Morris, Deana vs. Sundance Residential HOA

Posted on June 23, 2015 by [email protected]

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 2026-04-24T10:51:42 (111.5 KB)

15F-H1515001-BFS Decision – 464029.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:51:47 (49.6 KB)

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 June 23, 2015 by [email protected]

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

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

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 May 22, 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 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 2026-04-24T10:51:25 (83.9 KB)

15F-H1415008-BFS Decision – 447098.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:51:31 (62.5 KB)

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 May 11, 2015 by [email protected]

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:

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:

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:

Decision Documents

14F-H1415011-BFS Decision – 440536.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:50:50 (117.3 KB)

14F-H1415011-BFS Decision – 446583.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:50:59 (61.6 KB)

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 April 23, 2015 by [email protected]

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	Tom Rawles
Respondent	Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA	Counsel	Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by: 1) preventing members from speaking on agenda items before Board votes; 2) failing to provide notice for architectural committee meetings; and 3) conducting Board business and taking actions via unanimous written consent by email in lieu of open meetings. The ALJ rejected the HOA's defense that A.R.S. § 10-3821 allowed for email actions without meetings, stating that Title 33 open meeting requirements prevail. The HOA was ordered to comply with the statute and pay a $2,000 civil penalty and reimburse $2,000 in filing fees.

Key Issues & Findings

Speaking at Meetings

The Board prevented the petitioner from speaking on action items before the Board took formal action at meetings on November 26, 2013, January 14, 2014, and February 3, 2014.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with speaking requirements.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Committee Meeting Notices

Pinnacle conducted regularly scheduled architectural committee meetings without providing notice to members of the association.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with notice requirements.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Email Meetings / Action Without Meeting

The Board utilized an email process to take actions by unanimous written consent without holding a meeting, effectively deliberating and voting without member observation or participation.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with open meeting statutes; corporate statute A.R.S. § 10-3821 does not override A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $2,000.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Closed Sessions

Petitioner alleged Board conducted non-privileged business in closed sessions. The Tribunal deemed Petitioner the prevailing party and awarded full filing fees.

Orders: Petitioner deemed prevailing party.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Logan C. Wolf vs. Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association

Posted on March 2, 2015 by [email protected]

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 2026-04-24T10:50:07 (105.6 KB)

14F-H1415006-BFS Decision – 438544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:50:20 (60.8 KB)

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.

William P. Lee vs. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two HOA

Posted on February 17, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	14F-H1415007-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-02-16
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$2,000.00
Civil Penalties	$200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	William P. Lee	Counsel	—
Respondent	Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two HOA	Counsel	Keith Hammond

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(4); A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1) by failing to obtain a requisite signed petition from members before holding a special meeting to remove the Petitioner from the Board of Directors. However, the HOA did not violate statutes or bylaws regarding the vote to increase the number of directors. Petitioner was awarded half of the filing fees ($1,000) and the HOA was assessed a $200 civil penalty.

Why this result: Regarding the board expansion and other claims, the ALJ found the preponderance of evidence failed to support that the vote violated bylaws or statutes.

Key Issues & Findings

Improper Amendment of Bylaws/Board Expansion

Petitioner alleged the vote to increase the board size from 3 to 5/7 violated bylaws and statutes regarding absentee ballots and open meetings.

Orders: Denied; evidence failed to support finding of violation.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Removal from Board without Petition

HOA held a special meeting to remove Petitioner from the Board without first obtaining a petition signed by the required percentage of members.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1) in the future; civil penalty assessed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Misuse of Emergency Meeting

Petitioner alleged the Board misused an emergency meeting and resulting notice to harass and libel him.

