Category Archives: HOA Cases

Keith W. Cunningham v. The Residences at 2211 Camelback Condominium

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H008-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-01-11
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome Petitioner's petition is granted. Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide requested records within 10 business days. Respondent violated CC&Rs Section 8.1.1 by failing to maintain insurance coverage equal to 100% of the replacement cost and failing to meet specific liability limits. Respondent is ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $1,000.00 filing fee and comply with the statute and CC&Rs going forward.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Keith W. Cunningham Counsel —
Respondent The Residences at 2211 Camelback Condominium Association, INC Counsel Allison Preston

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258
CC&Rs Section 8.1.1

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition is granted. Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide requested records within 10 business days. Respondent violated CC&Rs Section 8.1.1 by failing to maintain insurance coverage equal to 100% of the replacement cost and failing to meet specific liability limits. Respondent is ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $1,000.00 filing fee and comply with the statute and CC&Rs going forward.

Key Issues & Findings

Records Request

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide financial records and vendor contracts (Epic Valet, FirstService Residential, landscaping) within the statutory timeframe. The ALJ found Respondent failed to provide the documents within 10 business days of the July 10, 2023 request and subsequent July 24, 2023 request.

Orders: Respondent shall comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 going forward.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258

Insurance Coverage

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to maintain required insurance coverage. The ALJ found Respondent's property insurance coverage ($59M) was below the appraised replacement cost ($73M) and the general liability limits did not strictly comply with CC&Rs requirements despite an umbrella policy.

Orders: Respondent shall comply with Section 8.1.1 of the CC&Rs going forward.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 8.1.1

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, Insurance Coverage, Condominium, Contracts, Vendor Contracts, Replacement Cost
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • CC&Rs Section 8.1.1

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H008-REL Decision – 1099767.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:14:44 (46.1 KB)

24F-H008-REL Decision – 1101587.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:14:47 (49.0 KB)

24F-H008-REL Decision – 1119643.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:14:51 (47.5 KB)

24F-H008-REL Decision – 1121917.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:14:55 (39.3 KB)

24F-H008-REL Decision – 1132963.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:14:58 (188.5 KB)

24F-H008-REL Decision – 1149691.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:15:04 (39.1 KB)

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H008-REL”,
“case_title”: “In the Matter of Keith W. Cunningham v The Residences at 2211 Camelback Condominium Association, INC”,
“decision_date”: “2024-01-11”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Keith W. Cunningham”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Allison Preston”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP”,
“notes”: “Represented The Residences at 2211 Camelback Condominium Association, INC”
},
{
“name”: “Kyle von Johnson”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Represented The Residences at 2211 Camelback Condominium Association, INC”
},
{
“name”: “Mark Teman”,
“role”: “board member”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Association President, witness”
},
{
“name”: “Allison Renow”,
“role”: “property manager”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “First Service Residential”,
“notes”: “General Manager (GM) on site”
},
{
“name”: “Frank Durso”,
“role”: “regional manager”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “First Service Residential”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Jamie George”,
“role”: “VP of Insurance”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “First Service Financial”,
“notes”: “Assists with association insurance policies”
},
{
“name”: “Holly McNelte”,
“role”: “management staff”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “First Service Residential”,
“notes”: “FSR team member who managed documents/files”
},
{
“name”: “Jonathan Henley”,
“role”: “insurance broker”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Gallagher”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “Administrative Law Judge who conducted the hearing (12/8/23)”
},
{
“name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “Administrative Law Judge who wrote the decision”
},
{
“name”: “Susan Nicolson”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Transmission recipient”
},
{
“name”: “vnunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Transmission recipient”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Transmission recipient”
},
{
“name”: “labril”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Transmission recipient”
},
{
“name”: “mneat”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Transmission recipient”
},
{
“name”: “akowaleski”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Transmission recipient”
},
{
“name”: “gosborn”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Transmission recipient”
}
]
}

