common area nature) and improperly used reserve funds. The ALJ found it was a replacement (allowed) and did not change the nature of the area.

Orders: Dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 20
  • 21
  • 22

Decision Documents

14F-H1415011-BFS Decision – 440536.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-28T11:12:09 (117.3 KB)

14F-H1415011-BFS Decision – 446583.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-28T11:12:09 (61.6 KB)

**Case Summary: Nowell v. Greenfield Village RV Resort**
**Case No.** 14F-H1415011-BFS

**Hearing Proceedings and Background**
The hearing was conducted on April 21, 2015, before Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona. Petitioner Kenneth Nowell, a resident, filed a petition alleging that Respondent Greenfield Village RV Resort Association, Inc. violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Bylaws.

The dispute centered on the Association’s authority and procedures regarding three specific actions: the purchase of land at 4711 East Main Street, the purchase of an option to buy that land, and the construction of a beverage serving center. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

**Key Arguments and Legal Findings**

**1. Land Purchase and Assessment**
The Association held an election in February 2014 where the membership voted to purchase and improve specific land.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Nowell alleged the Association lacked the authority to acquire property and that the assessment used to fund the purchase required approval by two-thirds of the membership.
* **Legal Finding:** The ALJ found that the Articles of Incorporation expressly authorize the Association to acquire property. Regarding the vote, the evidence showed the land was funded by a general assessment, not a special assessment as alleged. Regardless, the CC&Rs and Bylaws require only a majority vote for ratification of assessments, not a two-thirds vote. The assessments were properly ratified .

**2. The $20,000 Land Option**
Prior to the 2014 election, the Board authorized a $20,000 expenditure from operating funds to secure an option on the land.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Nowell argued the Association was required to hold a membership vote to authorize this expenditure.
* **Legal Finding:** The Bylaws require a membership vote only for capital expenditures *in excess* of $20,000. Because the expenditure did not exceed this threshold, Nowell failed to prove a vote was required.

**3. The Beverage Serving Center**
The Board approved the construction of a new beverage serving center to replace an old facility located in a flood-prone retention basin

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kenneth Nowell (Petitioner)
    Resident appearing on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Steven D. Leach (attorney)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
    Attorney for Respondent
  • Ron Thorstad (witness)
    Greenfield Village RV Resort Association, Inc.
    Association President; testified at hearing

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Director listed on transmission
  • Greg Hanchett (OAH Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Interim Director; signed Certification of Decision
  • Debra Blake (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Director; recipient of certified decision
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Debra Blake
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (OAH Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed mailing certificate

Dennis J. Legere vs. Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2015-04-23
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $2,000.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Dennis J. Legere Counsel —
Respondent Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA Counsel Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner on Rehearing. The Tribunal found that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by preventing members from speaking before board votes, failing to notice committee meetings, and using email unanimous consent (A.R.S. § 10-3821) to bypass open meeting requirements. The ALJ determined that A.R.S. § 33-1804 constitutes a specific statute that prevails over the general non-profit corporation statute allowing action without a meeting, and that the HOA cannot use Title 10 to impliedly repeal Title 33 open meeting mandates.

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meeting Law Violations

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by preventing members from speaking on agenda items, holding unannounced architectural committee meetings, and using email/unanimous consent to conduct business in closed sessions.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804(A); pay filing fee of $2,000 to Petitioner; pay civil penalty of $2,000 to the Department.

Filing fee: $2,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $2,000.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3821

Decision Documents

14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg Decision – 437956.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:51 (228.9 KB)

14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg Decision – 443321.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:51 (62.7 KB)

**Case Summary: Dennis J. Legere v. Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA**
**Case No. 14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg**

**Procedural History and Context**
This matter involves a dispute between Dennis J. Legere (Petitioner) and Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Respondent) regarding alleged violations of Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804),. The case includes an initial Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision issued in August 2014 and a subsequent **Decision on Rehearing** issued in April 2015,.

**Original Proceedings (July–August 2014)**
In the original hearing, the Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by conducting business via "email meetings" (closed sessions), failing to provide notice for architectural committee meetings, and preventing members from speaking before Board votes,,.

The HOA argued that A.R.S. § 10-3821 (Title 10) and its Bylaws permitted the Board to take action without a meeting if they obtained unanimous written consent, a practice they adopted for efficiency,.

In the original decision, the ALJ ruled that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 regarding speaking rights and committee notices,. However, the ALJ declined to rule on the "email meeting" issue, stating the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine violations of Title 10 (Corporations) or resolve conflicts between Title 10 and Title 33.

**Rehearing Proceedings (March 2015)**
The Petitioner requested a rehearing, arguing the ALJ erroneously declined jurisdiction over the "email meeting" issue. The Petitioner asserted the issue was not whether the HOA violated Title 10, but whether complying with Title 10 allowed the HOA to evade the open meeting mandates of Title 33. The Department granted the rehearing.

**Key Legal Issues on Rehearing**
The central legal question was statutory interpretation: Can an HOA utilize A.R.S. § 10-3821 (allowing corporate action by unanimous written consent without a meeting) to bypass the open meeting requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804,.

The HOA maintained that taking action by unanimous written consent via email was a legal right under Title 10 and its Bylaws. The Petitioner argued this practice violated the intent of the Open Meeting Law by precluding member observation and participation.

