Category Archives: HOA Cases

Legere, Dennis vs. Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Dennis J. Legere Counsel 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:

  • 55
  • 127

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:

  • 57
  • 129

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:

  • 131
  • 135

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:

  • 4
  • 134

Decision Documents

14F-H1414001-BFS Decision – 406623.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:48:50 (172.9 KB)

14F-H1414001-BFS Decision – 437956.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:48:55 (229.1 KB)

14F-H1414001-BFS Decision – 443321.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:48:58 (62.7 KB)

14F-H1414001-BFS Decision – 406623.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:48 (172.9 KB)

14F-H1414001-BFS Decision – 437956.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:48 (228.9 KB)

14F-H1414001-BFS Decision – 443321.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:48 (62.7 KB)

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

**Overview**
This administrative case involves a dispute between Dennis J. Legere (Petitioner) and the Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Respondent) regarding violations of Arizona’s planned community open meeting laws. The matter was heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings for the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The proceedings culminated in a decision on rehearing in April 2015, which was certified as final in June 2015,.

**Key Facts and Allegations**
The Petitioner, a homeowner and former board member, alleged that the HOA Board violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 on multiple counts,. The primary allegations included:
* **Closed Sessions via Email:** The Board routinely conducted business and voted on action items via email to avoid holding public meetings, citing efficiency and "unanimous consent" provisions in the Bylaws and corporate statutes,.
* **Denial of Right to Speak:** The Board refused to allow members to speak on agenda items during open meetings (specifically in November 2013, January 2014, and February 2014) prior to the Board taking a vote,.
* **Unnoticed Committee Meetings:** The Architectural Review Committee met regularly without providing notice to members or allowing them to attend,.

**Main Arguments and Legal Issues**
The central legal tension involved a conflict between general corporate statutes and specific HOA statutes.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The HOA argued that under its Bylaws and A.R.S. § 10-3821 (non-profit corporation statutes), the Board could take action without a meeting if they obtained unanimous written consent from all directors,. They also argued that financial information and delinquency reports required closed sessions.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Legere argued that using email votes and unanimous consent provisions to conduct business in secret violated the specific open meeting mandates of A.R.S. § 33-1804, precluding member observation and participation,.
* **Rehearing on Jurisdiction:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially declined to rule on the validity of the "email meetings" under A.R.S. § 10-3821. Legere successfully petitioned for a rehearing to resolve whether corporate statutes could legally bypass HOA open meeting requirements.

**Findings and Conclusions of Law**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, establishing several key legal points:

1. **Conflict of Laws:** The Tribunal ruled that A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Title 33) specifically governs planned communities and mandates open meetings. This specific statute overrides the general non-profit corporate statute (A.R.S. § 10-3821) found in Title 10. The HOA cannot use corporate laws or Bylaws to impliedly repeal the open meeting protections guaranteed to homeowners in Title 33. Therefore, the practice of taking action via email "unanimous consent" violated the law.
2. **Right to Speak:** The ALJ found the HOA violated the law by preventing the Petitioner from speaking *after* the Board discussed items but *before* a vote was taken. While reasonable time restrictions are permitted, members must be allowed to speak before formal action is taken.
3. **Committee Meetings:** The Tribunal ruled that all regularly scheduled committee meetings, such as the Architectural Review Committee, must be noticed and open to members.
4. **Statute of Limitations:** A one-year statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541) applied, barring claims for violations occurring prior to March 9, 2013.

**Outcome and Order**
Dennis J. Legere was deemed the prevailing party. The ALJ ordered the following:
* **Compliance:** The HOA was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) in the future, effectively ending the practice of secret email meetings.
* **Filing Fee:** The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $2,000 filing fee.
* **Civil Penalty:** The HOA was ordered to pay a $2,000 civil penalty to the Department (which the HOA paid during the rehearing process).

The decision was certified

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Dennis J. Legere (petitioner)
    Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Member)
    Appeared on his own behalf at rehearing; former board member
  • Tom Rawles (attorney)
    Represented Petitioner at the July 31, 2014 hearing

Respondent Side

  • Troy Stratman (attorney)
    Mack, Watson & Stratman, PLC
    Represented Respondent at the July 31, 2014 hearing; listed as 'Tony Stratman' in service list
  • Maria R. Kupillas (attorney)
    Farley, Seletos & Choate
    Represented Respondent at the March 31, 2015 rehearing
  • Michelle O’Robinson (witness)
    Vision Community Management
    Field operations supervisor/manager for HOA
  • James T. Foxworthy (witness)
    Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Board)
    Board President at time of first hearing
  • John Edgar Schuler (witness)
    Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Board)
    Board President as of March 10, 2015