{ “case”: { “agency”: “ADRE”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “docket_no”: “24F-H008-REL”, “case_title”: “In the Matter of Keith W. Cunningham v The Residences at 2211 Camelback Condominium Association, INC”, “decision_date”: “2024-01-11”, “alj_name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer” }, “parties”: [ { “party_id”: “P1”, “role”: “petitioner”, “name”: “Keith W. Cunningham”, “party_type”: “homeowner”, “email”: “[email protected]”, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: null, “attorney_firm”: null, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null }, { “party_id”: “R1”, “role”: “respondent”, “name”: “The Residences at 2211 Camelback Condominium Association, INC”, “party_type”: “HOA”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “Allison Preston”, “attorney_firm”: “Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP”, “attorney_email”: “[email protected]”, “attorney_phone”: null } ], “issues”: [ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “type”: “statute”, “citation”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258”, “caption”: “Records Request”, “violation(s)”: “Failure to provide requested financial records and contracts within 10 business days”, “summary”: “Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide financial records and vendor contracts (Epic Valet, FirstService Residential, landscaping) within the statutory timeframe. The ALJ found Respondent failed to provide the documents within 10 business days of the July 10, 2023 request and subsequent July 24, 2023 request.”, “outcome”: “petitioner_win”, “filing_fee_paid”: 1000.0, “filing_fee_refunded”: true, “civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0, “orders_summary”: “Respondent shall comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 going forward.”, “why_the_loss”: null, “cited”: [“A.R.S. § 33-1258”] }, { “issue_id”: “ISS-002”, “type”: “governing_documents”, “citation”: “CC&Rs Section 8.1.1”, “caption”: “Insurance Coverage”, “violation(s)”: “Failure to maintain property insurance equal to 100% of replacement cost and general liability insurance limits as required”, “summary”: “Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to maintain required insurance coverage. The ALJ found Respondent’s property insurance coverage (59M)wasbelowtheappraisedreplacementcost(73M) and the general liability limits did not strictly comply with CC&Rs requirements despite an umbrella policy.”, “outcome”: “petitioner_win”, “filing_fee_paid”: 0.0, “filing_fee_refunded”: false, “civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0, “orders_summary”: “Respondent shall comply with Section 8.1.1 of the CC&Rs going forward.”, “why_the_loss”: null, “cited”: [“CC&Rs Section 8.1.1”] } ], “money_summary”: { “issues_count”: 2, “total_filing_fees_paid”: 1000.0, “total_filing_fees_refunded”: 1000.0, “total_civil_penalties”: 0.0 }, “outcomes”: { “petitioner_is_hoa”: false, “petitioner_win”: “yes”, “summarize_judgement”: “Petitioner’s petition is granted. Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide requested records within 10 business days. Respondent violated CC&Rs Section 8.1.1 by failing to maintain insurance coverage equal to 100% of the replacement cost and failing to meet specific liability limits. Respondent is ordered to reimburse Petitioner’s $1,000.00 filing fee and comply with the statute and CC&Rs going forward.”, “why_the_loss”: null }, “analytics”: { “cited”: [“A.R.S. § 33-1258”, “CC&Rs Section 8.1.1”], “tags”: [“Records Request”, “Insurance Coverage”, “Condominium”, “Contracts”, “Vendor Contracts”, “Replacement Cost”] } }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H008-REL”, “case_title”: “Keith W. Cunningham v The Residences at 2211 Camelback Condominium Association, INC”, “decision_date”: “2024-01-11”, “alj_name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “How many days does my HOA have to provide records after I request them?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request for examination of records.”, “detailed_answer”: “According to Arizona law cited in the decision, an association must make financial and other records reasonably available for examination within ten business days of a member’s request.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “A.R.S. § 33-1258” ] }, { “question”: “Can my HOA claim they don’t have to provide specific contracts if they are not uploaded to the web portal?”, “short_answer”: “No. If the records exist and aren’t privileged, the HOA must make them available for examination, regardless of whether they are on a portal.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA failed to provide signed vendor contracts that existed, claiming they provided what was on the portal. The ALJ found that failing to provide these specific requested documents constituted a violation.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent did not assert or establish that any of the requested documents were subject to any of the exceptions provided for in statute. Accordingly, Petitioner was entitled to examine those documents.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “contracts”, “online portal” ] }, { “question”: “If my CC&Rs require specific insurance liability limits, does an umbrella policy count towards meeting them?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The ALJ ruled that a base policy lower than the CC&R requirement was non-compliant, even with a large umbrella policy.”, “detailed_answer”: “The CC&Rs required $3,000,000 per occurrence. The HOA had $1,000,000 coverage plus a $50,000,000 umbrella. The ALJ ruled the general liability insurance was not in compliance because the specific base limit was not met.”, “alj_quote”: “While Respondent had an umbrella policy in addition to the general liability insurance, Respondent’s general liability insurance was not in compliance with the applicable CC&Rs.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Section 8.1.1”, “topic_tags”: [ “insurance”, “compliance”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “Must the HOA insure the building for its full replacement cost?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the CC&Rs state the insurance must equal 100% of the current replacement cost.”, “detailed_answer”: “The HOA obtained an appraisal showing a replacement cost of $73 million but maintained coverage of only $59 million. The ALJ found this violated the CC&Rs requirement for 100% replacement cost coverage.”, “alj_quote”: “Accordingly, Respondent’s property insurance was not in compliance with the applicable CC&Rs at the time the petition was filed.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Section 8.1.1”, “topic_tags”: [ “insurance”, “property value”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “Will I get my filing fee back if I win the hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the petition is granted.”, “detailed_answer”: “After granting the petition and finding the HOA in violation, the judge specifically ordered the respondent to pay back the petitioner’s filing fee.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner his $1,000.00 filing fee.”, “legal_basis”: “Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “filing fees”, “costs” ] }, { “question”: “What happens if I accidentally cite the wrong statute number in my complaint?”, “short_answer”: “It may not be dismissed if the context of your complaint makes it clear what you are disputing.”, “detailed_answer”: “The HOA tried to dismiss the case because the homeowner cited the Planned Community statute instead of the Condominium statute. The judge denied this because the checkboxes and narrative provided sufficient notice of the claim.”, “alj_quote”: “While it may be true Petitioner hand wrote A.R.S. §33-1805… the context surrounding Petitioner’s hand written statute provides adequate notice.”, “legal_basis”: “Due Process / Notice”, “topic_tags”: [ “procedure”, “complaint forms”, “legal error” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof I need to meet to win against my HOA?”, “short_answer”: “You must prove your case by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bears the burden of proof. This standard means showing that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 and the Association’s governing documents.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standard”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA be fined a civil penalty if I prove they violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “Not automatically. The ALJ decides if a penalty is appropriate based on the facts.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even though the HOA was found to have violated record laws and insurance requirements, the judge decided not to assess a civil penalty in this specific instance.”, “alj_quote”: “Based on the facts presented, the Administrative Law Judge finds no civil penalty is appropriate in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Judicial Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “penalties”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H008-REL”, “case_title”: “Keith W. Cunningham v The Residences at 2211 Camelback Condominium Association, INC”, “decision_date”: “2024-01-11”, “alj_name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “How many days does my HOA have to provide records after I request them?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request for examination of records.”, “detailed_answer”: “According to Arizona law cited in the decision, an association must make financial and other records reasonably available for examination within ten business days of a member’s request.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “A.R.S. § 33-1258” ] }, { “question”: “Can my HOA claim they don’t have to provide specific contracts if they are not uploaded to the web portal?”, “short_answer”: “No. If the records exist and aren’t privileged, the HOA must make them available for examination, regardless of whether they are on a portal.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA failed to provide signed vendor contracts that existed, claiming they provided what was on the portal. The ALJ found that failing to provide these specific requested documents constituted a violation.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent did not assert or establish that any of the requested documents were subject to any of the exceptions provided for in statute. Accordingly, Petitioner was entitled to examine those documents.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “contracts”, “online portal” ] }, { “question”: “If my CC&Rs require specific insurance liability limits, does an umbrella policy count towards meeting them?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The ALJ ruled that a base policy lower than the CC&R requirement was non-compliant, even with a large umbrella policy.”, “detailed_answer”: “The CC&Rs required $3,000,000 per occurrence. The HOA had $1,000,000 coverage plus a $50,000,000 umbrella. The ALJ ruled the general liability insurance was not in compliance because the specific base limit was not met.”, “alj_quote”: “While Respondent had an umbrella policy in addition to the general liability insurance, Respondent’s general liability insurance was not in compliance with the applicable CC&Rs.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Section 8.1.1”, “topic_tags”: [ “insurance”, “compliance”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “Must the HOA insure the building for its full replacement cost?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the CC&Rs state the insurance must equal 100% of the current replacement cost.”, “detailed_answer”: “The HOA obtained an appraisal showing a replacement cost of $73 million but maintained coverage of only $59 million. The ALJ found this violated the CC&Rs requirement for 100% replacement cost coverage.”, “alj_quote”: “Accordingly, Respondent’s property insurance was not in compliance with the applicable CC&Rs at the time the petition was filed.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Section 8.1.1”, “topic_tags”: [ “insurance”, “property value”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “Will I get my filing fee back if I win the hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the petition is granted.”, “detailed_answer”: “After granting the petition and finding the HOA in violation, the judge specifically ordered the respondent to pay back the petitioner’s filing fee.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner his $1,000.00 filing fee.”, “legal_basis”: “Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “filing fees”, “costs” ] }, { “question”: “What happens if I accidentally cite the wrong statute number in my complaint?”, “short_answer”: “It may not be dismissed if the context of your complaint makes it clear what you are disputing.”, “detailed_answer”: “The HOA tried to dismiss the case because the homeowner cited the Planned Community statute instead of the Condominium statute. The judge denied this because the checkboxes and narrative provided sufficient notice of the claim.”, “alj_quote”: “While it may be true Petitioner hand wrote A.R.S. §33-1805… the context surrounding Petitioner’s hand written statute provides adequate notice.”, “legal_basis”: “Due Process / Notice”, “topic_tags”: [ “procedure”, “complaint forms”, “legal error” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof I need to meet to win against my HOA?”, “short_answer”: “You must prove your case by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bears the burden of proof. This standard means showing that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 and the Association’s governing documents.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standard”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA be fined a civil penalty if I prove they violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “Not automatically. The ALJ decides if a penalty is appropriate based on the facts.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even though the HOA was found to have violated record laws and insurance requirements, the judge decided not to assess a civil penalty in this specific instance.”, “alj_quote”: “Based on the facts presented, the Administrative Law Judge finds no civil penalty is appropriate in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Judicial Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “penalties”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Keith W. Cunningham (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Allison Preston (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Represented The Residences at 2211 Camelback Condominium Association, INC
  • Kyle von Johnson (HOA attorney)
    Represented The Residences at 2211 Camelback Condominium Association, INC
  • Mark Teman (board member)
    Association President, witness
  • Allison Renow (property manager)
    First Service Residential
    General Manager (GM) on site
  • Frank Durso (regional manager)
    First Service Residential
  • Jamie George (VP of Insurance)
    First Service Financial
    Assists with association insurance policies
  • Holly McNelte (management staff)
    First Service Residential
    FSR team member who managed documents/files

Neutral Parties

  • Jonathan Henley (insurance broker)
    Gallagher
  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge who conducted the hearing (12/8/23)
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge who wrote the decision
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • mneat (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • akowaleski (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • gosborn (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient

Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb v. Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H015-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-01-03
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome Petitioner met the burden of proof for both alleged violations: violation of the Declaration (not enforcing the 25ft setback) and violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (failing to provide documents). The petition was granted, and Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $1,000.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb Counsel Jeffrey Brie, Esq.
Respondent Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association Counsel Phillip Brown, Esq. and Kelly Oetinger, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

Petitioner met the burden of proof for both alleged violations: violation of the Declaration (not enforcing the 25ft setback) and violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (failing to provide documents). The petition was granted, and Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $1,000.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide documents

Respondent failed to produce documents requested by Petitioner, specifically meeting minutes discussing the investigative report, within the statutory timeframe, violating A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Orders: Respondent was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 and Declaration Section F. Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Declaration Section F

Analytics Highlights

Topics: setback enforcement, document request, HOA governance, filing fee refund, A.R.S. 33-1805
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • Declaration Section F

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1102948.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:19 (53.9 KB)

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1116083.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:23 (50.5 KB)

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1129495.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:26 (148.2 KB)

This summary addresses the administrative hearing (No. 24F-H015-REL) involving Petitioners Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb and Respondent Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association (HOA). The hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone on November 22 and December 20, 2023, concerning alleged violations of the community's governing documents and Arizona statutes.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The Petitioners filed a two-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate:

  1. Setback Enforcement: Violation of the Declaration of Restrictions (specifically Item F of the Second Declaration) by the HOA "not enforcing the 25ft setback provision".
  2. Document Disclosure: Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing "to provide documents" requested by the Petitioners.

