Arnold C. Williams vs. Sonoita Ranch Homeowner’s Association Inc.

Posted on March 9, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1516007-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-03-09
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$2,000.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Arnold C. Williams	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.	Counsel	Douglas W. Glasson

Alleged Violations

CC&R 7.4; CC&R 7.7

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found in favor of the Petitioner. The HOA admitted that the Board resolutions attempting to amend CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7 were invalid as they lacked the required homeowner vote. Evidence showed the HOA failed to enforce the existing CC&Rs regarding service areas and parking. The HOA was ordered to enforce the CC&Rs and reimburse the Petitioner's filing fees.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to enforce CC&Rs and Invalid Board Resolutions

Petitioner alleged that the HOA Board failed to enforce CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7 regarding trash/storage and vehicle parking, leading to neighborhood deterioration. Petitioner also alleged the Board illegally passed resolutions to amend these CC&Rs without the required homeowner vote. Respondent admitted the resolutions were invalid and unenforceable.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with CC&R 7.4 and 7.7; Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $2,000.00; declared that any amendment to CC&Rs must be voted on by homeowners.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

CC&R 7.4
CC&R 7.7

Decision Documents

15F-H1516007-BFS Decision – 485232.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:55:44 (106.6 KB)

15F-H1516007-BFS Decision – 492722.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:55:49 (60.1 KB)

15F-H1516007-BFS Decision – 485232.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:25 (106.6 KB)

15F-H1516007-BFS Decision – 492722.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:26 (60.1 KB)

**Case Summary: Arnold C. Williams v. Sonoita Ranch Homeowner’s Association Inc.**
**Case No. 15F-H1516007-BFS**

**Overview**
This administrative hearing addressed a petition filed by homeowner Arnold C. Williams (Petitioner) against the Sonoita Ranch Homeowner’s Association Inc. (Respondent). The dispute concerned the Association's failure to enforce specific Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Board's attempt to amend governing documents without a homeowner vote,.

**Key Facts and Issues**
The Petitioner alleged the Respondent failed to enforce two specific provisions:
1. **CC&R 7.4:** Pertaining to the screening of service areas, trash accumulation, and the concealment of bins,.
2. **CC&R 7.7:** Prohibiting the parking or storage of boats, trucks, trailers, and RVs on streets or lots unless in an attached carport,.

The Petitioner argued that the Board passed resolutions regarding these rules that contradicted the CC&Rs and violated the requirement for a homeowner vote. He testified that the lack of enforcement led to a sharp decline in the neighborhood's appearance, citing an "onslaught" of RVs and weeds, which hindered his ability to sell his residence,.

**Arguments and Testimony**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Williams argued the Board illegally altered CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7 via board resolution rather than the required membership vote. He presented testimony that the neighborhood had deteriorated due to non-enforcement,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association admitted passing resolutions in 2009 and 2012 to "clarify" the CC&Rs. However, the Association conceded these resolutions were invalid and unenforceable because they conflicted with the existing CC&Rs,. Board members testified they had relied on incorrect advice from a previous management company, which claimed the Board could amend CC&Rs by resolution,. The Association’s counsel confirmed that valid amendments require a 75% affirmative vote from homeowners.

**Legal Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the preponderance of the evidence standard. The ALJ concluded:
* The Respondent admitted the resolutions passed to remedy "perceived problems" with the CC&Rs were invalid.
* The Petitioner credibly established that the Association was not enforcing CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7.
* The Association violated its governing documents by failing to enforce these rules and attempting improper amendments.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner. The Order mandated the following:
1. **Enforcement:** The Respondent must comply with the applicable provisions of CC&R 7.4 and CC&R 7.7.
2. **Amendment Procedure:** Any future amendments to the CC&Rs must be voted on and passed by the homeowner members, as required by the governing documents.
3. **Monetary Award:** The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $2,000.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was assessed.

**Procedural Note**
The ALJ issued the decision on March 9, 2016. The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not accept, reject, or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the ALJ’s ruling was certified as the final administrative decision on April 26, 2016.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Arnold C. Williams (Petitioner)
Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc. (Member)
Appeared on his own behalf
Kenneth Elflein (Witness)
Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc. (Resident)
Testified regarding neighborhood deterioration

Respondent Side

Douglas W. Glasson (Respondent Attorney)
Curl & Glasson, P.L.C.
Represented Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.
Nathan Tennyson (Witness)
Brown Olcott PLLC
General counsel for Sonoita; testified regarding CC&Rs
Scott DeRosa (Board Member)
Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.
Testified regarding Board actions
Eloy Blanco (Board Member)
Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.
Testified regarding Board meetings
Sarah Curley (Board President)
Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.
Testified regarding CC&R amendments
Paul Gready (Property Manager)
Express Property Management
Testified as expert in HOA management