Neutral Parties

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

Duffett, Rex E. -v- Suntech Patio Homes Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 14F-H1414006-BFS
Agency —
Tribunal —
Decision Date 8/4/2014
Administrative Law Judge MD
Outcome complete
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rex E. Duffett Counsel —
Respondent Suntech Patio Homes Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Decision Documents

14F-H1414006-BFS Decision – 404592.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:49:26 (113.7 KB)

14F-H1414006-BFS Decision – 409884.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:49:29 (58.2 KB)

14F-H1414006-BFS Decision – 404592.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:59 (113.7 KB)

14F-H1414006-BFS Decision – 409884.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:59 (58.2 KB)

In case 14F-H1414006-BFS, petitioner Rex E. Duffett filed a complaint against respondent Suntech Patio Homes Inc., a planned community association in Chandler, Arizona [1, 2]. The dispute began in November 2013 when Duffett received a notice of an association fee increase and subsequently requested meeting notices and minutes from Suntech's management company [3]. After Duffett made repeated inquiries for the documents, the management company eventually informed him that no meeting had actually occurred [4]. Furthermore, on March 23, 2014, and June 16, 2014, Duffett submitted written requests for copies of the association's rules, regulations, and architectural guidelines [5, 6]. Suntech failed to respond to these requests in a timely manner, delaying for nearly three months before finally providing a copy of the community's By-Laws [6, 7].

The main legal issue in this case was whether Suntech violated A.R.S. § 33-1805, which requires a planned community association to fulfill a member's written request to examine or copy financial and other records within ten business days [8, 9]. Suntech failed to appear to defend itself at the administrative hearing [10].

Following the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that undisputed credible testimony proved Suntech violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to respond to Duffett's document requests within the mandatory ten-day timeframe [11]. Consequently, Duffett was deemed the prevailing party [11]. The judge ordered Suntech to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 in the future and to reimburse Duffett for his $550.00 filing fee within thirty days, although no additional civil penalty was imposed [12]. Because the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not take any action to accept, reject, or modify this decision by the statutory deadline of September 8, 2014, the Administrative Law Judge's ruling was automatically certified as the final administrative decision on September 11, 2014 [13-15].

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Rex E. Duffett (Petitioner)
    Suntech Patio Homes Inc.
    Appeared on his own behalf; homeowner and association member.

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presided over the hearing and issued the recommended decision.
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the Administrative Law Judge Decision as the final administrative decision.
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of the transmitted decision.
  • Joni Cage (Staff / Contact)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Care-of contact for Gene Palma.
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Administrative Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed the mailing/copying record of the decision.

Saxton, Nancy vs. The Lakes Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314007-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-06-02
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome false
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nancy Saxton Counsel Steven W. Cheifetz
Respondent The Lakes Community Association Counsel Charles E. Maxwell

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent and dismissed the case. The Judge found that the Petitioner was contractually obligated to arbitrate disputes under the Association's bylaws, that the petition was filed after the one-year statute of limitations had expired, and that the Respondent had lawfully complied with A.R.S. § 33-1805 by offering inspection of unredacted records.

Why this result: Jurisdictional bar due to mandatory arbitration clause; statute of limitations expiration; finding of compliance by Respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

Request to Review Association Records

Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated statutes by providing heavily redacted financial records and failing to provide unredacted copies for review upon demand.

Orders: The matter was dismissed. The Tribunal found the Petitioner was required to arbitrate, the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and the Respondent had complied with the statute by making records reasonably available.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 5
  • 37
  • 38
  • 41

Decision Documents

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 396509.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:48:19 (158.0 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 401319.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:48:23 (58.8 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 404479.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:48:26 (141.7 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 404483.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:48:29 (53.4 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 396509.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:41 (158.0 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 401319.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:41 (58.8 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 404479.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:41 (141.7 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 404483.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:42 (53.4 KB)

**Case Title:** *Nancy Saxton v. The Lakes Community Association*
**Case Number:** 13F-H1314007-BFS
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona

**Proceedings and Background**
The hearing was held on April 29, 2014, before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas,. Petitioner Nancy Saxton, a homeowner, filed a petition alleging The Lakes Community Association (HOA) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding the inspection of financial records,. The HOA filed motions to dismiss based on jurisdiction, the statute of limitations, and prior compliance.

