Santomarco, Cynthia & Bruce vs. Mountainview Lake Estates Homeowner Association

Posted on October 4, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212012-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-10-04
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Cynthia & Bruce Santomarco	Counsel	—
Respondent	Mountainview Lake Estates Homeowner Association	Counsel	Joseph Tadano

Alleged Violations

Article VI; Article VII, Section 4

Outcome Summary

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners failed to establish a violation. The damage to the roofs did not constitute 'substantial destruction' requiring homeowner insurance claims; therefore, the HOA acted correctly in performing maintenance.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove the roofs were 'substantially destroyed' as required by Article VII to shift responsibility to homeowners.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to require insurance claims for roof damage

Petitioners alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by using HOA funds to repair roofs ($500/unit) instead of requiring individual owners to file insurance claims for 'substantial destruction'.

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

12F-H1212012-BFS Decision – 309332.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:41:53 (106.3 KB)

12F-H1212012-BFS Decision – 313668.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:41:57 (59.2 KB)

12F-H1212012-BFS Decision – 309332.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:24 (106.3 KB)

12F-H1212012-BFS Decision – 313668.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:24 (59.2 KB)

**Case Summary: Santomarco v. Mountainview Lake Estates Homeowner Association**
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212012-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety)

**Overview**
This case involved a dispute between Petitioners Cynthia and Bruce Santomarco and Respondent Mountainview Lake Estates Homeowner Association (MLE). The Petitioners alleged that MLE violated the community's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the handling of roof repairs following a severe weather event.

**Key Facts**
* **The Incident:** On October 5, 2010, a severe hailstorm damaged roofs within the MLE community, which consists of 68 units.
* **Maintenance Responsibility:** Under the CC&Rs, MLE is generally responsible for the maintenance and repair of unit roofs.
* **Repair Proposal:** Following the storm, USA Roofing offered to repair the hail damage for approximately $500 per unit.
* **Legal Advice:** MLE obtained a legal opinion stating that owners were only obligated to use their personal insurance proceeds for repairs if the roofs were "substantially destroyed". Because the damage was minor ($500 to repair), MLE determined it was appropriate for the Association to perform the repairs.
* **HOA Action:** MLE informed homeowners they could voluntarily file insurance claims or have the Association complete the repairs. Fourteen owners filed claims; the remainder had their roofs repaired by USA Roofing.

**The Dispute**
The Petitioners filed a complaint alleging that MLE violated the CC&Rs by failing to *require* all homeowners to file claims against their insurance policies for the storm damage.

**Legal Arguments and Analysis**
The hearing focused on the interpretation of Articles VI and VII of the CC&Rs:

1. **"Act of God" Defense:** The Petitioners argued that the hailstorm constituted an "Act of God" under Article VI. They contended this relieved MLE of its maintenance duties and shifted the burden to the homeowners.
2. **"Substantially Destroyed" Threshold:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that while Article VI excludes "Acts of God" from standard maintenance, it specifically refers such cases to Article VII, Section 4 for governance. Article VII, Section 4 mandates that owners repair their lots using insurance proceeds only if the structure is "**substantially destroyed**".
3. **Evidence of Damage:** The ALJ found that repairs costing $500 per unit did not constitute substantial destruction. Although one witness recommended roof replacement, other evidence showed the repairs were compliant with Registrar of Contractors standards, and no homeowners reported leaks following the work.

**Decision and Outcome**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent (MLE), concluding the following:
* Because the roofs were not "substantially destroyed," the provision requiring owners to use insurance proceeds was not triggered.
* Therefore, it remained MLE's responsibility to repair and maintain the roofs under the CC&Rs.
* The Petitioners failed to prove a violation of the CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.

**Final Order:** The Petition was dismissed on October 4, 2012. The decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on November 13, 2012.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Cynthia Santomarco (petitioner)
Appeared on own behalf
Bruce Santomarco (petitioner)
Appeared on own behalf

Respondent Side

Joseph Tadano (attorney)
Represented Mountainview Lake Estates Homeowner Association
Adrianne A. Speas (attorney)
Ekmark & Ekmark, L.L.C.
Provided legal opinion letter to Respondent regarding roof repairs

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decision
Holly Textor (Agency Contact)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety

Brown, William vs. Terravita Community Association, Inc.