The central factual dispute revolved around Lot 9 (owned by Marcella Aguilar and Abel Sodto), which shares a property line with the Petitioners' Lot 8. Petitioners alleged that the Lot 9 owners made unapproved improvements—including grading, removal of native vegetation, and placement of large boulders—within the mandatory 25-foot setback. The Declaration requires Architectural Committee (ARC) approval for all improvements and any removal of native growth. An HOA investigation in September 2020 concluded that the Lot 9 improvements were neither submitted nor approved by the ARC, and Lot 9 was directed to submit plans within 30 days. Petitioners testified that Lot 9 failed to comply.

Key Arguments

  • Petitioner's Argument: The Association failed its mandatory duty to enforce the CC&Rs for over three years, particularly since the Lot 9 owner (Mr. Sodto) held influential positions (Director, President, ARC member) during the relevant period. Petitioners sought an order requiring the HOA to remedy the violation (remove boulders, revegetate). Petitioners' civil engineer, Tracy Bogardus, testified that Lot 8 did not cause Lot 9's drainage issues, invalidating the Lot 9 owners’ justification for the grading.
  • Respondent's Argument (HOA): The HOA denied the claims, arguing that Lot 9’s modification (referred to as a "driveway turnaround") was necessary for safety due to the steep lot configuration. The HOA asserted that the board has discretion to grant variances. The HOA also argued that selective enforcement against Lot 9 was inconsistent, as six of the seven built-out lots had similar unapproved turnarounds or improvements in setbacks. The HOA later approved the Lot 9 turnaround retroactively during the hearing proceedings.
  • Document Disclosure: HOA President Robert Lewin testified he did not provide the specific documents (Lot 9 submissions) because they did not exist. However, he admitted he failed to provide the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report.

Final Decision and Outcome

The ALJ found that the Petitioners met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ issued the following key conclusions:

  • Setback Violation: Lot 9 failed to submit the required improvement request, violating the Declaration. However, the ALJ emphasized that the relevant section of the Declaration (Section H) states the ARC "shall have the right to clear such lot," meaning the ultimate action to remedy the lot remains within the HOA’s discretion, not an obligation.
  • Document Disclosure Violation (A.R.S. § 33-1805): The Respondent violated the statute by failing to produce a copy of the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report. Although no Lot 9 application documents existed, the minutes did.

Order: Petitioner's petition was granted. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), the Respondent HOA was ordered to reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H015-REL”, “case_title”: “Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb v. Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association”, “decision_date”: “2024-01-03”, “alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee reimbursed?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the petition is granted.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, if a homeowner prevails in their petition against the association, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the respondent (HOA) to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fee.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “What is the timeline for an HOA to provide records after a homeowner requests them?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies of records.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute requires that an association make financial and other records reasonably available for examination. When a member requests to examine or purchase copies of records, the association must comply within ten business days.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records … the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA refuse to provide meeting minutes by claiming other documents regarding a specific issue don’t exist?”, “short_answer”: “No, even if specific architectural files don’t exist, the HOA must still provide related meeting minutes if requested.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, while the HOA claimed no documents existed regarding a specific architectural submission (because none was made), they were still found in violation for failing to produce the meeting minutes where the issue and an investigative report were discussed.”, “alj_quote”: “From the evidence presented, and Mr. Lewin admitted, that Respondent failed to produce a copy of the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “meeting minutes”, “records access”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does the ALJ have the authority to order the HOA to physically clear a violation from a neighbor’s lot?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if the CC&Rs grant the HOA the ‘right’ rather than the ‘duty’ to clear the lot, it remains a discretionary action.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs for the setback issue, the judge disagreed that the HOA must clear the lot. The specific language of the governing documents gave the Architectural Committee the ‘right’ to clear the lot, which the judge interpreted as discretionary.”, “alj_quote”: “However, the tribunal disagrees with Petitioner that Respondent must clear the lot. Section H of the Declaration merely states that the Architectural Committee ‘shall have the right to clear such lot’. Thus, it is still within the Architectural Committee’s discretion to act on that right.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “remedies”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof in an HOA administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the complaint bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated the community documents or statutes. The standard is a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the contention is more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the item F of the Declarations and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be found in violation for a neighbor’s unapproved improvements?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the HOA fails to enforce setback requirements against unapproved improvements.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found the Board in violation of the Declaration (setback rules) because the neighbor never submitted a request for the improvements, the improvements did not comply with setbacks, and the Board failed to enforce the requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner has met the burden of proof in demonstrating that the Board was in violation of Section F of the Declaration and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs (Section F)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural control”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Do HOA directors have the right to inspect association records?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites the Association Bylaws which grant every Director the absolute right to inspect all books, records, documents, and physical properties of the Association.”, “alj_quote”: “Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.”, “legal_basis”: “Association Bylaws Article 11.3”, “topic_tags”: [ “board members”, “records inspection”, “bylaws” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H015-REL”, “case_title”: “Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb v. Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association”, “decision_date”: “2024-01-03”, “alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee reimbursed?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the petition is granted.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, if a homeowner prevails in their petition against the association, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the respondent (HOA) to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fee.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “What is the timeline for an HOA to provide records after a homeowner requests them?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies of records.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute requires that an association make financial and other records reasonably available for examination. When a member requests to examine or purchase copies of records, the association must comply within ten business days.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records … the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA refuse to provide meeting minutes by claiming other documents regarding a specific issue don’t exist?”, “short_answer”: “No, even if specific architectural files don’t exist, the HOA must still provide related meeting minutes if requested.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, while the HOA claimed no documents existed regarding a specific architectural submission (because none was made), they were still found in violation for failing to produce the meeting minutes where the issue and an investigative report were discussed.”, “alj_quote”: “From the evidence presented, and Mr. Lewin admitted, that Respondent failed to produce a copy of the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “meeting minutes”, “records access”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does the ALJ have the authority to order the HOA to physically clear a violation from a neighbor’s lot?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if the CC&Rs grant the HOA the ‘right’ rather than the ‘duty’ to clear the lot, it remains a discretionary action.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs for the setback issue, the judge disagreed that the HOA must clear the lot. The specific language of the governing documents gave the Architectural Committee the ‘right’ to clear the lot, which the judge interpreted as discretionary.”, “alj_quote”: “However, the tribunal disagrees with Petitioner that Respondent must clear the lot. Section H of the Declaration merely states that the Architectural Committee ‘shall have the right to clear such lot’. Thus, it is still within the Architectural Committee’s discretion to act on that right.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “remedies”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof in an HOA administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the complaint bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated the community documents or statutes. The standard is a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the contention is more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the item F of the Declarations and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be found in violation for a neighbor’s unapproved improvements?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the HOA fails to enforce setback requirements against unapproved improvements.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found the Board in violation of the Declaration (setback rules) because the neighbor never submitted a request for the improvements, the improvements did not comply with setbacks, and the Board failed to enforce the requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner has met the burden of proof in demonstrating that the Board was in violation of Section F of the Declaration and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs (Section F)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural control”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Do HOA directors have the right to inspect association records?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites the Association Bylaws which grant every Director the absolute right to inspect all books, records, documents, and physical properties of the Association.”, “alj_quote”: “Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.”, “legal_basis”: “Association Bylaws Article 11.3”, “topic_tags”: [ “board members”, “records inspection”, “bylaws” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Teri S. Morcomb (petitioner)
    Lot 8 owner, testified
  • J. Ted Morcomb (petitioner)
    Lot 8 owner
  • Jeffrey T. Brei (petitioner attorney)
  • Tracy Allen Bogardis (witness)
    Civil Engineer
    Testified regarding drainage/hydrology

Respondent Side

  • Phillip Brown (HOA attorney)
  • Kelly Oetinger (HOA attorney)
  • Robert Leuen (board president)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Testified
  • Marcella Bernadette Aguilar (witness)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Lot 9 owner, testified
  • Abel Sodto (lot owner)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Lot 9 owner, former Board/ARC member, subject of violation
  • Clint Stoddard (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Investigator
  • Benny Medina (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Investigator, former president
  • Joseph D. Martino (ARC member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Former Architectural Committee Head
  • Chris Stler (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Vice President of HOA
  • Yvon Posche (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Secretary of HOA
  • Steve Brockam (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Board Director
  • Perry Terren (ARC chair)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    ARC Chairman and Board Director
  • Jeremy Thompson (law clerk)
    HOA Attorney's office
  • Mike Shupe (former HOA attorney)

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Tim Ross (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Former board/investigator, criticized current board actions
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE

Schafer, Kevin W. & Lawton, Patricia A. v. Sycamore Springs

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-01-01
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome Petitioners prevailed on both filed issues: the Respondent's conditional approval of the flagpole violated CC&Rs and statute, and the Violation Notice regarding the building envelope was improper as Petitioners were found to be in compliance (17,451 sq ft vs. 22,000 sq ft maximum). Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $1,000 filing fee. Request for civil penalties was denied.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton Counsel Craig L. Cline
Respondent Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel Edith I. Rudder & Eden G. Cohen

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(B) & CC&Rs Design Guidelines Section II(O)
CC&Rs Design Guidelines Section III(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioners prevailed on both filed issues: the Respondent's conditional approval of the flagpole violated CC&Rs and statute, and the Violation Notice regarding the building envelope was improper as Petitioners were found to be in compliance (17,451 sq ft vs. 22,000 sq ft maximum). Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $1,000 filing fee. Request for civil penalties was denied.