**Key Facts**
* **Records Request:** Saxton submitted demands to inspect the HOA's financial records in November 2012,.
* **Production:** The HOA provided approximately 3,700 pages of documents,.
* **Redactions:** The documents contained numerous redactions. The HOA claimed these were necessary to protect personal and payroll information as permitted by statute,. Saxton argued the redactions precluded a proper evaluation of the HOA’s expenditures,.
* **Offer to Inspect:** Upon receiving complaints about the redactions, the HOA offered to allow Saxton to review un-redacted documents at the HOA attorney's office. Saxton declined this offer, feeling it would be "futile" or intimidating,.

**Key Legal Arguments and Issues**
1. **Arbitration:** The HOA argued that an "Alternative Dispute Resolution" amendment to its Bylaws required binding arbitration for governance disputes, precluding administrative action,.
2. **Statute of Limitations:** The HOA contended the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-541(5) for liabilities created by statute,.
3. **Compliance:** The HOA argued it satisfied its statutory obligation to make records "reasonably available" by providing copies and offering an in-person review of un-redacted files,.

**Administrative Law Judge Decision**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent (the HOA) on all three major points:

1. **Arbitration Clause Enforced:** The ALJ concluded that under the HOA's Bylaws and Arizona common law, Saxton was required to submit her claims to arbitration. The arbitration clause was deemed valid and enforceable.
2. **Statute of Limitations Expired:** The ALJ determined the cause of action accrued ten business days after Saxton’s November 5, 2012 demand. Because the petition was filed on November 25, 2013, it fell outside the one-year limitation period prescribed by A.R.S. § 12-541(5).
3. **Substantive Compliance:** The ALJ found that the HOA had complied with A.R.S. § 33-1805. By providing redacted copies and subsequently making un-redacted versions available for review at their attorney's office, the HOA satisfied the requirement to make records "reasonably available".

**Outcome**
The matter was dismissed, and The Lakes Community Association was deemed the prevailing party. The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on July 10

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nancy Saxton (petitioner)
    The Lakes Community Association (Member)
    Homeowner
  • Steven W. Cheifetz (attorney)
    Cheifetz, Iannitelli Marcolini, P.C.
    Listed as 'Heifetz' in mailing list

Respondent Side

  • Charles E. Maxwell (attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
  • Christine Green Baldanza (community manager)
    The Lakes Community Association
    Community Manager in 2012 and early 2013

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Cliff J. Vanell (director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Gene Palma (director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Agency Director
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/transmitted decision

Other Participants

  • Marsha Hill (witness)
    The Lakes Community Association
    CPA; Former chairman of budget and finance committee
  • Maureen Harrison (witness)
    The Lakes Community Association
    Former Board Member (1993-2000, 2011-2012)

Strike, Kristyne P. vs. Las Torres Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314009-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-05-16
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Krystine P. Strike Counsel —
Respondent Las Torres Homeowners Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1221, A.R.S. § 33-1218

Outcome Summary

The Respondent (HOA) was deemed the prevailing party and the matter was dismissed. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner's claim regarding the unauthorized concrete slab in the common area was barred by the one-year statute of limitations because the slab had been in existence since 1998 and the Petitioner had owned her unit since 2007, filing the petition in 2013.

Why this result: Statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541) expired.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized alteration of common area

Petitioner alleged the Association violated statutes by allowing a neighbor to maintain and use a concrete slab in the common area as a private patio without proper consent or authorization.

Orders: The matter is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

13F-H1314009-BFS Decision – 394719.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:48:38 (125.8 KB)

13F-H1314009-BFS Decision – 399395.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:48:41 (58.3 KB)

13F-H1314009-BFS Decision – 394719.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:46 (125.8 KB)

13F-H1314009-BFS Decision – 399395.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:46 (58.3 KB)

**Case Summary: Strike v. Las Torres Homeowners Association**
**Case No:** 13F-H1314009-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date:** May 6, 2014 (Hearing); June 24, 2014 (Final Certification)

**Key Facts**
Petitioner Krystine P. Strike, owner of Unit 603, filed a dispute against Las Torres Homeowners Association (HOA) regarding a concrete slab situated in the common area connecting her unit to Unit 604. The slab was constructed in 1998 by previous owners who owned both units, with approval from the City of Carefree and tacit approval from the HOA.

Ms. Strike purchased Unit 603 in 2007, at which point the slab had existed for nine years. In 2012, the current owner of Unit 604 petitioned to enlarge the slab, which was denied, but continued to place patio furniture on the existing slab. The HOA issued multiple letters to the owner of Unit 604 requesting the removal of furniture when not in use, asserting the slab was a common area not approved for exclusive private use.