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 (OAH 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
Signed mailing certificate

Carol M. Root vs. Candlewood Estates at Troon North

Posted on February 17, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1515014-BFS
Agency	—
Tribunal	—
Decision Date	2/17/2016
Administrative Law Judge	TE
Outcome	complete
Filing Fees Refunded	—
Civil Penalties	—

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Carol M. Root	Counsel	—
Respondent	Candlewood Estates at Troon North Homeowners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Decision Documents

15F-H1515014-BFS Decision – 481408.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:53:42 (82.6 KB)

15F-H1515014-BFS Decision – 481409.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:53:46 (38.5 KB)

15F-H1515014-BFS Decision – 487851.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:53:53 (59.8 KB)

15F-H1515014-BFS Decision – 481408.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:51 (82.6 KB)

15F-H1515014-BFS Decision – 481409.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:52 (38.5 KB)

15F-H1515014-BFS Decision – 487851.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:52 (59.8 KB)

In case 15F-H1515014-BFS, Carol M. Root (Petitioner) brought a complaint against the Candlewood Estates at Troon North Homeowners Association (Respondent) before the Office of Administrative Hearings [1]. The primary issue was whether the Petitioner's claims could be heard in this administrative forum or if they were preempted by the association's governing documents [1, 2].

The Respondent filed a **Motion to Dismiss and Vacate Hearing**, arguing that the community's Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) established a **mandatory Dispute Resolution process** involving mediation and arbitration for all disputes [1-4]. The Petitioner challenged this motion on two fronts: first, she argued that a 2004 amendment adding the dispute resolution procedures was improperly adopted and therefore invalid; second, she claimed that because the relevant section was titled "Agreement to Avoid Litigation," it only prohibited filing lawsuits in traditional courts, not initiating administrative proceedings [5, 6].

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the plain language of the CC&Rs broadly applied to "all Claims" relating to the interpretation, application, or enforcement of the governing documents [7, 8]. The ALJ noted that the Petitioner provided no evidence that the 2004 amendment had ever been legally challenged or invalidated [5]. Consequently, the ALJ determined that the dispute was subject to the association's mandatory Dispute Resolution process and could not be heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings [8]. On February 17, 2016, the ALJ recommended that the **complaint be dismissed** [8-10].

The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety had a statutory deadline of March 23, 2016, to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ's recommendation [11]. Because the Department took no action by that date, the ALJ's recommendation to dismiss the complaint was officially **certified as the final administrative decision** on March 28, 2016 [12, 13].

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Carol M. Root (Petitioner)

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Debra Blake (Interim Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Joni Cage (Contact)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
F. Del Sol (Administrative Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Administrative Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings

John W. Griggs v. Executive Towers HOS

Posted on January 20, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1516004-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2016-01-20
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John W. Griggs	Counsel	—
Respondent	Executive Towers Homeowners Association	Counsel	Christina N. Morgan

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Paragraph 13; Bylaws Article 4, Section 6

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the Association's conversion of a suite into a fitness center was not a structural alteration requiring a vote under the CC&Rs. Additionally, the $4,000 refurbishment cost did not trigger the Bylaws' $5,000 capital expenditure vote requirement, and the equipment lease payments were not considered capital expenditures.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the renovation was a structural alteration or that the costs constituted a capital expenditure exceeding the limit requiring a vote.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Structural Alteration and Capital Expenditure

Petitioner alleged the Association violated the CC&Rs and Bylaws by converting a commercial suite into a fitness center without a majority vote of the membership required for structural alterations and capital expenditures exceeding $5,000.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 33-1202
A.R.S. § 41-1202
A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(7)

Decision Documents

15F-H1516004-BFS Decision – 477049.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:55:26 (183.8 KB)

15F-H1516004-BFS Decision – 486638.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:55:30 (174.6 KB)

15F-H1516004-BFS Decision – 486698.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:55:33 (60.8 KB)

15F-H1516004-BFS Decision – 477049.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:19 (183.8 KB)

15F-H1516004-BFS Decision – 486638.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:19 (174.6 KB)

15F-H1516004-BFS Decision – 486698.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:19 (60.8 KB)

**Case Summary: Griggs v. Executive Towers Homeowners Association**
**Case No.** 15F-H1516004-BFS
**Hearing Date:** January 6, 2016
**Judge:** Diane Mihalsky, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

**Proceedings and Background**
Petitioner John W. Griggs, a condominium owner, filed a petition against the Respondent, Executive Towers Homeowners Association, alleging violations of the Association's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The dispute arose from the Board's decision to convert "Suite 7," a vacant revenue-generating commercial space within the building, into a fitness center.