Key Issues & Findings

Conditional approval of portable flagpole

Respondent conditionally approved Petitioners' DMR for a portable flagpole, but the conditions placed (limiting height, restricting mobility, and requiring placement on the side of the house) were outside the authority granted by the CC&Rs and violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808, which protects the display of the American flag in front or back yards. Petitioner sustained burden of proof.

Orders: Respondent must abide by the statute; civil penalty denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(B)
  • CC&Rs Design Guidelines Section II(O)

Violation Notice regarding Building Envelope compliance

Respondent sent a Violation Notice claiming Petitioners' building envelope was 38,000 square feet, exceeding the 22,000 square foot maximum limit defined in DG § III(A). The evidence established Petitioners' actual building envelope was 17,451 square feet, based on a superior 'boots on the ground' survey, proving no violation occurred. Petitioner sustained burden of proof.

Orders: Petitioners' building envelope did not violate the CC&Rs maximum limit; civil penalty denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Design Guidelines Section III(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: homeowner dispute, flagpole, building envelope, selective enforcement allegation, CC&R violation, statute violation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1117050.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T10:19:44 (47.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1121577.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T10:19:48 (52.0 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1122554.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T10:19:52 (46.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1128513.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T10:19:57 (40.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1128831.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T10:20:04 (149.8 KB)

This summary pertains to the administrative hearing in the matter of Schafer, Kevin W. & Lawton, Patricia A. v Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC. (Case No. 24F-H019-REL), held before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on December 7 and December 12, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The Petitioners (Schafer and Lawton), who are property owners and members of the Association, challenged the Respondent HOA on two issues raised in a September 8, 2023, petition:

  1. Flagpole Conditional Approval: Petitioners challenged the conditional approval of their portable flagpole Design Modification Request (DMR), arguing the conditions violated the community documents (CC&Rs) and Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1808(B).
  2. Building Envelope Violation: Petitioners challenged the HOA's Notice of Violation, which alleged their building envelope exceeded the 22,000 square foot maximum limit by measuring approximately 38,000 square feet. Petitioners contended the enforcement action was retaliatory due to an ongoing Superior Court lawsuit they filed against the HOA.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

Building Envelope Dispute:

The core disagreement centered on the methodology and findings of two land surveyors regarding the 22,000 square foot building envelope maximum.

  • Petitioners' Evidence: Licensed land surveyor Stephen McLain, who conducted a "boots on the ground" survey in 2020, testified that the Petitioners' building envelope was 17,451 square feet, which is well below the maximum limit.
  • Respondent's Evidence: Licensed land surveyor J.O. Teague, hired by the HOA, calculated the area including the house and the "yard to the east" to be approximately 38,000 square feet, based primarily on aerial imagery.
  • Key Legal Point: During testimony, Mr. Teague admitted he did not make a determination as to whether the building envelope had been exceeded. He clarified his role was only to establish the area measurements, not to determine compliance, particularly given potential exemptions under the 4th Amendment to the Design Guidelines concerning maintenance (e.g., removing pack rat nests or excessive weeds). Both surveyors agreed that a "boots on the ground" assessment (like McLain’s) is superior to an aerial-only survey.

Flagpole Dispute:

Petitioners challenged conditional approval stipulations that limited the flag's height, restricted placement to the "side of the house," and prohibited moving it.

  • Key Legal Point: The HOA President, Kristen Rawlette, admitted that the Management Company erred in drafting the conditional approval letter. She conceded that the restrictions on height and mobility were inappropriate, as the CC&Rs did not grant the HOA authority for such limits. Crucially, she admitted that restricting the American flag's placement to the side yard violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808, which guarantees the right to display the flag in the outdoor front or back yard.

Final Decision and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision, issued January 1, 2024, affirmed Petitioners’ petition.

  • Building Envelope Ruling: The ALJ found Petitioners sustained their burden of proof. Based on the consistent expert testimony that Petitioners’ building envelope (17,451 square feet) was below the 22,000 square foot maximum, the ALJ concluded that Petitioners did not violate the CC&Rs.
  • Flagpole Ruling: The ALJ found Petitioners sustained their burden of proof, concluding that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808.
  • Civil Penalties: Petitioners' request to levy civil penalties against the Respondent was denied. The ALJ determined the flag pole issue was a "miscommunication" and the building envelope letter was sent for the purpose of defense in the Superior Court lawsuit, not intentional retaliation.
  • Reimbursement: Respondent was ordered to **reimburse

Questions

Question

Can my HOA prohibit me from displaying the American flag in my front or back yard?

Short Answer

No. Arizona law prevents HOAs from prohibiting the outdoor display of the American flag in front or back yards, regardless of what community documents say.

Detailed Answer

The decision affirms that notwithstanding community documents, an association cannot prohibit the display of the American flag in the front or backyard. In this case, the HOA's attempt to restrict the flag to the side of the house was found to violate state statute.

Alj Quote

Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents, an association shall not prohibit the outdoor front yard or backyard display of . . . [t]he American flag.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(A)

Topic Tags

  • flags
  • federal/state rights
  • homeowner rights

Question

Can the HOA restrict the height or mobility of my flagpole if the CC&Rs don't specifically allow them to?

Short Answer

No. If the CC&Rs do not grant the authority to restrict flagpole height or mobility, the HOA cannot impose those conditions.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA violated the CC&Rs by placing conditions on a flagpole approval—specifically height limits and mobility restrictions—that were not authorized by the governing documents.

Alj Quote

Ms. Rawlette admitted the flag pole height and mobility restrictions were inappropriate because the CC&Rs do not grant Respondent authority to restrict flag poles in this manner.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • CC&Rs
  • flags

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, do I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes. If the petitioner prevails in the hearing, the judge is required to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly states that if a petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent (HOA) to pay the petitioner the filing fee required by statute.

Alj Quote

If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • prevailing party

Question

Will the judge automatically fine the HOA (civil penalties) if they are found to have violated the rules?

Short Answer

No. Civil penalties may be denied if the violation was due to miscommunication or lack of malicious intent rather than ongoing harassment.

Detailed Answer

Even though the HOA violated the statute regarding flags, the judge denied civil penalties because the violation resulted from a miscommunication by the management company rather than a malicious harassment campaign.

Alj Quote

Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of civil penalties. The flag pole issue was not an ongoing repetitive harassment campaign, rather, it was miscommunication between the Management Company and Respondent.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • civil penalties
  • fines
  • harassment

Question

In a dispute over land measurements (like a building envelope), is an aerial survey or an in-person survey better?

Short Answer

An in-person ('boots on the ground') survey is considered superior to an aerial-only survey.

Detailed Answer

When determining if a homeowner exceeded a building envelope, the ALJ found that an in-person survey was more reliable than an analysis based solely on aerial imagery.

Alj Quote

Mr. McLain and Mr. Teague agreed Mr. McLain’s “boots on the ground” survey is superior to an aerial only survey.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standards

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • property disputes
  • surveys

Question

Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the HOA violated the statute or documents by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that the party bringing the case bears the burden of proof. This means the homeowner must show that their claims are more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

What types of disputes can the Arizona Department of Real Estate hear?

Short Answer

Disputes between owners and associations concerning violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Detailed Answer

The Department has jurisdiction to hear petitions from owners or associations regarding violations of CC&Rs or state statutes, provided the proper filing procedures are followed.