**Main Issues and Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Claims:** Ms. Strike alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1221 and § 33-1218 by allowing a neighbor to alter and encroach upon the common area without consent. She requested the common area be restored to its unaltered state. Regarding timeliness, she argued she was previously barred from filing a unilateral action due to a Code of Conduct she signed while serving on the HOA Board.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The HOA argued the cited statutes were inapplicable because the slab was a General Common Element rather than a Limited Common Element. They further argued the Department lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief (removal of the slab) and that the Petitioner’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

**Legal Findings**
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas dismissed the case, ruling in favor of the Respondent based on the following:

1. **Statute of Limitations:** Under A.R.S. § 12-54

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Krystine P. Strike (petitioner)
    Unit 603 Owner
    Appeared on her own behalf; former Board member

Respondent Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Attorney for Las Torres Homeowners Association
  • Pamela A. Dixon (witness)
    Las Torres Homeowners Association
    Board Member
  • Marc Vasquez (witness)
    Las Torres Homeowners Association
    Testified regarding Board meetings and violation letters

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on transmission of decision
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (administrative staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/faxed the certification

Denapoli, Cindy vs. Southern Ridge Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314006-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-04-25
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Cindy Denapoli Counsel —
Respondent Southern Ridge Condominium Association Counsel Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, concluding that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2) by paying management fees for the 'Rental Pool' (investor-owned units) out of general funds rather than assessing those costs exclusively to the units benefited. The Association was ordered to correct the practice and pay penalties and costs.

Key Issues & Findings

Improper Allocation of Common Expenses

Petitioner alleged that management fees of approximately $9,666/month were being assessed to all owners as part of HOA dues, despite these fees directly benefitting only those units participating in a separate 'Rental Pool'. The ALJ found that the fees benefited fewer than all units and should have been assessed exclusively against the benefited units.

Orders: Respondent must fully comply with A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2); Respondent must pay Petitioner $550.00 filing fee; Respondent must pay Department $200.00 civil penalty.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Decision Documents

13F-H1314006-BFS Decision – 391902.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:48:02 (103.9 KB)

13F-H1314006-BFS Decision – 396527.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:48:06 (61.0 KB)

13F-H1314006-BFS Decision – 391902.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:35 (103.9 KB)

13F-H1314006-BFS Decision – 396527.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:35 (61.0 KB)

**Case Summary: *Cindy Denapoli vs. Southern Ridge Condominium Association***
**Case No. 13F-H1314006-BFS**

**Proceedings Overview**
This hearing took place on April 10, 2014, before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a petition filed by Cindy Denapoli (Petitioner) against the Southern Ridge Condominium Association (Respondent). The Petitioner appeared on her own behalf, while the Respondent was represented by counsel. The decision was certified as final on June 2, 2014, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to modify or reject the Administrative Law Judge's decision.

**Background and Key Facts**
* **Association Structure:** Southern Ridge is a condominium association located in Mesa, Arizona. It is entirely investor-owned with no owner-occupants.
* **The "Rental Pool":** The majority of unit owners (102 of 113) formed a "Rental Pool" to share non-common expenses and distribute net profits,. The Petitioner is a unit owner but is not a member of this Rental Pool.
* **Management:** "Preferred Communities" handles the Association's accounting, while "Professional Equity Management" (PEM) serves as the management company,.
* **The Disputed Practice:** The Association’s accounting firm issued a monthly check of approximately $9,666 for management fees directly to the Rental Pool (aka "Southern Ridge Apartments") rather than to the management company,. The Rental Pool would then pay PEM and distribute remaining funds or profits to Rental Pool members only,.

**Main Issues and Arguments**
The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated **A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2)**. She argued that the monthly fees assessed to all owners as "HOA dues" were being paid to the Rental Pool, thereby financially subsidizing the Rental Pool members,. She asserted that the fee benefitted only the Rental Pool units, yet she was required to contribute to it despite receiving no distribution from the Rental Pool,.

The Respondent denied the allegations but admitted through testimony that the $9,666 monthly fee was paid to the Rental Pool,. Mr. Watkins, the Association's treasurer, testified that PEM objected to direct payment from the Association and that the Rental Pool paid PEM for services. He acknowledged that net profits from the Rental Pool were distributed only to its members and not to other owners.

**Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge focused on **A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2)**, which states that "[a]ny common expense or portion of a common expense benefitting fewer than all of the units shall be assessed exclusively against the units benefitted".

The Judge found that:
1. The monthly check was issued to the Rental Pool, which is not a corporate entity or LLC.
2. The Rental Pool used these funds to pay expenses and distributed net profits on a pro-rata basis to its members.
3. No distributions were made to condominium owners who were not part of the Rental Pool.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
The Tribunal concluded that Southern Ridge Condominium Association violated **A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2)** by assessing expenses against all units that benefitted only the Rental Pool members.