Posted on October 3, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212014-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-10-04
Administrative Law Judge	Brian Brendan Tully
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	William M. Brown	Counsel	—
Respondent	Terravita Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Curtis S. Ekmark, Esq.; Jason F. Wood, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment for Mootness. The ALJ concluded the Petitioner was not entitled to view the requested records because they were either non-existent, privileged attorney-client communications, or confidential executive session minutes.

Why this result: The requested records were legally protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege and statutes governing executive session confidentiality.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide requested records (engagement letter and executive session minutes)

Petitioner requested an engagement letter between the Association and its counsel, and minutes from two executive session meetings. Respondent argued the engagement letter did not exist or was privileged, and executive session minutes are protected from disclosure.

Orders: Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment for Mootness granted.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(3)

Decision Documents

12F-H1212014-BFS Decision – 309140.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:42:55 (89.1 KB)

12F-H1212014-BFS Decision – 313671.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:43:07 (59.0 KB)

12F-H1212014-BFS Decision – 309140.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:34 (89.1 KB)

12F-H1212014-BFS Decision – 313671.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:34 (59.0 KB)

**Case Title:** *William M. Brown v. Terravita Community Association, Inc.*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212014-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (for the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety)

**Summary of Proceedings**
Petitioner William M. Brown filed a petition alleging that the Respondent, Terravita Community Association, Inc., violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to specific association records requested on May 25, 2012. The Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for Mootness, arguing that the requested documents either did not exist or were legally protected from disclosure.

**Key Facts and Legal Issues**
The Petitioner sought two categories of records:
1. **Legal Engagement Documents:** An engagement letter, retainer agreement, or fee schedule between the Association and the law firm Ekmark & Ekmark, L.L.C..
2. **Meeting Minutes:** Minutes from Board of Directors executive sessions held on March 27, 2012, and April 24, 2012.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) addressed the legal standing of these requests under Arizona Revised Statutes:

* **Attorney-Client Privilege:** Regarding the legal engagement documents, the Respondent stated that no such letter existed. The ALJ ruled that even if such a letter existed, it would be protected by attorney-client privilege under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) and could not be disclosed to a third party without a waiver from the Respondent.
* **Executive Session Confidentiality:** Regarding the meeting minutes, the ALJ noted that A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) dictates that Board executive sessions are not open to the public or non-Board members. Consequently, the minutes for the March 27, 2012, session were not public records available to the Petitioner pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(3).
* **Non-Existent Meetings:** Regarding the alleged April 24, 2012, meeting, the Respondent contended no such meeting occurred. The ALJ ruled that even if minutes existed, they would be similarly protected from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(3).

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner was not entitled to view or receive the requested records, regardless of whether they existed. The ALJ determined there were no issues requiring an evidentiary hearing and granted the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Mootness on October 4, 2012.

The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on November 13, 2012, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to accept, reject, or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

William M. Brown (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Curtis S. Ekmark (attorney)
Ekmark & Ekmark L.L.C.
Jason F. Wood (attorney)
Ekmark & Ekmark L.L.C.

Neutral Parties

Brian Brendan Tully (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Gene Palma (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Cliff J. Vanell (OAH Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Certification of Decision
Holly Textor (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed as c/o for Gene Palma

Debenedictis, Joseph vs. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA

Posted on October 2, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212006-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	—
Decision Date	2012-10-02
Administrative Law Judge	TE
Outcome	complete
Filing Fees Refunded	—
Civil Penalties	—

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Joseph DeBenedictis	Counsel	M. Philip Escolar, Esq.
Respondent	Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association	Counsel	Grace Violette, President

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Decision Documents

12F-H1212006-BFS Decision – 308828.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:40:50 (83.7 KB)

12F-H1212006-BFS Decision – 313213.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:40:53 (54.7 KB)