Orders: Denied; insufficient evidence.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Decision Documents

14F-H1415007-BFS Decision – 428996.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:50:35 (126.4 KB)

14F-H1415007-BFS Decision – 435021.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:50:40 (60.7 KB)

14F-H1415007-BFS Decision – 428996.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:48 (126.4 KB)

14F-H1415007-BFS Decision – 435021.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:48 (60.7 KB)

**Case Summary: William P. Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two HOA**
**Case No. 14F-H1415007-BFS**

**Overview**
This administrative hearing, held on February 4, 2015, before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas, addressed a petition filed by homeowner William P. Lee against Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two HOA ("Greenlaw"). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated Arizona statutes and association bylaws regarding the amendment of board composition and the procedure used to remove him from the Board of Directors,.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The Petitioner, a member of the HOA and former director, raised two primary issues:
1. **Board Expansion:** Lee alleged the HOA fraudulently amended Bylaw Article IV to increase the number of directors from three to five or seven without proper authority,.
2. **Removal from Board:** Lee alleged the "Secret Ballot" and Special Meeting used to remove him from the Board violated A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1) and association bylaws.

Greenlaw’s defense included the following points:
* **Regarding Expansion:** The Board argued the increase was necessary to achieve quorums and was approved by a vote of the members, complying with bylaws allowing shareholders to change the number of directors,.
* **Regarding Removal:** Greenlaw conceded that it failed to obtain a signed petition by the members calling for Lee's removal prior to holding the vote, as required by A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1). However, the Board argued the removal was justified because Lee was "aggressive and volatile," created dissension, and sent unauthorized letters to litigants involved in lawsuits against the HOA,. The vote to remove him was 70 to 4.

**Legal Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the preponderance of the evidence standard to the claims.

1. **Violation of Removal Statute:** The ALJ found that Greenlaw violated A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1). The statute requires a specific petition signed by members before a special meeting for removal can be called. The HOA admitted it failed to obtain this petition before holding the vote to remove the Petitioner,.
2. **No Violation Regarding Board Expansion:** The ALJ ruled against the Petitioner regarding the board size amendment. The evidence showed that Article XI of the bylaws allows members to vote on changing the authorized number of directors, and the Petitioner failed to prove that the vote conducted violated the bylaws or A.R.S. § 33-1812,.

**Outcome and Final Order**
The ALJ deemed William P. Lee the prevailing party based on the violation regarding his removal.
* **Compliance:** Greenlaw was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1) in future actions.
* **Monetary Sanctions:** Greenlaw was ordered to pay the Petitioner $1,000.00 (one-half of his filing fee) and pay a $200.00 civil penalty to the Department.

The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on April 1, 2015, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify the ALJ's ruling,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

William P. Lee (petitioner)
Homeowner and former board member

Respondent Side

Keith Hammond (attorney)
Keith A. Hammond P.C.
Judith W. Kyrala (witness)
Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two HOA
Board Secretary
Melanie Lashlee (property manager)
HOMECO
Community Association Manager; witness

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Gene Palma (agency director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Greg Hanchett (agency director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Interim Director; certified the decision
Joni Cage (staff)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
c/o for Gene Palma
Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Clerk who mailed copies

R.L. Whitmer vs. Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners,

Posted on January 6, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	14F-H1415004-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-01-07
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	R.L. Whitmer	Counsel	—
Respondent	Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners	Counsel	Robert Anderson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1243(D)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the HOA failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1243(D) by not ratifying the increased legal expenses through an amended budget. The HOA was ordered to comply with the statute and reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Budget ratification for excess legal expenses

Petitioner alleged the HOA spent over $9,250 for legal expenses in 2013-2014 against a budget of $3,500 without proper ratification. The HOA admitted fees exceeded the budget due to unforeseen litigation but failed to hold a meeting to ratify an amended budget.

Orders: Respondent shall fully comply with A.R.S. § 33-1243(D) in the future; Respondent shall pay Petitioner filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Decision Documents

14F-H1415004-BFS Decision – 423532.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:49:51 (92.5 KB)

14F-H1415004-BFS Decision – 429149.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:49:55 (59.8 KB)

14F-H1415004-BFS Decision – 423532.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:59 (92.5 KB)

14F-H1415004-BFS Decision – 429149.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:59 (59.8 KB)

Here is a summary of the administrative hearing for Case No. 14F-H1415004-BFS.