**Order:**
* The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party.
* The Respondent was ordered to fully comply with A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2) in the future.
* The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee of **$550.00**.
* The Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of **$200.00** to the Department.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Cindy Denapoli (Petitioner)
    Southern Ridge Condominium Association (Owner)
    Appeared on her own behalf; owner of a unit not in the Rental Pool

Respondent Side

  • Maria R. Kupillas (attorney)
    Farley, Seletos & Choate
    Attorney for Southern Ridge Condominium Association
  • William J. Watkins (witness)
    Southern Ridge Condominium Association
    Board member and Treasurer; member of the Rental Pool

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge who presided over the hearing and issued the decision
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision as final
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of the transmitted decision
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Addressed in the mailing list
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed the mailing certificate

Winter, Alexander vs. Cortina Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314005-BFS
Agency —
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2014-04-17
Administrative Law Judge MD
Outcome complete
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Alexander Winter Counsel Pro Se
Respondent Cortina Homeowners Association Counsel Mark Sahl, Esq., Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Decision Documents

13F-H1314005-BFS Decision – 385229.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:47:44 (36.3 KB)

13F-H1314005-BFS Decision – 391125.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:47:47 (121.4 KB)

13F-H1314005-BFS Decision – 395982.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:47:50 (60.8 KB)

13F-H1314005-BFS Decision – 385229.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:31 (36.3 KB)

13F-H1314005-BFS Decision – 391125.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:31 (121.4 KB)

13F-H1314005-BFS Decision – 395982.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:31 (60.8 KB)

In Case No. 13F-H1314005-BFS, Alexander Winter (Petitioner) brought an action against the Cortina Homeowners Association (Respondent) [1]. On September 10, 2013, Winter filed a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety alleging that the association's Board of Directors violated open meeting laws, specifically A.R.S. §§ 33-1804(D) and 33-1248(D) [2, 3].

The main issue centered on Winter's claim that the Board improperly authorized financial compensation increases for its property management vendor during a closed executive session rather than in an open meeting [3, 4]. Winter alleged that the Board approved an hourly fee of $50 for staff and $75 for the community manager, Kevin Bishop of Renaissance Community Partners, to compensate them for time spent answering homeowner information requests [5-8]. The association categorically denied these allegations [9]. During the hearing, Winter acknowledged that he lacked first-hand knowledge of the executive sessions, did not know the exact dates they occurred, and could not confirm if a quorum of the Board was present [7, 8, 10].

The Administrative Law Judge ruled against Winter, concluding that he failed to meet his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence [11]. The judge determined that there was insufficient credible evidence to prove the Board actually authorized the disputed payments during an executive session within the one-year timeframe prior to the petition's filing (September 10, 2012, through September 10, 2013) [12, 13]. Furthermore, the judge clarified that even if the Board had discussed and authorized the compensation during a closed executive session, A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(4) explicitly allows boards to address matters relating to the compensation of an association contractor's employee in closed meetings [11, 13, 14].

As a result, the judge ordered the petition dismissed and deemed the Cortina Homeowners Association the prevailing party [11]. Because the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not take action to accept, reject, or modify the ruling by its May 22, 2014 deadline, the Administrative Law Judge's decision was certified as the final administrative action on May 28, 2014 [15, 16].

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Alexander Winter (Petitioner)
    Cortina Homeowners Association
    Homeowner representing himself

Respondent Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC / Shaw and Lines, LLC
    Represented Cortina Homeowners Association
  • Mr. Shaw (Previous Legal Counsel)
    Shaw & Lines, LLC
    Previous legal counsel for Cortina Homeowners Association

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
  • Joni Cage (Contact)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Administrative Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings

Other Participants

  • Kevin Bishop (Manager)
    Renaissance Community Partners
    Manager acting on behalf of the homeowners association

Winter, Alexander vs. Cortina Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314004-BFS
Agency Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2014-03-21
Administrative Law Judge MD
Outcome complete
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Alexander Winter Counsel Pro Se
Respondent Cortina Homeowners Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl, Esq. (Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, P.L.C.)

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Decision Documents

13F-H1314004-BFS Decision – 387230.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:47:33 (149.4 KB)

13F-H1314004-BFS Decision – 392642.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:47:36 (59.2 KB)

13F-H1314004-BFS Decision – 387230.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:23 (149.4 KB)

13F-H1314004-BFS Decision – 392642.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:23 (59.2 KB)

Alexander Winter filed a petition against the Cortina Homeowners Association, alleging that the association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide several requested association records within ten business days [1, 2]. The documents Winter requested included delinquency reports, past operating budgets from 2007 to 2013, and various vendor contracts and invoices, including those for CleanCuts, Renaissance Community Partners (RCP), Duford, JSJ Enterprises, and C&G communications [3, 4]. Cortina maintained that it had not violated the statute and noted that it had already provided Winter with requested documents to comply with an order from a prior administrative hearing between the two parties (Docket No. 13F-H1314001-BFS) [2, 5]. Following that prior hearing, Cortina turned over 3,200 pages of documents to Winter [6, 7].