12F-H1212006-BFS Decision – 308828.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:38 (83.7 KB)

12F-H1212006-BFS Decision – 313213.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:38 (54.7 KB)

In case 12F-H1212006-BFS, Petitioner Joseph DeBenedictis filed a complaint against the Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association (Respondent), a homeowners association located in Scottsdale, Arizona [1, 2]. The core issue centered on a $400 initial regular assessment outlined in Paragraph 4.G of the community's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) [3]. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs by failing to impose and collect this $400 assessment every time a parcel in the community was transferred to a new party [4, 5]. This dispute followed a March 2011 Superior Court settlement in a separate case where the Respondent had previously agreed not to assess or collect any further $400 initial regular assessments from past, present, or future members [2, 3].

During the hearing, the Petitioner argued that the CC&Rs mandated the assessment for all property transfers, while the Respondent maintained the fee only applied when a parcel was first transferred from the developer or initially divided [5, 6]. The Administrative Law Judge determined that even if the Petitioner's interpretation of the CC&Rs were valid, he failed to present any evidence showing that a parcel had actually been transferred to a new party since the 2011 settlement agreement [7]. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent had neglected to assess or collect the fee in any specific, existing instance [7]. Because the Administrative Law Judge cannot address potential future violations, and the 2011 settlement only served as evidence of possible future actions, the Petitioner failed to establish that an existing violation of the CC&Rs had occurred [7, 8].

As a result, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof and recommended that the petition be dismissed, ordering that no action was required by the Respondent [8, 9]. The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to modify, accept, or reject the ruling during the statutory 35-day review period [10]. Consequently, on November 7, 2012, the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the judge's recommendation as the final administrative decision [11].

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Joseph DeBenedictis (Petitioner)
M. Philip Escolar (Representative)
Esq.

Respondent Side

Grace Violette (President / Representative)
Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the decision
Holly Textor (Contact)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
c/o for Gene Palma

Sallus, Suzanne vs. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA

Posted on October 2, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212008-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2012-10-02
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Suzanne Sallus	Counsel	M. Philip Escolar
Respondent	Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1806

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1806 by failing to provide legally required resale disclosure documents directly to the purchaser within the statutory timeframe. The HOA's reliance on its website was deemed insufficient as the website did not contain all required information (specifically regarding financials and pending litigation).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide resale disclosure documents

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide required documents upon pending sale of the property. Respondent argued directing the title agent to the website was sufficient. The ALJ found the website did not contain all required documents and that Respondent failed to disclose pending litigation.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1806 and provide copies of all required documents within 10 days; Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1806
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B)

Decision Documents

12F-H1212008-BFS Decision – 308830.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:41:17 (122.1 KB)

12F-H1212008-BFS Decision – 313396.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:41:20 (59.0 KB)

12F-H1212008-BFS Decision – /home/jeremy/azhoa/repos/azoah_decisions/portal_documents/12F-H1212008-BFS/308830.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-17T05:32:25 (122.1 KB)

12F-H1212008-BFS Decision – /home/jeremy/azhoa/repos/azoah_decisions/portal_documents/12F-H1212008-BFS/313396.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-17T05:32:29 (59.0 KB)

12F-H1212008-BFS Decision – 308830.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:57 (122.1 KB)

12F-H1212008-BFS Decision – 313396.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:58 (59.0 KB)

**Case Title:** *Suzanne Sallus v. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212008-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

### **Proceedings and Key Facts**
On September 12, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer presided over a hearing regarding a petition filed by Suzanne Sallus (Petitioner) against the Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association (Respondent). The dispute arose from Petitioner's purchase of a property within the community in early 2011.

Petitioner alleged that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1806 by failing to provide required disclosure documents within ten days of receiving notice of the pending sale,. On March 12, 2011, Petitioner's title agency contacted Respondent requesting information on fees and assessments. Respondent replied by email providing assessment figures and directing the agent to the association's website for the CC&Rs and Bylaws. Escrow closed on April 2, 2011, without Petitioner receiving the full statutory disclosures,.

### **Main Legal Issues and Arguments**
The central legal question was whether Respondent’s actions satisfied the disclosure requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1806.