Alj Quote

The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • ADRE authority

Case

Docket No
24F-H019-REL
Case Title
Schafer, Kevin W. & Lawton, Patricia A. v Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.
Decision Date
2024-01-01
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA prohibit me from displaying the American flag in my front or back yard?

Short Answer

No. Arizona law prevents HOAs from prohibiting the outdoor display of the American flag in front or back yards, regardless of what community documents say.

Detailed Answer

The decision affirms that notwithstanding community documents, an association cannot prohibit the display of the American flag in the front or backyard. In this case, the HOA's attempt to restrict the flag to the side of the house was found to violate state statute.

Alj Quote

Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents, an association shall not prohibit the outdoor front yard or backyard display of . . . [t]he American flag.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(A)

Topic Tags

  • flags
  • federal/state rights
  • homeowner rights

Question

Can the HOA restrict the height or mobility of my flagpole if the CC&Rs don't specifically allow them to?

Short Answer

No. If the CC&Rs do not grant the authority to restrict flagpole height or mobility, the HOA cannot impose those conditions.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA violated the CC&Rs by placing conditions on a flagpole approval—specifically height limits and mobility restrictions—that were not authorized by the governing documents.

Alj Quote

Ms. Rawlette admitted the flag pole height and mobility restrictions were inappropriate because the CC&Rs do not grant Respondent authority to restrict flag poles in this manner.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • CC&Rs
  • flags

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, do I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes. If the petitioner prevails in the hearing, the judge is required to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly states that if a petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent (HOA) to pay the petitioner the filing fee required by statute.

Alj Quote

If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • prevailing party

Question

Will the judge automatically fine the HOA (civil penalties) if they are found to have violated the rules?

Short Answer

No. Civil penalties may be denied if the violation was due to miscommunication or lack of malicious intent rather than ongoing harassment.

Detailed Answer

Even though the HOA violated the statute regarding flags, the judge denied civil penalties because the violation resulted from a miscommunication by the management company rather than a malicious harassment campaign.

Alj Quote

Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of civil penalties. The flag pole issue was not an ongoing repetitive harassment campaign, rather, it was miscommunication between the Management Company and Respondent.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • civil penalties
  • fines
  • harassment

Question

In a dispute over land measurements (like a building envelope), is an aerial survey or an in-person survey better?

Short Answer

An in-person ('boots on the ground') survey is considered superior to an aerial-only survey.

Detailed Answer

When determining if a homeowner exceeded a building envelope, the ALJ found that an in-person survey was more reliable than an analysis based solely on aerial imagery.

Alj Quote

Mr. McLain and Mr. Teague agreed Mr. McLain’s “boots on the ground” survey is superior to an aerial only survey.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standards

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • property disputes
  • surveys

Question

Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the HOA violated the statute or documents by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that the party bringing the case bears the burden of proof. This means the homeowner must show that their claims are more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

What types of disputes can the Arizona Department of Real Estate hear?

Short Answer

Disputes between owners and associations concerning violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Detailed Answer

The Department has jurisdiction to hear petitions from owners or associations regarding violations of CC&Rs or state statutes, provided the proper filing procedures are followed.

Alj Quote

The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • ADRE authority

Case

Docket No
24F-H019-REL
Case Title
Schafer, Kevin W. & Lawton, Patricia A. v Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.
Decision Date
2024-01-01
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Schafer, Kevin W. (petitioner)
  • Lawton, Patricia A. (petitioner/witness)
  • Cline, Craig L. (petitioner attorney)
    Udall Law
  • Mlan, Steven Wallace (witness/surveyor)
    Tucson Surveying and Mapping
    Expert witness for Petitioners

Respondent Side

  • Rudder, Edith I. (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen
  • Cohen, Eden G. (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen
  • Rowlette, Kristen (board member/witness)
    Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.
    HOA President
  • Leech, Herbert (board member/witness)
    Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.
    HOA Vice President
  • Teague, J.O. (witness/surveyor)
    Southern Arizona Land Survey Associates
    Expert witness for Respondent
  • Jennifer (property manager)
    Mission Management
    Sent conditional flag approval letter

Neutral Parties

  • Del Vecchio, Brian (ALJ)
    OAH
    ALJ for December 7 & 12 hearings and final decision
  • Eigenheer, Tammy L. (ALJ)
    OAH
    Signed November 27, 2023 Order
  • Jacio (ALJ)
    OAH
    Identified as ALJ on December 7, 2023
  • Nicolson, Susan (ADRE commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Hansen, A. (ADRE official)
    ADRE
  • Nunez, V. (ADRE official)
    ADRE
  • Jones, D. (ADRE official)
    ADRE
  • Abril, L. (ADRE official)
    ADRE

Other Participants

  • Andrews, Tom (former board member)
    Mentioned in board minutes and testimony regarding past ACC actions
  • Tantis, Pam (former board member)
    Mentioned in board minutes
  • Bloodcot, GMA (resident)
    Recipient of email regarding flag rules

John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H013-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-12-19
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the Petitioner's petition, finding the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide requested financial records (check registers) within the mandated ten business days. The request for civil penalties was denied, but the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust Counsel —
Respondent Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the Petitioner's petition, finding the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide requested financial records (check registers) within the mandated ten business days. The request for civil penalties was denied, but the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent's actions warranted the issuance of civil penalties.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide association financial records (check registers) within 10 business days

Respondent failed to provide the requested check registers within the ten business day statutory requirement for requests made on December 1, 2022, and July 26, 2023. The first request was fulfilled on April 6, 2023, and the second on November 21, 2023.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the petition, concluded Respondent violated ARS § 33-1805, and ordered Respondent to reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Financial Records, Check Register, Timeliness Violation, Civil Penalties Denied
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H013-REL Decision – 1115590.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T10:04:33 (57.6 KB)

24F-H013-REL Decision – 1125702.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T10:04:41 (127.1 KB)

This summary details the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing in the matter of John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (HOA), Docket No. 24F-H013-REL, held on November 29, 2023.

Key Facts and Legal Issue

The case addressed whether the Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805 by failing to provide association financial records, specifically check registers, within the required ten business days. The Petitioner, represented by John Krahn, filed a petition alleging violations stemming from two requests:

  1. December 1, 2022, Request: For the November 2022 check register, which was not fulfilled until April 13, 2023.
  2. July 26, 2023, Request: For January through July 2023 check registers, which was not fulfilled until November 21, 2023.

The HOA initially denied the claim, asserting that "all documents are available on the portal".

Hearing Arguments

Petitioner (Krahn) argued:

  • The check register is a recognized financial record that must be provided upon request.
  • The Respondent repeatedly missed the 10-business-day statutory deadline.
  • The HOA made false claims regarding the documents' availability on the online portal and imposed unwarranted restrictions, such as requiring future requests to be sent solely via US mail, indicating bad faith and punitive action.
  • Petitioner presented evidence of prior rulings against the HOA to establish a pattern of recurrent misconduct, justifying a request for a civil penalty.

Respondent (Gauer) argued:

  • The HOA President, Steve Gauer, admitted under oath that the association was "remiss in responding in the ten days".
  • Mr. Gauer testified that the Board was now attempting to correct past mistakes and ensure compliance, noting that the check registers were uploaded to the portal on November 21, 2023 (eight days before the hearing).
  • The Respondent did not present evidence to counter the core accusation of statutory non-compliance.