During the hearing for the present case, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that many of the specific records Winter sought—such as the delinquency reports, the Duford contract and invoice, the JSJ Enterprises contract or bid, and the C&G communications bid—did not actually exist [8]. Furthermore, other requested documents, such as the 2007 and 2008 operating budgets, were simply not in the association's possession [8, 9]. The ALJ concluded that Cortina could not be held responsible for producing documents that did not exist or that it did not possess, and found no credible evidence that Cortina had withheld any requested documents that were actually in its possession [8].

Additionally, the ALJ found that Winter's requests concerning the CleanCuts and RCP contracts and invoices had already been explicitly addressed in the parties' previous administrative hearing [10, 11]. Consequently, the legal principle of collateral estoppel precluded those exact same issues from being relitigated in the current hearing [11].

As a final outcome, the ALJ deemed the Cortina Homeowners Association the prevailing party and ordered that the matter be dismissed [12]. Because the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to accept, reject, or modify this decision by the statutory deadline of April 25, 2014, the ALJ's ruling was officially certified as the final administrative decision on May 1, 2014 [13-15].

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Alexander Winter (Petitioner)
    Cortina Homeowners Association
    Owner of a residence and member of Cortina.

Respondent Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, P.L.C.
    Represented Respondent Cortina Homeowners Association.
  • Kevin H. Bishop (Community Manager / Statutory Agent)
    Renaissance Community Partners
    President of RCP and statutory agent for Cortina.
  • Christopher Scott Puckett (Board President)
    Cortina Homeowners Association
    President of the Board of Directors for Cortina.

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Authored the Administrative Law Judge Decision.
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presided over the prior related hearing (Docket No. 13F-H1314001-BFS).
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Electronically transmitted the recommended order.
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the final administrative decision.
  • Joni Cage (Staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Received copy of certification on behalf of Gene Palma.
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed, e-mailed, or faxed the copies of the certification.

Babington, Nancy L. vs. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1313004-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-03-11
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nancy L. Babington Counsel —
Respondent Park Scottsdale II Townhouse HOA Counsel Charlene Cruz

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1248(B)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) by failing to hold annual meetings for five consecutive years. The HOA was ordered to hold a meeting, reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee, and pay a civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold annual meetings

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold annual meetings or any open meetings since 2010. Respondent admitted no annual meetings were held for years 2010-2013 and 2014 failed for lack of quorum.

Orders: Respondent must schedule an annual meeting within 60 days, pay Petitioner $550.00 for filing fees, and pay the Department a $200.00 civil penalty.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(B)

Decision Documents

13F-H1313004-BFS Decision – 386095.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:46:19 (85.6 KB)

13F-H1313004-BFS Decision – 391198.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:46:23 (60.5 KB)

13F-H1313004-BFS Decision – 386095.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:51 (85.6 KB)

13F-H1313004-BFS Decision – 391198.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:51 (60.5 KB)

**Case Summary: Babington vs. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse HOA**
**Case No:** 13F-H1313004-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Hearing:** March 10, 2014

**Overview and Proceedings**
Petitioner Nancy L. Babington filed a petition against Respondent Park Scottsdale II Townhouse HOA ("Park"), alleging violations of state statutes regarding homeowners' association meetings. The hearing took place before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas, with the Petitioner appearing on her own behalf and the Respondent represented by legal counsel.

**Key Arguments and Facts**
The central issue was whether Park violated A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) by failing to hold required annual meetings.

* **Petitioner’s Position:** Ms. Babington argued that the association had not held an annual meeting or board election since 2009. She testified that the current Board consisted of individuals who were either never elected or whose terms had expired, and that repeated attempts to force a meeting had been ignored.
* **Respondent’s Position:** Park admitted in its Amended Answer that it did not hold annual meetings in 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013. A Board member testified that the Board "chose not to have annual meetings" due to the association's poor financial situation. The Respondent noted an attempt to hold a meeting in 2014 failed due to a lack of quorum and stated that the Board currently only held executive sessions.

**Legal Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) relied on A.R.S. § 33-1248(B), which mandates that a "meeting of the unit owners' association shall be held at least once each year" regardless of provisions in condominium documents.

The ALJ found the Petitioner met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The tribunal concluded that Park violated A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) by failing to hold annual meetings for five consecutive years (2010 through 2014).