**Rehearing Analysis and Conclusions**
The ALJ rejected the HOA's reliance on Title 10 to avoid open meetings. The decision established the following legal principles:
* **Statutory Priority:** A.R.S. § 33-1804 unambiguously requires HOA meetings to be open. While Title 10 governs non-profit corporations generally, Title 33 specifically regulates planned communities.
* **Harmonization:** Statutes must be construed together; however, an agency cannot disregard clear legislative directives,.
* **Ruling:** A specific statute (Title 33) prevails over a general statute (Title 10). The ALJ held that HOAs cannot use Title 10 to "impliedly repeal" the open meeting statutes of Title 33.

Consequently, the ALJ ruled that the Board's practice of taking action via email/unanimous consent *violated* A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

**Final Decision and Order**
The Rehearing Decision affirmed the Petitioner as the prevailing party. The ALJ made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. **Email Meetings:** The use of unanimous written consent via email in lieu of open meetings is a violation of A.R.S. § 33-180

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Dennis J. Legere (petitioner)
    Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA
    Homeowner and former board member
  • Tom Rawles (attorney)
    Represented Petitioner in original hearing

Respondent Side

  • Troy Stratman (attorney)
    Mack, Watson & Stratman, PLC
    Represented Respondent in original hearing; listed as 'Tony Stratman' in service list
  • Maria R. Kupillas (attorney)
    Farley, Seletos & Choate
    Represented Respondent in rehearing
  • Michelle O’Robinson (witness)
    Vision Community Management
    Property Manager and Field Operations Supervisor
  • James T. Foxworthy (witness)
    Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA
    Board President (during original hearing)
  • John Edgar Schuler (witness)
    Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA
    Board President (as of March 2015)

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Agency Director certifying the decision
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the final administrative decision
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of transmitted decision
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed copy distribution

Logan C. Wolf vs. Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 14F-H1415006-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2015-03-02
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Logan C. Wolf Counsel —
Respondent Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Article 2, Section 2.2(B)(2)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner prevailed. Respondent failed to appear. ALJ found Respondent violated CC&Rs by failing to convert Class B membership to Class A as required. Ordered to comply and pay fees/penalties.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Convert Class B Membership

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to convert Class B memberships to Class A memberships within four years of the first lot conveyance, thereby improperly maintaining developer control.

Orders: Lakeside shall fully comply with Article 2, Section 2.2(B)(2) of CC&Rs within 30 days; pay Petitioner $550.00 filing fee; pay Department $500.00 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article 2, Section 2.2(B)(2)

Decision Documents

14F-H1415006-BFS Decision – 430566.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:42 (105.6 KB)

14F-H1415006-BFS Decision – 438544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:42 (60.8 KB)

**Case Title:** *Logan C. Wolf vs. Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association*
**Case No.:** 14F-H1415006-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

### **Procedural Background**
The Petitioner, Logan C. Wolf, a homeowner and member of the Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association ("Lakeside"), filed a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. He alleged that Lakeside violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding voting membership rights.

An administrative hearing was held on February 12, 2015. The Petitioner appeared on his own behalf, while the Respondent (Lakeside) **failed to appear**. Additionally, Lakeside failed to file an Answer to the petition despite receiving proper notice, which may be deemed an admission of the allegations under Arizona law.

### **Main Issues and Key Facts**
The central legal issue was whether the Developer improperly retained control of the HOA by failing to convert "Class B" membership (Developer control) to "Class A" membership (Homeowner control) within the timeframe mandated by the CC&Rs.

* **Governing Provision:** Article 2, Section 2.2(B)(2) of the CC&Rs stipulated that Class B membership must cease and convert to Class A membership four years following the conveyance of the first lot to an owner other than the Developer.
* **Timeline of Events:**
* **September 16, 2005:** Original CC&Rs recorded.
* **February 19, 2008:** The first home was conveyed to a homeowner.
* **2012:** Based on the four-year rule, Class B membership should have expired and control should have passed to the homeowners.
* **March 26, 2013:** An amendment was created attempting to extend Class B membership, allowing the Developer (T.J. Bednar & Co.) to maintain control.

### **Arguments**
Mr. Wolf argued that the 2013 amendment was invalid because Class B membership should have already ceased in 2012. He testified that the Developer’s refusal to relinquish control was financially detrimental to homeowners, citing specifically that residents were paying over $7,000 annually to a management company selected without their vote.

Witness Christopher Grant supported Wolf’s testimony, stating that the Developer had repeatedly indicated an intent to turn over control but failed to do so, effectively "pulling the rug from under the homeowners" by attempting to amend the CC&Rs post-facto.

### **Findings and Final Decision**
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas found the testimony of Wolf and Grant credible. The tribunal concluded that Lakeside violated Article 2, Section 2.2(B)(2) of the CC&Rs because the transition to Class A membership was mandatory four years after the first conveyance.

**Outcome and Orders:**
The Petitioner (Wolf) was deemed the prevailing party. The Judge ordered the following:
1. **Compliance:** Lakeside must fully comply with the CC&Rs (converting membership to Class A) within 30 days.
2. **Restitution:** Lakeside must reimburse the Petitioner’s $550.00 filing fee.
3. **Penalty:** Lakeside must pay a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department.

**Certification:**
The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not reject or modify the decision within the statutory review period. Consequently, the Administrative Law Judge's decision was **certified as final** on April 28, 2015.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Logan C. Wolf (Petitioner)
    Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association (Member)
    Appeared on his own behalf; testified.
  • Christopher Grant (Witness)
    Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association (Resident/Member)
    Testified regarding developer control and management fees.

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge presiding over the hearing.
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed recipient of the decision.
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed the Certification of Decision.
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed in care of address for Gene Palma.
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/transmitted the certification.