Outcome and Legal Decision

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brian Del Vecchio issued a decision on December 19, 2023:

  1. Violation of Statute Affirmed: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner sustained the burden of proof, finding that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 because both document requests were fulfilled beyond the ten business day statutory requirement.
  2. Civil Penalty Denied: The Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty was denied, as the ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of penalties.
  3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).
  4. Compliance Order: The Petitioner's petition was affirmed. The ALJ may order a party to abide by the statute at issue.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H013-REL”, “case_title”: “John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust v Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-12-19”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Is a check register considered an official financial record that an HOA must provide upon request?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The decision confirms that check registers are undisputed financial records under Arizona law.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that a check register qualifies as a financial record. Consequently, homeowners are entitled to review these documents when requested under A.R.S. § 33-1805.”, “alj_quote”: “It was undisputed that a check register is a financial record within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Thus, Mr. Krahn was entitled to the requested financial record.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “financial records”, “check register” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill my request to inspect records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute mandates a specific timeframe for HOAs to comply with record requests. Failure to provide access within ten business days constitutes a violation of the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “records request”, “compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee just to review the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA can charge for copies (up to fifteen cents per page), they are explicitly prohibited from charging a fee for the act of making materials available for a member’s review.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review… An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “records request”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA eventually provides the records months later, is it still a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Providing records after the ten-business-day deadline is considered a violation of the statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA fulfills the request eventually, missing the ten-day statutory window establishes a violation. In this case, delays of several months were deemed violations despite the records ultimately being provided.”, “alj_quote”: “Both requests were fulfilled beyond the ten business day statutory requirement. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s conduct… was in violation of the charged provision of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “compliance”, “deadlines”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the judge must order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “Reimbursement of the filing fee is mandatory under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A) when the homeowner prevails in the hearing.”, “alj_quote”: “If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “legal costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the judge automatically fine the HOA (civil penalties) if they are found in violation?”, “short_answer”: “No. Civil penalties are not automatic; the homeowner must provide sufficient evidence that the HOA’s actions warrant them.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the judge has the authority to levy civil penalties for each violation, they may deny them if the petitioner fails to provide sufficient evidence justifying such penalties, even if a statutory violation is proven.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of civil penalties… Thus, civil penalties ought to be denied.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalties”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “The party bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “procedure”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA simply tell me the records are on an online portal if they aren’t actually there?”, “short_answer”: “No. Incorrectly stating records are on a portal does not satisfy the requirement if the records are not actually available.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA claimed records were available online, but the homeowner proved they were not. The ALJ found the HOA in violation for failing to provide the records within the statutory time, regardless of the portal claims.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent… stated he must submit a written request by certified mail and reiterated the financial documents were available through the online portal. At the time, the check registers were not available through the online portal… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s conduct… was in violation”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “online portal”, “access to records”, “bad faith” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H013-REL”, “case_title”: “John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust v Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-12-19”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Is a check register considered an official financial record that an HOA must provide upon request?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The decision confirms that check registers are undisputed financial records under Arizona law.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that a check register qualifies as a financial record. Consequently, homeowners are entitled to review these documents when requested under A.R.S. § 33-1805.”, “alj_quote”: “It was undisputed that a check register is a financial record within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Thus, Mr. Krahn was entitled to the requested financial record.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “financial records”, “check register” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill my request to inspect records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute mandates a specific timeframe for HOAs to comply with record requests. Failure to provide access within ten business days constitutes a violation of the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “records request”, “compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee just to review the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA can charge for copies (up to fifteen cents per page), they are explicitly prohibited from charging a fee for the act of making materials available for a member’s review.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review… An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “records request”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA eventually provides the records months later, is it still a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Providing records after the ten-business-day deadline is considered a violation of the statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA fulfills the request eventually, missing the ten-day statutory window establishes a violation. In this case, delays of several months were deemed violations despite the records ultimately being provided.”, “alj_quote”: “Both requests were fulfilled beyond the ten business day statutory requirement. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s conduct… was in violation of the charged provision of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “compliance”, “deadlines”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the judge must order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “Reimbursement of the filing fee is mandatory under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A) when the homeowner prevails in the hearing.”, “alj_quote”: “If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “legal costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the judge automatically fine the HOA (civil penalties) if they are found in violation?”, “short_answer”: “No. Civil penalties are not automatic; the homeowner must provide sufficient evidence that the HOA’s actions warrant them.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the judge has the authority to levy civil penalties for each violation, they may deny them if the petitioner fails to provide sufficient evidence justifying such penalties, even if a statutory violation is proven.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of civil penalties… Thus, civil penalties ought to be denied.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalties”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “The party bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “procedure”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA simply tell me the records are on an online portal if they aren’t actually there?”, “short_answer”: “No. Incorrectly stating records are on a portal does not satisfy the requirement if the records are not actually available.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA claimed records were available online, but the homeowner proved they were not. The ALJ found the HOA in violation for failing to provide the records within the statutory time, regardless of the portal claims.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent… stated he must submit a written request by certified mail and reiterated the financial documents were available through the online portal. At the time, the check registers were not available through the online portal… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s conduct… was in violation”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “online portal”, “access to records”, “bad faith” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John R Krahn (petitioner)
    John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust
    Trustee and Hearing Representative for Petitioner
  • Janet Krahn (petitioner)
    John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust

Respondent Side

  • Steve Gower (HOA president)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Respondent representative at hearing
  • Kurt Meister (board member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Former Board President who filed initial response
  • Melissa Jordan (property manager)
    Ogden Community Management
    Former Community Manager who handled early communication (also referred to as 'Melissa')
  • Dan Francom (HOA attorney)
    Attorney for HOA (Tonto Forest Estates)
  • Barbara (property manager)
    Ogden Community Management
    Current Community Manager (referred to by first name only)
  • Ken (board member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Board member (referred to by first name only)
  • Todd (board member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Board member (referred to by first name only)
  • Jean (former board member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Former board member (referred to by first name only)

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge for the hearing and decision
  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge who signed the initial Order
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • Diane Mahowski (ALJ)
    OAH
    Referenced in prior ALJ ruling cited as precedent
  • Lang (ALJ)
    OAH
    Referenced in prior ALJ ruling cited as precedent (last name only)

Other Participants

  • Michael Holland (party)
    Referenced as a party in a prior ADR dispute regarding records
  • Dennis Lair (HOA law advocate)
    Arizona Homeowners Coalition
    Referenced expert/advocate

SAMEUL T. PAPARAZZO v. CORONADO RANCH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H011-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-22
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to show the Respondent violated the open meeting statute (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)). The Board provided open meetings where the management contract discussions and votes occurred, including allowing the Petitioner and other homeowners to comment.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Samuel T. Paparazzo Counsel —
Respondent Coronado Ranch Community Association Counsel Ashley Turner

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to show the Respondent violated the open meeting statute (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)). The Board provided open meetings where the management contract discussions and votes occurred, including allowing the Petitioner and other homeowners to comment.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of the open meeting statute regarding entering into a contract with a new Community Association Management Company.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by canceling the existing community management contract and entering a contract with a new company (Haywood Realty & Investment, Inc.) without allowing open discussion, member comment, motion, and a vote regarding the change and the acquisition of Requests for Proposals (RFPs).

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meetings, Management Contract, Request for Proposals, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARS 33-1804(A)

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H011-REL Decision – 1116173.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:15:21 (111.6 KB)

This summary pertains to the hearing in the matter of Samuel T. Paparazzo versus Coronado Ranch Community Association (Docket No. 24F-H011-REL), held on November 13, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner, Samuel T. Paparazzo, alleged that the Coronado Ranch Community Association (Respondent) violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) § 33-1804(A)—the planned community open meetings statute—by "entering into a contract with a new Community Association Management Company". Specifically, the Petitioner argued that the Board failed to allow for open discussion and member comment, and did not properly put forth a motion and vote, both when obtaining requests for proposals (RFPs) and when entering into the new contract with Haywood Realty & Investment, Inc. on August 10, 2023. The Petitioner testified that the approved meeting minutes did not reflect a motion and vote for either action.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that the burden of proof rested upon the Petitioner to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner, who attended all board meetings, asserted that there was no formal discussion, motion, or vote recorded for the key steps (RFPs and contract execution) required under ARS § 33-1804(A). He conceded that he was given an opportunity to speak at the crucial August 2023 meeting, but claimed that the only motion put forward and voted upon was to terminate the previous manager (RCP), not to hire Haywood.

Respondent's Argument: Ashley Turner, counsel for the Association, argued that the Association did not violate the statute. Kim Jackson, Board Treasurer, testified that management issues arose due to financial errors (including a $23,000 double payment). She testified that RFPs were obtained by individual board members, discussed, and made available to the community at the open November 2022 meeting and subsequent meetings.

Ms. Jackson credibly testified that the final decision occurred at the August 2023 open meeting after a "lengthy" discussion. At this meeting, both the termination of the old management company and the hiring of Haywood were discussed. The Petitioner was given 10 minutes to speak virtually. Ms. Jackson testified that a unanimous vote was taken to terminate the previous contract and hire Haywood, and that the termination notice detailing the new hiring was read aloud to attendees. She clarified that the lack of reference to the hiring motion in the August minutes was due to the secretary's inadvertent omission.

Legal Points and Outcome

The core legal contention revolved around whether the Association adhered to the requirement that formal action be taken only after discussion and member comment during an open meeting. The ALJ found the testimony of Ms. Jackson regarding the open discussion, member comments (including the Petitioner’s 10 minutes), and the unanimous vote at the August 2023 meeting to be credible.