* **Adequacy of Electronic Delivery:** Respondent argued that directing Petitioner’s agent to the association's website satisfied the requirement to provide documents in "paper or electronic format". The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected this argument because the website did not contain all required documents. Specifically, the website's "Financials" page merely stated that reports were available "on request," which did not meet the statutory obligation to deliver the current operating budget and most recent annual financial report.

* **Missing Statements:** Respondent admitted it failed to provide a dated statement containing mandatory disclosures, including insurance coverage details, reserve amounts, and a statement regarding alteration violations.

* **Pending Litigation Disclosure:** A.R.S. § 33-1806 requires associations to summarize pending lawsuits. Respondent argued that two lawsuits (*Violette* and *Given*) did not need to be disclosed because settlement agreements were signed in February 2011. However, the ALJ determined that because the official dismissals for these cases were not entered by the Superior Court until March 16 and March 21, 2011—after Respondent received notice of the sale—the lawsuits were legally "pending" and should have been disclosed.

### **Final Decision and Outcome**
The ALJ ruled in favor of Petitioner, concluding that she established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1806,.

**The Order required Respondent to:**
1. Comply with the statute and provide Petitioner with copies of all required documents within ten days.
2. Reimburse Petitioner the $550.00 filing fee within 30 days.

The decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on November 8, 2012, after the Department took no action to reject or modify the ALJ's ruling,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Suzanne Sallus (Petitioner)
Sallus Family Trust
Served as member of SDV Board of Directors from May 2011 through April 2012
M. Philip Escolar (attorney)
Escolar Law Office
Represented Petitioner

Respondent Side

Grace Violette (board member)
Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association
President of Respondent; represented Respondent at hearing; also named in separate lawsuit dismissed March 2011

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decision
Holly Textor (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed on mailing distribution

Portonova, Carol vs. Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association

Posted on October 2, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212013-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-10-02
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Carol Portonova	Counsel	—
Respondent	Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc.	Counsel	Michael Orcutt

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The judge found that Petitioner failed to prove she made a request to examine or purchase copies of Association records in June 2011 or November 2011,. Consequently, the Petition was dismissed.

Why this result: Failure to prove a records request was made

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records regarding monies received to satisfy a judgment

Petitioner alleged that the Association violated the statute by not providing records pertaining to monies the Association received to satisfy a judgment it obtained against Petitioner.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed and no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Decision Documents

12F-H1212013-BFS Decision – 308933.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:42:08 (69.6 KB)

12F-H1212013-BFS Decision – 313665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:42:29 (59.0 KB)

12F-H1212013-BFS Decision – 308933.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:29 (69.6 KB)

12F-H1212013-BFS Decision – 313665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:29 (59.0 KB)

**Case Summary: Portonova v. Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc.**
**Case No. 12F-H1212013-BFS**

**Hearing Overview**
This matter was heard before Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal on September 19, 2012, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona. The case involved an allegation by Petitioner Carol Portonova that Respondent Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc. violated Arizona law regarding access to association records.

**Key Facts and Background**
The Petitioner resided in a unit within the Tenth Avenue Missions planned community. The dispute arose after the Respondent successfully sued the Petitioner and her husband, obtaining a judgment and subsequent satisfaction of judgment. Portonova sought an accounting of the monies the Association received to satisfy this judgment, including attorney's fees, expressing a belief that the Association lacked proper records for these funds.

On June 4, 2012, Portonova filed a petition alleging the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide the requested records.

**Main Legal Issues and Arguments**
The central legal issue was whether the Respondent failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which requires associations to make financial and other records reasonably available for examination within ten business days of a request.

* **Petitioner’s Position:** Portonova argued she had requested the records but they were not produced. She entered into evidence a letter dated May 3, 2012, addressed to Association officers, and implied during cross-examination that she had also requested records at a November 2011 homeowners meeting.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The Association, represented by counsel, disputed that a request was ever made. Mario Capriotti, Jr. testified that he did not receive the May 3, 2012 letter and that the Petitioner did not request to examine or purchase records at the November 2011 meeting.