**Case Overview**
* **Case Title:** *R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners*
* **Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
* **Administrative Law Judge:** M. Douglas
* **Hearing Date:** December 23, 2014
* **Decision Date:** January 7, 2015 (Certified Final on February 18, 2015)

**Background and Key Facts**
The Petitioner, R.L. Whitmer, a unit owner and member of the Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners (the "Association"), filed a petition alleging the Association violated Arizona state law regarding budget management. Specifically, the Petitioner claimed that the Board President, Mrs. Karatz, authorized legal expenses exceeding $9,250, despite the approved budgets for legal expenses being only $2,500 for 2013 and $1,000 for 2014. These expenditures were made without proper ratification by the unit owners.

**Main Legal Issue**
The central issue was whether the Association violated **A.R.S. § 33-1243(D)**. This statute requires that, unless expressly authorized by the declaration to amend budgets independently, the Board must submit any budget or amendment to the unit owners for ratification.

**Key Arguments and Testimony**
* **Petitioner's Position:** The Board overspent the budgeted legal fees without obtaining the necessary ratification from unit owners.
* **Respondent's Defense:**
* The Association argued the budget was insufficient because the Petitioner had filed multiple legal challenges, necessitating a response from the Association’s counsel.
* Mrs. Karatz, the former Board President, admitted that 2014 legal fees substantially exceeded the budget but argued the costs were unanticipated consequences of the Petitioner's lawsuits.
* Michael Bengson, a newly elected Board member, testified that the Board was aware of the issue and intended to meet soon to adopt an amended budget that would ratify the incurred expenses.

**Tribunal Findings and Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the burden of proof rests on the Petitioner to prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the following:
1. **Statutory Requirement:** A.R.S. § 33-1243(D) mandates that budget amendments be ratified by unit owners.
2. **Violation:** The Association acknowledged

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

R.L. Whitmer (Petitioner)
Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners
Appeared on his own behalf; owner of a residence in Hilton Casitas

Respondent Side

Robert Anderson (Attorney)
Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners
Represented Respondent; retained by Michael Bengson
Michael Bengson (Board Member)
Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners
Elected to Board in October 2014; retained Robert Anderson
Esther Sue Karatz (Witness)
Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners
Former Board President; testified regarding prior legal counsel hiring

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge who presided over the hearing and issued the decision
Gene Palma (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Director to whom the decision was transmitted
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decision as final
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed in copy distribution
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Administrative Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed the distribution of the certified decision

FISH, GREG vs. FLYNN LANE BILTMORE ASSOC, INC.

Posted on November 24, 2014 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	14F-H1414007-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2014-11-24
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Greg Fish	Counsel	—
Respondent	Flynn Lane Biltmore Assoc, Inc.	Counsel	Craig Armstrong

Alleged Violations

CC&R 8(B)

Outcome Summary

The Tribunal found the Respondent violated CC&R 8(B) by not following the percentage-based assessment method. The Petitioner prevailed and was awarded the filing fee reimbursement.

Key Issues & Findings

Incorrect Assessment Method

Petitioner alleged assessments were billed incorrectly as equal splits among units rather than prorated based on proportionate share of Common Expenses as required by CC&Rs. Respondent admitted to the practice but cited historical precedent.

Orders: Respondent shall fully comply with applicable provisions of its CC&Rs in the future. Respondent shall pay Petitioner filing fee of $550.00. Respondent shall pay civil penalty of $200.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

CC&R 8(B)
CC&R 7

Decision Documents

14F-H1414007-BFS Decision – 416772.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:49:37 (51.2 KB)

14F-H1414007-BFS Decision – 418764.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:49:40 (107.9 KB)

14F-H1414007-BFS Decision – 423789.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:49:44 (58.4 KB)

14F-H1414007-BFS Decision – 416772.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:35 (51.2 KB)

14F-H1414007-BFS Decision – 418764.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:36 (107.9 KB)