The ALJ concluded that the credible evidence established that the issues regarding termination, RFPs, and entering into the new contract were discussed and voted on after a motion and member comment.

The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARS § 33-1804(A). Consequently, the Petition was dismissed.

Select all sources

No emoji found

Loading

24F-H011-REL

2 sources

These sources document an administrative hearing regarding a dispute between Samuel T. Paparazzo and the Coronado Ranch Community Association over alleged open meeting violations. The petitioner contended that the board hired a new management company without proper public discussion, member input, or a formal vote as required by Arizona law. In response, the board treasurer testified that the transition was discussed across multiple open sessions and that the final decision was made during a meeting where the petitioner himself provided verbal testimony. Evidence showed that while the official meeting minutes were occasionally incomplete, the board had made significant efforts to inform homeowners through Facebook and email. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the association provided sufficient opportunity for member participation before executing the new contract.

What was the final outcome of the HOA dispute hearing?
How did the treasurer defend the board’s decision-making process?
Explain the member’s specific complaints about the new contract.

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 3:35 PM

2 sources

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Select all sources

No emoji found

Loading

24F-H011-REL

2 sources

These sources document an administrative hearing regarding a dispute between Samuel T. Paparazzo and the Coronado Ranch Community Association over alleged open meeting violations. The petitioner contended that the board hired a new management company without proper public discussion, member input, or a formal vote as required by Arizona law. In response, the board treasurer testified that the transition was discussed across multiple open sessions and that the final decision was made during a meeting where the petitioner himself provided verbal testimony. Evidence showed that while the official meeting minutes were occasionally incomplete, the board had made significant efforts to inform homeowners through Facebook and email. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the association provided sufficient opportunity for member participation before executing the new contract.

What was the final outcome of the HOA dispute hearing?
How did the treasurer defend the board’s decision-making process?
Explain the member’s specific complaints about the new contract.

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 3:35 PM

2 sources

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Samuel T. Paparazzo (petitioner)
    Also appeared as Samuel Gene Everzo; testified on his own behalf.

Respondent Side

  • Ashley Turner (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    Counsel for Coronado Ranch Community Association.
  • Kimberly Jackson (board member/treasurer)
    Coronado Ranch Community Association Board
    Appeared as a witness; sometimes referred to as Jim Jackson.
  • Sheree (board member)
    Coronado Ranch Community Association Board
    Director who obtained RFPs.
  • Michelle (board member)
    Coronado Ranch Community Association Board
    Director who obtained RFPs.
  • Cathy / Cassie (board member/secretary)
    Coronado Ranch Community Association Board
    Board member who read documents aloud; secretary who inadvertently left information off minutes.

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Also identified as Sandra Vanella.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission.
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission.
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission.
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission.

Other Participants

  • Erica Martinson (attorney)
    prison law
  • Tony Rosetti (lawist)
    Spelled R O SS KTI.
  • Miss Lee (potential witness)
    Did not testify.
  • Rob Bishop (community manager)
    Renaissance Community Partners
    Son of owner of previous management company; facilitated virtual mic for Petitioner.
  • Tamara Lens (community assistant)
    Renaissance Community Partners
    Sent official meeting notice email.
  • Linda Palmer (homeowner)
    Coronado Ranch Community Association member
    Commented at the meeting.

ROBERT J. GARING v. PRESCOTT LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H012-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-20
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the Association's voting system constituted permissible delegate voting, which is not prohibited by the Planned Community Act. The prohibition in ARS § 33-1812 against proxy voting applies only when votes are “allocated to a unit,” which is not the case for Director elections where votes are allocated to the Neighborhood Voting Members as delegates.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert J. Garing Counsel —
Respondent Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc. Counsel Adrianne A. Speas, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the Association's voting system constituted permissible delegate voting, which is not prohibited by the Planned Community Act. The prohibition in ARS § 33-1812 against proxy voting applies only when votes are “allocated to a unit,” which is not the case for Director elections where votes are allocated to the Neighborhood Voting Members as delegates.

Why this result: Petitioner did not sustain the burden of proving a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Respondent is in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812

Petitioner alleged that the Association's use of a voting delegate system, where Voting Members cast votes for unit owners who did not respond to neighborhood polls, constitutes proxy voting prohibited under ARS § 33-1812.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Planned Community Act, Delegate Voting, Proxy Voting, Board Election, ARS 33-1812, Nonprofit Corporation Act
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-211(B)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H012-REL Decision – 1115010.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:15:30 (162.7 KB)

This legal case summary details the hearing regarding the alleged violation of Arizona law concerning proxy voting within a planned community association.

Key Facts and Parties

The hearing was held on November 9, 2023, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark. The matter involved Robert J. Garing (Petitioner), appearing on his own behalf, against Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc. (Respondent), a nonprofit homeowners' association.

The Association utilizes a neighborhood delegate voting system. Unit owners elect a Voting Member (and an alternate) for their respective neighborhoods. The Voting Members then cast all votes for the election of the Association's Board of Directors. Prior to the election, unit owners are polled. The governing documents stipulate that the Voting Member "shall cast the votes attributable to any Units not responding to the poll in his or her discretion".

Main Issue

The underlying issue was whether the Respondent was in violation of Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) § 33-1812 of the Planned Communities Act. Petitioner alleged that when Voting Members vote on behalf of units whose owners did not return a poll, this practice is a form of proxy voting, which ARS § 33-1812 prohibits.

Key Arguments

  1. Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner argued that the delegate voting system is fundamentally a proxy system. He asserted that ARS § 33-1812 contains "clear, unambiguous" language prohibiting all proxies after the period of declarant control, and this special statute supersedes the general Nonprofit Corporations Act. Petitioner presented evidence showing that Voting Members exercised their discretion to cast zero votes for candidates who had received votes from polled unit owners, demonstrating a lack of correlation between member preference and the delegate’s vote.
  2. Respondent's Argument: Respondent argued that its system constitutes permissible delegate voting, which is distinct from the prohibited proxy voting. Testimony established that Voting Members are elected by the unit owners, not appointed like proxies, and cast votes by ballot, not proxy. Counsel for Respondent argued that the legislature chose only to prohibit proxy voting in the Planned Communities Act, and did not bar the use of delegate voting, which is allowed under the Nonprofit Corporation Act.

Legal Focus and Outcome

The ALJ focused on the language of ARS § 33-1812(A)(7), which prohibits casting "votes allocated to a unit… pursuant to a proxy".

The ALJ issued a decision denying the petition. The conclusion was that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof. The key legal determination was that the legislature "made no such bar regarding delegate voting as a form of HOA governance" within the Planned Community Act.