The Board had previously solicited feedback via a survey, in which a majority of responding owners favored the fitness center, but the participation level did not constitute a majority of the *entire* membership's voting power. The Respondent proceeded with the conversion based on the survey results and Board approval.

**Key Arguments**
The Petitioner argued that the Board acted outside its authority by proceeding without a formal majority vote of the entire membership. His claims relied on two main legal points:
1. **Structural Alteration:** The Petitioner argued the project constituted a "structural alteration" under CC&Rs Paragraph 13, which requires prior approval from a majority of owners. He contended that "structural" should be interpreted to include mental or monetary implications, not just physical changes.
2. **Capital Expenditure:** The Petitioner argued the project violated Article 4, § 6 of the Bylaws, which prohibits the Board from approving capital expenditures over $5,000 without a two-thirds vote of total ownership. He asserted that the total cost, including equipment leasing payments, exceeded this limit.

The Respondent argued that:
1. The renovation was not structural (removing non-load-bearing walls and flooring) and required no permits.
2. The refurbishment costs were approximately $4,000 (under the $5,000 cap), and the equipment was leased rather than purchased, meaning it was not a capital asset.
3. The Board had the discretion to repurpose common elements to protect property values and utilize vacant space.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The ALJ placed the burden of proof on the Petitioner to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

* **Structural Alteration:** The ALJ defined "structural alteration" as a significant change creating a different building or structure. The evidence showed the work involved removing temporary walls, replacing flooring, and electrical upgrades, none of which required permits or affected load-bearing walls. Consequently, the ALJ found the project was not a structural alteration requiring membership approval under CC&Rs Paragraph 13.
* **Capital Expenditure:** The ALJ accepted testimony that the refurbishment cost was $4,000, falling below the $5,000 Bylaw threshold. Regarding the equipment, the ALJ defined "capital expenditure" as an outlay to acquire or improve a fixed asset.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John W. Griggs (petitioner)
Appeared on own behalf; owner of a residence in Executive Towers
Linda Pollack (witness)
Resident/owner; testified for Petitioner
Helen Jerzy (witness)
Executive Towers Homeowners Association
Board Member; testified for Petitioner

Respondent Side

Christina N. Morgan (HOA attorney)
VialFotheringham LLP
William B. Early (witness)
Former board member; testified for Respondent
Wayne Peter Parente (board president)
Executive Towers Homeowners Association
Testified for Respondent
Jay Russett (property manager)
Executive Towers Homeowners Association
Executive Director; testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
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 (administrative staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed copy certification

SHARON OBERRITTER v. SCOTTSDALE TRAILS

Posted on December 23, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1516003-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2015-12-23
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Unknown	Counsel	—
Respondent	Unknown	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 16, Section 16.2

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Board's modification of the Rules and Regulations regarding patio storage was not a violation of the CC&Rs and did not require a vote by the owners. The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof to establish that the rule change was invalid or required membership approval.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Rule Change

Petitioner alleged that the Board violated the CC&Rs by modifying a rule regarding patio storage without obtaining approval from two-thirds of the owners.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

CC&Rs Article 16, Section 16.2
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Decision Documents

15F-H1516003-BFS Decision – 472974.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:54:57 (89.0 KB)

15F-H1516003-BFS Decision – 486288.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:55:00 (59.5 KB)

15F-H1516003-BFS Decision – 472974.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-12T19:04:24 (89.0 KB)

15F-H1516003-BFS Decision – 486288.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-12T19:04:25 (59.5 KB)

**Case Summary: Oberritter v. Scottsdale Trails (No. 15F-H1516003-BFS)**

**Proceedings and Parties**
This administrative hearing was held on December 9, 2015, before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner, Sharon Oberritter, a homeowner and Board member, appeared on her own behalf against the Respondent, Scottsdale Trails (a homeowners’ association), represented by legal counsel.

**Key Facts and Main Issues**
The central dispute involved the validity of a June 2014 Board vote that modified the community's Rules and Regulations regarding items stored on patios and balconies.