14F-H1414007-BFS Decision – 423789.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:36 (58.4 KB)

**Case Summary: *Greg Fish v. Flynn Lane Biltmore Assoc, Inc.***
**Case No.** 14F-H1414007-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety)
**Date of Hearing:** November 4, 2014
**Administrative Law Judge:** M. Douglas

**Overview and Main Issues**
This case involved a dispute between Petitioner Greg Fish, a unit owner, and Respondent Flynn Lane Biltmore Assoc, Inc. (Biltmore), a condominium association. The central legal issue was whether the Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the calculation of homeowner assessments,. Specifically, the Petitioner alleged that Biltmore billed assessments equally among all units, whereas CC&Rs 7 and 8 required assessments to be prorated based on each unit's proportionate share of ownership of the Common Elements,.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Mr. Fish argued that the Association knowingly failed to follow the CC&Rs. He testified that assessments should be based on square footage/percentage ownership. Witnesses for the Petitioner calculated that he had been overcharged approximately $1,860 over the previous six years due to the incorrect billing method,,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** Biltmore admitted that the CC&Rs required prorated assessments. However, the Association argued that equal billing had been the policy for 46 years, originally because the cost difference was negligible (43 cents in 1968). They claimed the majority of owners preferred equalized assessments and that the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) had mandated equal assessments in the 1980s,.
* **Testimony:** Both the former community manager and the current Board President admitted they understood Biltmore was not following the CC&Rs but continued the practice anyway,. The current property manager testified that the Board finally voted on November 1, 2014, to implement the correct percentage-based method effective January 1, 2015.

**Legal Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the Petitioner’s testimony and evidence credible. The Tribunal concluded that Biltmore knowingly violated CC&R 8(B) by splitting assessments equally rather than using the required percentage of ownership method,. The ALJ noted that the Association persisted in this violation despite knowledge of the requirement.

**Outcome and Order**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, deeming him the prevailing party. The final order mandated the following:
1. **Compliance:** Biltmore must fully comply with the applicable provisions of its CC&Rs in the future.
2. **Restitution:** Biltmore was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $550.00.
3. **Penalty:** Biltmore was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $200.00 to the Department.

**Final Status**
The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not reject or modify the ALJ's decision within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision on January 8, 2015,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Greg Fish (petitioner)
Flynn Lane Biltmore Assoc, Inc. (Member)
Also referred to as Gregory James Fish
Karen Jackson (witness)
Property manager for Mr. Fish

Respondent Side

Philip Brown (attorney)
Brown Alcott, PLLC
Craig Armstrong (attorney)
Brown Alcott, PLLC / Brown-Olcott, PLLC / The Brown Law Group, PLLC
Maureen Watrous (witness)
Flynn Lane Biltmore Assoc, Inc.
Property manager for Biltmore
Thomas E. Tower (witness)
Flynn Lane Biltmore Assoc, Inc.
Board President

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Gene Palma (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
c/o for Gene Palma
Cruz Serrano (scribe)
Signatory on mailing list
Michael Latz (witness)
Previous community manager for Biltmore
Lewis D. Kowal (Acting Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ Decision
Rosella J. Rodriguez (scribe)
Signatory on mailing list for The Brown Law Group

JO ANN RIPLEY vs. AGUA DOLCE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Posted on September 17, 2014 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	14F-H1414005-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2014-09-17
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jo Ann Ripley	Counsel	—
Respondent	Agua Dulce Homeowners Association	Counsel	Craig Armstrong

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(C) and (D)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804. The Petitioner's evidence (recordings) was inaudible, and the HOA's witnesses credibly testified that the minutes were appropriate summary minutes ratified by the Board. The case was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner provided inaudible recordings and could not substantiate claims that minutes were inaccurately altered.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Open Meeting/Minutes Statutes

Petitioner alleged the HOA Board improperly altered minutes for meetings held in Oct/Nov 2013 and published inaccurate minutes. Petitioner claimed to have recordings proving the discrepancies.