**Final Decision and Order**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner and issued the following orders:
1. **Compliance:** Park was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) and schedule an annual meeting within 60 days of the order's effective date.
2. **Restitution:** Park was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $550.00 within 30 days.
3. **Civil Penalty:** Park was assessed a $200.00 civil penalty payable to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

**Certification**
Because the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to accept, reject, or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe, the ALJ’s decision was certified as the final administrative decision on April 18, 2014.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nancy L. Babington (petitioner)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse HOA (Member)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Charlene Cruz (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
    Represented Respondent
  • Joe Silberschlag (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse HOA
    Witness; testified he was elected to the Board in 2009
  • Beth Mulcahy (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
    Listed on mailing distribution

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Director
  • Cliff J. Vanell (OAH director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (OAH staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed mailing/transmission

Janusz, David & Loree vs. Cresta Norte HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314002-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-02-27
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David & Loree Janusz Counsel —
Respondent Cresta Norte HOA Counsel Curtis S. Ekmark, Esq.; Molly J. Streiff, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Cresta Norte Guidelines Section N Miscellaneous (7)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA did not violate its CC&Rs or Design Guidelines by denying the homeowners' request to install exterior shutters. The guidelines required committee approval, which was properly denied.

Why this result: The petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated governing documents; the ALJ found the guidelines granted the HOA authority to approve or deny architectural changes.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of architectural request for exterior shutters

Petitioners alleged the HOA violated design guidelines by denying their request to install exterior shutters. Petitioners argued the guidelines explicitly list 'shutters' as an example of exterior changes, implying they are permitted.

Orders: Petition dismissed; Cresta Norte deemed prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Cresta Norte Guidelines Section N Miscellaneous (7)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Decision Documents

13F-H1314002-BFS Decision – 384508.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:46:57 (103.9 KB)

13F-H1314002-BFS Decision – 389432.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:47:00 (60.8 KB)

13F-H1314002-BFS Decision – 384508.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:11 (103.9 KB)

13F-H1314002-BFS Decision – 389432.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:11 (60.8 KB)

**Case Summary: David & Loree Janusz v. Cresta Norte HOA**
**Case No. 13F-H1314002-BFS**

**Forum and Parties**
This matter was heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings on February 18, 2014. The Petitioners, David and Loree Janusz, represent themselves against the Respondent, Cresta Norte Homeowners Association (HOA), regarding a dispute over architectural improvements.

**Background and Main Issues**
The Petitioners, homeowners in Scottsdale, Arizona, submitted an Architectural Change Request to install exterior shutters on their residence. The Cresta Norte Architectural Committee denied the request, and the HOA Board of Directors subsequently denied the Petitioners' appeal. The Petitioners filed a claim alleging the HOA violated the community’s Design Guidelines and CC&Rs by refusing the installation. The central issue was whether the guidelines, which mention shutters, mandated their approval or if the Board retained discretion to deny them based on community aesthetics.

**Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments**
**Petitioners' Argument:**
David Janusz, a former Board President (2006–2010) and Architectural Committee chairman, testified that the guidelines were drafted to "encourage creativity and diversity". He argued that Section N Miscellaneous (7) of the guidelines specifically lists "shutters" as a type of exterior change, which he interpreted as explicit authorization for their installation. He asserted that during his tenure, the committee intended to offer shutters to allow homeowners to show individuality. He also testified that no neighbors opposed the project.

**Respondent's Argument:**
The HOA, represented by legal counsel, presented testimony from current Board members James Wooley and Brian McNamara. Mr. Wooley testified that the inclusion of the word "shutters" in the guidelines was merely an example of a potential change requiring review, not an express approval. He stated there was no intent to establish shutters as an approved feature and that the guidelines do not prohibit them but require approval. Mr. McNamara noted that no residences in Cresta Norte currently have exterior shutters and that the Board determined they were not a "desirable architectural feature" for the community.