**Findings and Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) established that the burden of proof lay with the Petitioner to show a violation by a "preponderance of the evidence".

The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden. Specifically, the Judge concluded that Portonova failed to prove that she or a designated representative actually made a request to the Respondent to examine or provide the records in question. Because the Petitioner could not establish that a request was made, she could not prove that the Respondent failed to provide an opportunity to examine the records.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
1. **ALJ Decision:** On October 2, 2012, the ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that no action was required of the Respondent.
2. **Certification:** The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not reject or modify the decision within the statutory review period. Consequently, on November 13, 2012, the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the ALJ’s ruling as the final administrative decision.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Carol Portonova (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

Michael Orcutt (attorney)
Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc.
Esq.
Mario Capriotti, Jr. (officer/witness)
Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc.
Officer of the Association; testified at hearing

Neutral Parties

Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Cliff J. Vanell (OAH Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the decision
Holly Textor (staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
c/o for Gene Palma

Yuille, John vs. Harmon, Connie, et. al.

Posted on September 18, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	11F-H1112005-BFS-res
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-09-18
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John Yuille	Counsel	—
Respondent	Caida Court Homeowner Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent failed to call, notice, and hold a special meeting to remove the Petitioner from the Board of Directors within the statutory thirty-day timeframe upon receipt of a petition. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute, refund the filing fee, and pay a civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to propertly call and notice special meeting for board removal

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to deliver the recall petition and follow statutory procedures for removing a board member. The Respondent admitted to a lack of removal information and possible failure to follow statute.

Orders: Respondent shall comply with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) in the future; Respondent shall pay Petitioner his filing fee of $550.00; Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of $200.00 to the Department.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)
A.R.S. § 33-1248

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

11F-H1112005-BFS Decision – 307243.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:37:57 (83.2 KB)

11F-H1112005-BFS Decision – 311519.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:38:02 (59.7 KB)

11F-H1112005-BFS Decision – 307243.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:46 (83.2 KB)

11F-H1112005-BFS Decision – 311519.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:47 (59.7 KB)

Case Summary: Yuille v. Caida Court Homeowner Association

Case No.: 11F-H1112005-BFS-res

Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Date: September 13, 2012 (Hearing); October 24, 2012 (Final Certification)

Proceedings

This administrative hearing addressed a petition filed by John Yuille (Petitioner) against the Caida Court Homeowner Association (Respondent). The Petitioner appeared on his own behalf, while the Respondent failed to appear at the hearing,. The hearing was presided over by Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas.

Key Facts and Arguments

The dispute arose after the Petitioner, who served as Chairman of the Board of Management for Caida Court, was recalled from his position on August 24, 2011.

Petitioner’s Argument: Mr. Yuille alleged that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) regarding the procedure for removing a board member. He testified that he returned from a trip to find a special meeting for his removal already in progress. He requested a copy of the recall petition but was never provided one, leading him to believe a written petition did not actually exist,.
Respondent’s Position: Although absent from the hearing, the Respondent submitted a written Answer admitting that they "possibly did not follow the statute 33-1248" due to a lack of removal information and apologized for the error.

Legal Issues and Findings

The primary legal issue was whether the Association complied with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H), which mandates specific timelines and notice requirements for calling a special meeting upon receipt of a removal petition,.

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(H). The decision was based on undisputed credible testimony establishing that the Respondent failed to call, notice, and hold the special meeting to remove the Petitioner within thirty days after receiving the petition, as required by law.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Petitioner, deeming him the prevailing party. The Order mandated the following:

Future Compliance: The Respondent was ordered to comply with the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) in the future.
Reimbursement: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner $550.00 to cover his filing fee.
Civil Penalty: The Respondent was assessed a civil penalty of $200.00, payable to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on October 24, 2012, as the Department took no action to modify or reject the Judge's decision within the statutory review period,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John Yuille (petitioner)
Caida Court Homeowner Association
Appeared on own behalf; former Chairman of the Board

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decision
Holly Textor (staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed on mailing distribution c/o Gene Palma

Yuille, John vs. Caida Court Homeowner Association

Posted on September 18, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	11F-H1112005-BFS-res
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-09-18
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John Yuille	Counsel	—
Respondent	Caida Court Homeowner Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to propertly call and notice special meeting for board removal

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)
A.R.S. § 33-1248

Decision Documents

11F-H1112005-BFS-res Decision – 307243.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:10 (83.2 KB)

11F-H1112005-BFS-res Decision – 311519.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:10 (59.7 KB)

Here is a summary of the administrative hearing proceedings for Case No. 11F-H1112005-BFS-res.