Orders: The matter is dismissed. Agua Dulce is deemed the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(C)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)

Decision Documents

14F-H1414005-BFS Decision – 410541.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:49:11 (128.8 KB)

14F-H1414005-BFS Decision – 415031.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:49:18 (60.5 KB)

14F-H1414005-BFS Decision – 410541.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:55 (128.8 KB)

14F-H1414005-BFS Decision – 415031.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:55 (60.5 KB)

**Case Summary: Ripley v. Agua Dulce Homeowners Association**
**Case No.** 14F-H1414005-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Hearing Date:** September 2, 2014
**Administrative Law Judge:** M. Douglas

### **Case Overview and Main Issues**
Petitioner Jo Ann Ripley, a homeowner and former Board President of the Agua Dulce Homeowners Association (HOA), filed a petition alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(C) and (D). The central legal issue was whether the HOA improperly altered previously approved Board meeting minutes and misrepresented Association actions to homeowners.

Ripley specifically alleged that the HOA removed objections, changed votes, and altered minutes regarding Board meetings held on October 30, November 5, and November 26, 2013, before publishing them on the Association’s website.

### **Key Arguments and Testimony**

**Petitioner’s Arguments:**
* Ripley testified that the published minutes omitted items discussed during meetings and added items that were not discussed.
* She claimed the minutes were inconsistent with her personal notes and recordings of the proceedings.
* During the hearing, Ripley attempted to introduce a personal audio recording of the November 26, 2013 meeting as evidence, but the recording was inaudible.

**Respondent’s Arguments:**
* **Nature of Minutes:** Linda Ware, the current Board President, and Daniel Castillo, the property manager, testified that Board minutes are intended to be "bare bones" summaries recording motions and actions, not verbatim transcripts of discussions.
* **Ratification:** The HOA argued that the Board reviewed the contested minutes before officially ratifying them.
* **Lack of Official Recordings:** Witnesses testified that the management company did not maintain a library of recordings; tapes used to draft minutes were routinely erased for reuse.
* **Withholding Evidence:** The HOA noted that Ripley refused multiple requests to provide copies of her personal recordings to the Board prior to the dispute resolution.

### **Legal Findings and Final Decision**

**Burden of Proof:**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) established that the burden of proof rested on the Petitioner to prove the allegations by a "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely true than not).

**Findings:**
* The ALJ noted that the minutes in question were reviewed, approved, and ratified by the HOA Board.
* The audio recording Ripley attempted to present was inaudible and therefore failed to support her claims that the minutes were inaccurate.
* The ALJ concluded that Ripley failed to satisfy her burden of proof that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.

**Outcome:**
* **Ruling:** The ALJ ruled in favor of Agua Dulce Homeowners Association, deeming them the prevailing party.
* **Order:** The matter was dismissed.
* **Final Certification:** As the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not reject or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe, the ALJ’s decision was certified as the final administrative decision on October 24, 2014.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jo Ann Ripley (Petitioner)
Agua Dulce Homeowners Association
Homeowner, former Board President, former Information Officer; appeared on own behalf

Respondent Side

Craig Armstrong (HOA Attorney)
Brown Olcott, PLLC / The Brown Law Group, PLLC
Represented Agua Dulce Homeowners Association
Linda Ware (Witness)
Agua Dulce Homeowners Association
Board President; testified regarding minutes and recordings
Daniel Castillo (Witness)
Agua Dulce Homeowners Association
Property Manager; testified regarding minutes and recordings
Mark Carroll (Witness)
Agua Dulce Homeowners Association
Former Board Member; testified regarding recording practices
Phil Brown (HOA Attorney)
Brown Olcott, PLLC
Listed on mailing list for Respondent
Jonathan Olcott (HOA Attorney)
Brown Olcott, PLLC
Listed on mailing list for Respondent

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Director receiving the decision
Cliff J. Vanell (OAH Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decision
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed in mailing address for Gene Palma
Rosella J. Rodriguez (OAH Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed the mailing certificate