* **The Change:** The Board voted 4-3 to amend "Section 4, Paragraph 2" of the Rules and Regulations. The modification added language stating that patio storage is prohibited "unless approved by the Board of Directors," explicitly referencing Section 16.2 of the CC&Rs.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** The Petitioner alleged that this modification effectively altered Article 16, Section 16.2 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). She argued that changing the CC&Rs requires approval by a two-thirds vote of the owners, making the Board's majority vote invalid. She further expressed concern that the change would negatively impact property appearance and values.
* **Respondent’s Argument:** A testifying Board member stated the vote was to modify the "Rules and Regulations" to comply with the CC&Rs rather than changing the CC&Rs themselves, characterizing it as a "semantic change".

**Legal Rulings and Outcome**
* **Evidentiary Ruling:** At the start of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the Respondent’s Motion in Limine, excluding any evidence or testimony regarding privileged attorney-client communications.
* **Burden of Proof:** The ALJ noted that the burden of proof rested on the Petitioner to prove the claim by a "preponderance of the evidence".
* **Findings:** The Tribunal concluded that the Petitioner failed to present credible evidence that the language change in the Rules and Regulations violated Section 16.2 of the CC&Rs or that such a rule change required a vote by the homeowners.
* **Final Decision:** The ALJ determined the Petitioner failed to satisfy her burden of proof and ordered the petition dismissed with no action required of the Respondent.

**Case Status**
On March 17, 2016, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision because the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ's decision within the statutory timeframe.

Attila Revesz vs. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium ,Association of Phoenix

Posted on October 26, 2015 by [email protected]

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 ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the alleged lack of quorum at the annual meeting. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Why this result: Evidence showed that a quorum was present at the meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Annual Meeting Quorum

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Bylaws Article 2.1 because the 2014 annual meeting lacked a quorum of board members and homeowners.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Cited:

Article 2.1

Decision Documents

15F-H1415008-BFS-rhg Decision – 463171.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:14 (62.4 KB)

15F-H1415008-BFS-rhg Decision – 469839.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:15 (62.6 KB)

**Case Summary: Revesz v. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association**
**Case No:** 15F-H1415008-BFS-rhg

**Procedural Overview**
This matter involves a dispute between homeowner Attila Revesz (Petitioner) and the Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association (Respondent). The proceedings occurred in two phases: an original hearing decided in May 2015 and a subsequent rehearing decided in October 2015. This summary explicitly distinguishes between the two to prevent conflation of the outcomes.

**1. Original Hearing Proceedings (May 2015)**
* **Main Issue:** The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated Article 2.1 of its Bylaws regarding the annual meeting held on May 22, 2014. The central dispute was whether a quorum existed. The Petitioner claimed the meeting was improper because Board member Angelo Peri was not physically present.
* **Key Arguments:**
* **Petitioner:** Revesz argued that Mr. Peri was not present via telephone because no landline or phone was visible in the meeting room. He also pointed to draft minutes that initially listed Peri as absent.
* **Respondent:** The Association's management agent testified that Mr. Peri was present via cell phone and that a quorum of homeowners was present in person or by proxy. The Respondent argued that draft minutes contained errors which were later corrected.
* **Legal Findings:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the Respondent’s testimony credible regarding the presence of a quorum. Crucially, the ALJ noted that the Petitioner accepted his own election to the Board at the disputed meeting and acted in the capacity of a director throughout 2014, thereby tacitly accepting the meeting's validity.
* **Original Outcome:** The Petitioner failed to prove the violation by a "preponderance of the evidence". The petition was dismissed, and Shadow Mountain was deemed the prevailing party.

**2. Rehearing Proceedings (October 2015)**
Following the initial dismissal, the matter returned for a rehearing under case number 15F-H1415008-BFS-rhg.
* **Proceedings:** The rehearing was scheduled for October 22, 2015. The Petitioner failed to appear.
* **Procedural Failures:**
* **Motion to Continue:** The Respondent’s attorney indicated they received a Motion to Continue from the Petitioner. However, the ALJ verified that the Petitioner never filed this motion with the Office of Administrative Hearings.
* **Failure to Disclose:** The Respondent noted, and the court accepted, that the Petitioner failed to file and

Samuel G. Schechter vs Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One

Posted on October 9, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1515002-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2015-10-09
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Samuel G. Schechter	Counsel	—
Respondent	Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One	Counsel	Steven D. Leach

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article VII(1); CC&Rs Section 11.g

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the HOA Board acted reasonably in investigating the Petitioner's complaint about junk vehicles. The Board found the initial complaint list contained inaccuracies and requested an update, which the Petitioner failed to provide. The Petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof.