**Case Title:** *John Yuille v. Caida Court Homeowner Association*
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona
**Administrative Law Judge:** M. Douglas

**Hearing Proceedings**
The hearing took place on September 13, 2012. The Petitioner, John Yuille, appeared on his own behalf regarding a dispute over his removal as Chairman of the Board of Management for Caida Court Homeowner Association,. The Respondent, Caida Court, failed to appear at the hearing.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The Petitioner was recalled from his position as Board Chairman on August 24, 2011. He filed a petition alleging that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) by failing to provide him with a copy of the recall petition before the meeting where he was removed,.

* **Petitioner’s Testimony:** Mr. Yuille testified that he returned from an out-of-state trip to find a special meeting underway regarding his removal. He requested a copy of the recall petition but was never provided one, leading him to believe a written petition did not actually exist,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** Although the Respondent did not attend the hearing, they submitted a written Answer admitting that they "possibly did not follow the statute" due to a lack of removal information, though they noted a 10-3 vote in favor of recall.

**Key Legal Issues**
The central legal issue was whether the Association complied with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H), which governs the removal of board members. The statute requires specific procedures for handling recall petitions, including calling, noticing, and holding a special meeting within thirty days after the receipt of a petition.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner.

* **Findings:** The ALJ concluded that the Respondent failed to "call, notice, and hold the special meeting… within thirty days after receipt of the petition," thereby violating A.R.S. § 33-1243(H).
* **Orders:**
1. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) in the future.
2. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $550.00.
3. The Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $200.00 to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

**Certification**
The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision on October 24, 2012,.

Debenedictis, Joseph vs. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA

Posted on September 10, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212005-BFS
Agency	Office of Administrative Hearings
Tribunal	—
Decision Date	2012-09-06
Administrative Law Judge	jb
Outcome	complete
Filing Fees Refunded	—
Civil Penalties	—

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	JOSEPH DEBENEDICTIS	Counsel	—
Respondent	SUNRISE DESERT VISTAS POA	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Decision Documents

12F-H1212005-BFS Decision – 306391.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:40:31 (73.7 KB)

12F-H1212005-BFS Decision – 306394.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:40:35 (38.0 KB)

12F-H1212005-BFS Decision – 306585.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:40:39 (73.7 KB)

12F-H1212005-BFS Decision – 310502.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:40:43 (56.3 KB)

12F-H1212005-BFS Decision – 306391.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:32 (73.7 KB)

12F-H1212005-BFS Decision – 306394.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:33 (38.0 KB)

12F-H1212005-BFS Decision – 306585.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:33 (73.7 KB)

12F-H1212005-BFS Decision – 310502.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:33 (56.3 KB)

Joseph DeBenedictis filed a petition against the Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association, alleging that the association failed to repay a promissory note [1-4]. To support his claim, the petitioner pointed to a provision in the association's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that granted the association the "power to borrow," as well as a Bylaw provision requiring the association to pay taxes, special assessments, and other charges that could become a lien on association property [5-7].

The main issue in the case was whether the cited governing documents legally required the association to repay the promissory note [8-11]. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the CC&R provision strictly granted the association the authority to borrow money, but contained no specific language regarding the repayment of those borrowed funds [8, 10]. Additionally, the judge found that the promissory note was unsecured and did not qualify as a tax, special assessment, or a "charge" that would result in a lien against the association's property under the Bylaws [9, 11, 12].

Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the petitioner failed to identify any specific statute or provision within the CC&Rs or Bylaws that the association had violated, meaning he failed to state a valid cause of action [13, 14]. As a result, the petition was dismissed on September 6, 2012, and no action was required of the association [13, 14]. The dismissal was subsequently certified as a final decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings on October 16, 2012 [15, 16].

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Joseph DeBenedictis (Petitioner)

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Beth Soliere (Contact)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Holly Textor (Contact)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

Johnson, Martin W. vs. Ciento Homeowners Association

Posted on August 14, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212007-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-08-14
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Martin W. Johnson	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association	Counsel	Lydia Peirce Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

Article XII, Section 5 of CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated its governing documents. The ALJ determined the water damage dispute was effectively between the Petitioner and the upstairs unit owner, and the HOA was not obligated to intervene or reimburse under the circumstances.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the tribunal found the issue to be a dispute between owners rather than an HOA violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to enforce repair reimbursement for water damage

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to enforce CC&Rs requiring it to repair damages caused by an owner's negligence (upstairs unit) and charge that owner, following multiple water leaks.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Article XII, Section 5 of CC&Rs
Rules and Regulations Article II, Section 8

Decision Documents

12F-H1212007-BFS Decision – 304220.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:41:02 (116.0 KB)

12F-H1212007-BFS Decision – 308686.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:41:08 (56.9 KB)

12F-H1212007-BFS Decision – 304220.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:43 (116.0 KB)

12F-H1212007-BFS Decision – 308686.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:43 (56.9 KB)

**Case Summary: Martin W. Johnson v. The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association**
**Case No.** 12F-H1212007-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Decision:** August 14, 2012 (Certified Final October 1, 2012)

**Overview and Key Facts**
Petitioner Martin W. Johnson, owner of condominium unit 117E, filed a petition alleging that The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association ("HOA") failed to enforce its governing documents regarding water damage caused by a neighboring unit.

The dispute arose from five separate water intrusion incidents between September 2009 and January 2012. The leaks originated from unit 217E, located directly above the Petitioner’s unit. Unit 217E was owned by Kenneth Hamby (the Board Treasurer) and occupied by a tenant. The causes of damage included clogged toilets, defective drains, and overflowing bathtubs attributed to the upstairs tenant’s negligence.

Following the initial and most severe incident in 2009, the Petitioner’s insurance company paid $22,762.74 for restoration. The Petitioner sought reimbursement and intervention from the HOA, arguing the Board had an obligation to oversee tenants and enforce bylaws regarding damage caused by other units.

**Main Legal Issues**
1. **Enforcement of CC&Rs:** Whether the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by refusing to repair the damages and charge the owner of unit 217E.
2. **Jurisdiction and Liability:** Whether the dispute was a matter of HOA enforcement or a private "owner-to-owner" dispute.

**Key Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Dr. Johnson argued that Article XII, Section 5 of the CC&Rs authorized the HOA to repair damage caused by negligence and charge the responsible owner. He claimed the Board refused to exercise this authority or provide oversight of the upstairs tenant.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The HOA contended that this was fundamentally an owner-to-owner dispute. They argued the HOA is not a police agency, cannot vet landlords' tenants, and cannot compel one owner to reimburse another for expenses.

**Tribunal Findings and Legal Analysis**
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella ruled in favor of the HOA, dismissing the petition based on the following legal points:

* **Bur

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Martin W. Johnson (Petitioner)
Former Owner (Unit 117E)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Lydia Peirce Linsmeier (Attorney)
Brown/Olcott, PLLC
Representing The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association
Kenneth Hamby, Jr. (Board Member)
The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association
Treasurer of the Board; Owner of unit 217E
Debra Katzenberger (Property Manager)
Associated Property Management (APM)

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decision

Butler, Clifford and Jean vs. Happy Trails Community Association

Posted on July 2, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212004-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-07-05
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Clifford and Jean Butler	Counsel	—
Respondent	Happy Trails Community Association	Counsel	Maria Kupillas

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 1.31; Section 11.1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, concluding that the Petitioners failed to prove the HOA violated the CC&Rs. The governing documents require a Residence Vehicle to be present for occupancy, and the Arizona Room cannot serve as the main residence.