**Legal Findings**
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas analyzed the case under the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. The findings focused on the text of the 2011 Design Guidelines, which state: "Any change to the exterior appearance of the house (garage door, stone work, shutters, etc.) must be consistent with the design and color palette of the community. Architectural Committee written approval is

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • David Janusz (petitioner)
    Cresta Norte HOA (former board member)
    Appeared on own behalf; testified as witness
  • Loree Janusz (petitioner)
    Cresta Norte HOA
    Appeared on own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Curtis S. Ekmark (HOA attorney)
    Ekmark & Ekmark LLC
  • Molly J. Streiff (HOA attorney)
    Ekmark & Ekmark LLC
  • James A. Wooley (witness)
    Cresta Norte HOA Board of Directors
    Board member and Architectural Committee member
  • Brian McNamara (witness)
    Cresta Norte HOA Board of Directors
    Board member and Architectural Committee member

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing certificate c/o Gene Palma
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (administrative staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed mailing certificate

Nelson, Paula J. vs. Landings Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314003-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-02-14
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Paula J. Nelson Counsel —
Respondent Landings Homeowners Association Counsel Mark Saul

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent, Landings Homeowners Association. The Judge found that the Association made its records reasonably available for examination and was not required to produce documents (specifically roofing binders and photos) that it did not possess or that were privileged. The Petition was dismissed.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The evidence showed the Association made available the records it possessed, and the specific missing records (roofing binders created by a third party) were not proven to be in the Association's possession.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to provide specific records, including roofing binders, photographs, and individual roof assessments, within the statutory timeframe. The Association argued it made records reasonably available and could not produce documents it did not possess.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

13F-H1314003-BFS Decision – 382722.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:47:16 (114.5 KB)

13F-H1314003-BFS Decision – 388443.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:47:24 (59.2 KB)

13F-H1314003-BFS Decision – 382722.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:18 (114.5 KB)

13F-H1314003-BFS Decision – 388443.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:18 (59.2 KB)

**Case Summary: Nelson v. Landings Homeowners Association**
**Case No.** 13F-H1314003-BFS
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona
**Hearing Date:** January 31, 2014
**Decision Date:** February 14, 2014 (Certified Final March 31, 2014)

**Parties and Procedures**
Petitioner Paula J. Nelson filed a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety against Respondent Landings Homeowners Association ("Landings"). The hearing was presided over by Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas,.

**Main Issue**
The central legal issue was whether Landings violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide Nelson with copies of requested association records—specifically roofing assessments and photographs—within ten business days of her request.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Claims:** Nelson submitted records requests beginning April 12, 2013, demanding the Association email her copies of specific documents. She alleged the Association withheld specific "binders" created by a former representative, Mr. Minor, which she believed contained comprehensive individual roof assessments and photographs,. Nelson admitted she refused to view the binders held by the Association’s attorney because she believed they were not the specific records she sought,.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** Landings argued it satisfied the statute by making records "reasonably available for inspection" at the management company’s office. The Association contended that A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) does not require emailing documents or providing them in a specific format chosen by the member. Regarding the "Minor binders," the Association maintained it could not produce records it did not possess.
* **Witness Testimony:**
* **Robyn McRae** testified she accompanied Nelson to the management office, noting some documents were missing or unavailable at that time,.
* **Robert Timmons** (contractor) testified regarding the roofing project. He stated he did not know if the specific photographs or records Nelson sought were ever in the Association's possession,.
* **Paula Nelson** acknowledged she did not schedule an appointment to review the binders offered by the Association's attorney.

**Legal Standards**
* **A.R.S. § 33-1805(A):** Requires associations to make financial and other records "reasonably available for examination" by a member within ten business days. It further allows associations to charge for copies.
* **Burden of Proof:** The burden falls on the Petitioner to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

**Findings and Conclusions**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reached the following conclusions:
1. **Possession of Records:** There was no credible evidence that Landings possessed the specific binders created by Mr. Minor that Nelson requested, other than the materials already offered for her review. The fact that the Association paid for the creation of such binders did not prove they were delivered or currently possessed in the format Nelson alleged.
2. **Compliance:** Landings complied with the request in a "reasonable manner" by attempting to schedule inspections and offering review of materials at the attorney's office.
3. **Privilege:** The Association was not required to disclose privileged communications between itself and its attorney.

**Outcome**
The ALJ determined that Nelson failed to satisfy her burden of proof. Landings was deemed the prevailing party, and the petition was dismissed. The decision became the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on March 31, 2014, after the Department took no action to modify or reject it within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Paula J. Nelson (Petitioner)
    Landings Homeowners Association (Member)
    Appeared on her own behalf
  • Robyn McRae (Witness)
    Drove Petitioner to management company; testified regarding document availability
  • Robert William Timmons (Witness)
    Sprayfoam Southwest Inc.
    Subpoenaed by Petitioner; representative for roofing contractor

Respondent Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Listed as 'Mark Saul' in ALJ Decision appearances; 'Mark K. Sahl' in certification mailing list
  • Jo Seashols (Community Manager)
    Landings Homeowners Association (Management Company)
  • Renee (Employee)
    Management Company
    Mentioned by management staff as having possession of photographs
  • Tom Minor (Former Representative)
    Landings Homeowners Association
    Former board member/representative on construction project

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/processed the certification