Why this result: Petitioner refused to provide an updated list of violations after the Board found the initial list inaccurate; the ALJ determined the Board's response was reasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Enforce Junk Vehicle Restrictions

Petitioner alleged the HOA Board failed to enforce CC&R Section 11.g regarding junk vehicles and violated Bylaws Article VII(1) by not acting on a complaint list provided by Petitioner.

Orders: No action is required of Respondent; the petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Decision Documents

15F-H1515002-BFS Decision – 460938.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:51:59 (95.0 KB)

15F-H1515002-BFS Decision – 469830.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:52:10 (56.5 KB)

15F-H1515002-BFS Decision – /home/jeremy/azhoa/repos/azoah_decisions/portal_documents/15F-H1515002-BFS/460938.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-17T05:35:41 (95.0 KB)

15F-H1515002-BFS Decision – /home/jeremy/azhoa/repos/azoah_decisions/portal_documents/15F-H1515002-BFS/469830.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-17T05:35:43 (56.5 KB)

15F-H1515002-BFS Decision – 460938.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:25 (95.0 KB)

15F-H1515002-BFS Decision – 469830.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:25 (56.5 KB)

**Case Summary: Samuel G. Schechter v. Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One**
**Case No. 15F-H1515002-BFS**

**Proceedings Overview**
This administrative hearing was held on September 22, 2015, before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner, Samuel G. Schechter, appeared on his own behalf, alleging that the Respondent, Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One (the Association), violated its Bylaws and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs),.

**Key Facts and Main Issues**
The central dispute involved the Association's alleged failure to enforce CC&R Section 11.g, which prohibits "stripped down, wrecked or junk motor vehicles" on lots,.

* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Schechter, a former Board member, submitted a complaint on September 8, 2014, listing violations regarding junk vehicles,. He argued that the Board failed to take enforcement action for over four months, violating Bylaw Article VII(1), which mandates the Board diligently perform its obligations. Schechter and witness Peter Dodge relied on photographs and observations made during their previous tenure on the Board,.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The Association argued the delay was initially caused by the sudden death of the Environmental Control Committee Chairman. Furthermore, an investigation by Board President Roxanna McGinnis in October 2014 revealed that the Petitioner’s list contained incorrect addresses and outdated information,. The Board requested that the Petitioner resubmit an updated, accurate list, but the Petitioner refused,.

**Key Legal Points and Arguments**
* **Investigation and Accuracy:** Testimony established that the Board attempted to investigate the Petitioner's complaint but found the data flawed. Witness Peter Dodge admitted the Board requested a second survey but stated he and Schechter declined to provide it because they were no longer Board members, calling it a "fool's errand".
* **Burden of Proof:** The Administrative Law Judge noted that the burden of proof falls on the party asserting the claim (the Petitioner) by a "preponderance of the evidence".

**Final Decision and Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the Respondent.

* **Findings:** The Tribunal concluded that the Board’s actions were "reasonable and prudent under the circumstances". Specifically, the Board investigated the allegations, identified inaccuracies, and requested updated information from the complainant.
* **Conclusion:** Because the Petitioner and Mr. Dodge failed to respond to the Board’s request for updated information regarding the alleged violations, the Petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof,.
* **Order:** No action was required of the Respondent, and the matter was dismissed.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Samuel G. Schechter (petitioner)
Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Former Board member (2011-2014); appeared on his own behalf
Peter Dodge (witness)
Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Former Board member; assisted Petitioner in compiling complaints

Respondent Side

Steven D. Leach (attorney)
Attorney for Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Ron Murray (committee member)
Environmental Control Committee
Former ECC Chairman; passed away between Sept and Oct 2014
Roxanna McGinnis (board member)
Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Board President in Oct 2014; investigated violations
Theodore Pahle (witness)
Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Board President as of July 1, 2015
Erescene Johnson-Stokes (witness)
Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Resident

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Debra Blake (agency director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Interim Director

Catherine Mullane vs.Thunder FE Condominium Group

Posted on September 21, 2015 by [email protected]

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 2026-04-24T10:54:11 (111.0 KB)

15F-H1515016-BFS Decision – 463668.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:54:24 (59.9 KB)

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 September 14, 2015 by [email protected]

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 2026-04-24T10:52:56 (107.1 KB)

15F-H1515006-BFS Decision – 463653.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:53:03 (63.1 KB)

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 August 27, 2015 by [email protected]

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 2026-04-24T10:53:23 (112.9 KB)

15F-H1515008-BFS Decision – 460537.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:53:31 (60.1 KB)

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 July 7, 2015 by [email protected]

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 2026-04-24T10:52:32 (126.7 KB)

15F-H1515003-BFS Decision – 453308.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:52:41 (64.6 KB)

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