Why this result: The Petitioners failed to prove a violation because the plain language of the CC&Rs supports the HOA's requirement that a Residence Vehicle be present on the lot for residency.

Key Issues & Findings

Enforcement of Residence Vehicle Policy

Petitioners alleged that the HOA enforced a policy preventing residents from living in an Arizona Room without a Residence Vehicle on the lot, arguing this policy was unreasonable and contrary to the CC&Rs.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed. No action is required of Happy Trails.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

CC&Rs Section 1.31
CC&Rs Section 11.1

Decision Documents

12F-H1212004-BFS Decision – 300400.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:40:09 (93.4 KB)

12F-H1212004-BFS Decision – 304741.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:40:20 (61.4 KB)

12F-H1212004-BFS Decision – 300400.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:25 (93.4 KB)

12F-H1212004-BFS Decision – 304741.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:25 (61.4 KB)

**Case Summary: Clifford and Jean Butler v. Happy Trails Community Association**
**Case No.** 12F-H1212004-BFS

**Overview and Proceedings**
On June 18, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella presided over a hearing regarding a dispute between Petitioners Clifford and Jean Butler and Respondent Happy Trails Community Association. The Butlers sought to challenge the Association's enforcement of residency requirements within the Happy Trails planned community.

**Key Facts**
The Butlers, full-time residents of Happy Trails for approximately 12 years, resided on a lot containing a "Residence Vehicle" (RV) and a separate structure known as an "Arizona Room". After selling their RV, the Butlers attempted to reside solely in their Arizona Room. The Association issued a "Courtesy Notice" stating that living in an Arizona Room without an RV on the property violated the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Design Guidelines.

**Main Issues and Arguments**
The central issue was whether the Association’s policy requiring the presence of an RV to reside on a lot violated the CC&Rs.

* **Petitioners’ Argument:** The Butlers argued the policy was unreasonable, costly, and unsupported by the CC&Rs. They testified that maintaining an unused RV was financially burdensome due to depreciation, insurance, and licensing costs. They further argued that the Association had historically condoned residents living in Arizona Rooms full-time without RVs.
* **Respondent’s Argument:** The Association contended that the CC&Rs explicitly require owners to occupy a Residence Vehicle as their main residence. They asserted that while owners may occupy an Arizona Room, they must do so contemporaneously with the required RV. The Association’s Board noted they do not grant variances to this rule to avoid setting a precedent.

**Legal Findings and Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Association, concluding that the Butlers failed to prove a violation of the governing documents.

The decision relied heavily on the specific language of the CC&Rs:
1. **Definition of Arizona Room:** The CC&Rs define an Arizona Room as a structure used for residential purposes "but that does not serve as the main residence on the Lot".
2. **Residency Requirement:** The documents state that individuals "may only reside in a Residence Vehicle" and that no other portion of the lot may be occupied as a residence.
3. **Contemporaneous Use:** The Judge determined that while an Arizona Room may be occupied, it cannot replace the RV as the main residence; therefore, an RV must be present on the lot.

**Outcome**
The ALJ recommended that the Petition be dismissed, finding that Happy Trails’ enforcement actions comported with the provisions of the governing CC&Rs.

**Final Status**
On August 20, 2012, the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the ALJ’s decision as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, as the Department took no action to reject or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Clifford Butler (petitioner)
Happy Trails Community Association (resident)
Appeared on own behalf
Jean Butler (petitioner)
Happy Trails Community Association (resident)
Appeared on own behalf
Sal Ognibene (witness)
Happy Trails Community Association (resident)
Called by Mr. Butler

Respondent Side

Maria Kupillas (attorney)
Farley, Seletos & Choate
Represented Happy Trails Community Association
Beth McWilliams (community manager)
Happy Trails Community Association
Testified regarding amendments and violations
Jim Weihman (board president)
Happy Trails Community Association
Testified regarding variances and waivers

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (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
Certified the ALJ decision
Beth Soliere (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of transmitted decision