The ALJ reasoned that for the election of Board Directors, there are no votes "allocated to a unit"; instead, "all votes are allocated to Neighborhood Voting Members as delegates" under the Association's governing documents. Since the statute prohibits proxy voting only when votes are allocated to a unit, the Association's delegate system for director elections did not violate ARS § 33-1812.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H012-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert J. Garing v. Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2023-11-20”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Is a delegate voting system considered the same as illegal proxy voting in Arizona HOAs?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ determined that a delegate voting system is distinct from proxy voting and is not prohibited by the Planned Communities Act.”, “detailed_answer”: “While Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1812) explicitly prohibits proxy voting in planned communities after the period of declarant control, the Administrative Law Judge found that the legislature did not prohibit ‘delegate voting.’ In a delegate system, votes are allocated to the elected Voting Member (delegate) rather than directly to the individual unit for that specific election, meaning the prohibition on casting unit votes via proxy does not apply.”, “alj_quote”: “Here, the relevant and credible evidence of record establishes that while proxy voting is explicitly prohibited under the Planned Community Act, the legislature made no such bar regarding delegate voting as a form of HOA governance.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “proxies”, “delegates”, “elections” ] }, { “question”: “Can my HOA allow neighborhood representatives to vote on behalf of owners?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the governing documents establish a delegate system where votes are allocated to the representative rather than the unit.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision upholds a system where neighborhoods elect ‘Voting Members’ who then cast votes for the Board of Directors. The ALJ reasoned that the Planned Communities Act prohibits proxy voting only when votes are ‘allocated to a unit.’ Under the delegate system described, the votes for directors were allocated to the Voting Members, not the individual units.”, “alj_quote”: “The Planned Community Act does not regulate who is authorized to vote in planned community elections. Instead, it prohibits proxy voting when votes have been ‘allocated to a unit.’ Regarding the election of Board Directors, there are no votes ‘allocated to a unit.’ Instead, all votes are allocated to Neighborhood Voting Members as delegates…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “board of directors”, “governing documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can neighborhood delegates cast votes for homeowners who did not participate in the poll?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, provided the governing documents allow the delegate to cast unreceived votes at their discretion.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that Voting Members in this case had the discretion to cast votes for units that did not respond to the neighborhood poll. This practice was found not to violate the statutory prohibition on proxies because it was part of a valid delegate voting structure.”, “alj_quote”: “Voting Members do not have complete discretion when casting votes. They only have discretion to cast unreceived votes.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “discretionary voting”, “absentee ballots” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the statute. The standard used is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the homeowner must show that their contention is more likely true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “administrative hearing”, “legal procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Nonprofit Corporation Act apply to HOAs in Arizona?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, unless the Planned Communities Act specifically exempts the HOA from a provision.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ reasoned that because the legislature specifically exempted planned communities from some parts of the Nonprofit Act but was silent on delegate voting, the Nonprofit Act’s allowance of such systems remains relevant context for HOA governance.”, “alj_quote”: “In fact, the legislature specifically exempted planned communities from certain enumerated provisions of the Nonprofit Act, but did not address delegate voting within the Planned Community Act in any capacity.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 10-3101 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “corporate law”, “statutory interpretation”, “nonprofit act” ] }, { “question”: “If I disagree with the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, what can I do?”, “short_answer”: “You can appeal to the Superior Court within 35 days of being served the order.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision is binding, but parties have the right to seek judicial review. This appeal must be filed with the Superior Court within a strict 35-day window following the service of the order.”, “alj_quote”: “A party wishing to appeal this order must seek judicial review as prescribed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H) and title 12, chapter 7, article 6. Any such appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date when a copy of this order was served upon the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H); A.R.S. § 12-904(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “appeals”, “judicial review”, “superior court” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H012-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert J. Garing v. Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2023-11-20”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Is a delegate voting system considered the same as illegal proxy voting in Arizona HOAs?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ determined that a delegate voting system is distinct from proxy voting and is not prohibited by the Planned Communities Act.”, “detailed_answer”: “While Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1812) explicitly prohibits proxy voting in planned communities after the period of declarant control, the Administrative Law Judge found that the legislature did not prohibit ‘delegate voting.’ In a delegate system, votes are allocated to the elected Voting Member (delegate) rather than directly to the individual unit for that specific election, meaning the prohibition on casting unit votes via proxy does not apply.”, “alj_quote”: “Here, the relevant and credible evidence of record establishes that while proxy voting is explicitly prohibited under the Planned Community Act, the legislature made no such bar regarding delegate voting as a form of HOA governance.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “proxies”, “delegates”, “elections” ] }, { “question”: “Can my HOA allow neighborhood representatives to vote on behalf of owners?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the governing documents establish a delegate system where votes are allocated to the representative rather than the unit.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision upholds a system where neighborhoods elect ‘Voting Members’ who then cast votes for the Board of Directors. The ALJ reasoned that the Planned Communities Act prohibits proxy voting only when votes are ‘allocated to a unit.’ Under the delegate system described, the votes for directors were allocated to the Voting Members, not the individual units.”, “alj_quote”: “The Planned Community Act does not regulate who is authorized to vote in planned community elections. Instead, it prohibits proxy voting when votes have been ‘allocated to a unit.’ Regarding the election of Board Directors, there are no votes ‘allocated to a unit.’ Instead, all votes are allocated to Neighborhood Voting Members as delegates…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “board of directors”, “governing documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can neighborhood delegates cast votes for homeowners who did not participate in the poll?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, provided the governing documents allow the delegate to cast unreceived votes at their discretion.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that Voting Members in this case had the discretion to cast votes for units that did not respond to the neighborhood poll. This practice was found not to violate the statutory prohibition on proxies because it was part of a valid delegate voting structure.”, “alj_quote”: “Voting Members do not have complete discretion when casting votes. They only have discretion to cast unreceived votes.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “discretionary voting”, “absentee ballots” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the statute. The standard used is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the homeowner must show that their contention is more likely true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “administrative hearing”, “legal procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Nonprofit Corporation Act apply to HOAs in Arizona?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, unless the Planned Communities Act specifically exempts the HOA from a provision.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ reasoned that because the legislature specifically exempted planned communities from some parts of the Nonprofit Act but was silent on delegate voting, the Nonprofit Act’s allowance of such systems remains relevant context for HOA governance.”, “alj_quote”: “In fact, the legislature specifically exempted planned communities from certain enumerated provisions of the Nonprofit Act, but did not address delegate voting within the Planned Community Act in any capacity.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 10-3101 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “corporate law”, “statutory interpretation”, “nonprofit act” ] }, { “question”: “If I disagree with the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, what can I do?”, “short_answer”: “You can appeal to the Superior Court within 35 days of being served the order.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision is binding, but parties have the right to seek judicial review. This appeal must be filed with the Superior Court within a strict 35-day window following the service of the order.”, “alj_quote”: “A party wishing to appeal this order must seek judicial review as prescribed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H) and title 12, chapter 7, article 6. Any such appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date when a copy of this order was served upon the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H); A.R.S. § 12-904(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “appeals”, “judicial review”, “superior court” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert J. Garing (petitioner)
    Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc. member
    Also served as alternate Voting Member for 2 years
  • James Thomas Joan (witness)
    Also listed as Jimmy Yiannis

Respondent Side

  • Adrianne A. Speas (HOA attorney)
    Krupnik & Speas, LLC
    Appeared as counsel for Respondent
  • Robert Sisley (board president; witness)
    Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc.
    Also Alternate Voting Member for Parkside; served as the association representative
  • Catherine Black (assistant community manager; witness)
    Homeco
    Homeco is the HOA management company for Respondent
  • Lynn M. Krupnik (HOA attorney)
    Krupnik & Speas, LLC
    Counsel listed for Respondent in distribution

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Final decision authority/recipient of ALJ Decision

Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H066-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-13
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated its documents. The Declaration and Rules unambiguously prohibited hard floor coverings (including vinyl) in the Petitioner's third-floor unit, and the Petitioner admitted installing the flooring without seeking approval.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sebastien Verstraet Counsel —
Respondent Monterey Ridge Condominium Association Counsel Marcus R. Martinez

Alleged Violations

Section 4.24, Declaration/Rules

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated its documents. The Declaration and Rules unambiguously prohibited hard floor coverings (including vinyl) in the Petitioner's third-floor unit, and the Petitioner admitted installing the flooring without seeking approval.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. Petitioner received the governing documents prior to closing, failed to fully read them, and failed to seek permission from the Association prior to installing the prohibited Luxury Vinyl Plank flooring.

Key Issues & Findings

Flooring Restriction for New Units

Petitioner challenged the Association's enforcement of a declaration rule prohibiting hard floor coverings (like LVP) in his third-floor unit, arguing his chosen flooring had sufficient soundproofing. The Association argued the rule was clear, unambiguous, and mandatory for enforcement.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flooring Restriction, Luxury Vinyl Plank (LVP), CCNR Enforcement, Third Floor Unit, Prior Approval
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H066-REL Decision – 1085177.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:13:28 (48.3 KB)

23F-H066-REL Decision – 1112087.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:13:33 (110.4 KB)

This summary details the proceedings, arguments, and final decision in the case of Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association (No. 23F-H066-REL), heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The core dispute was whether the Monterey Ridge Condominium Association (Respondent) violated its governing documents by enforcing a prohibition against the Petitioner, Sebastien Verstraet, who installed Luxury Vinyl Plank (LVP) flooring in his third-floor unit. The Petitioner filed the action after the Association, upon discovery of the unauthorized installation, issued a violation notice and required removal of the LVP.

The restriction at issue was Section 4.24 of the Declaration, titled "Flooring Restriction for New Units," which prohibited hard floor coverings (listing materials such as ceramic tile, natural stone, vinyl, hardwood, or laminated flooring) in all third-floor units, requiring carpet and pad instead to mitigate noise disturbance.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

The evidentiary hearing took place on October 26, 2023.

Petitioner's Position: Mr. Verstraet argued that he was unaware of the prohibition before installation, having only briefly reviewed the community documents received shortly before closing. He contended that LVP is the preferred modern flooring, significantly improves resale value, and provides soundproofing (IIC rating of 63) equal to or better than standard carpeting, rendering the rule obsolete or illogically drafted. He also noted that LVP was already permitted and installed in the kitchen, bathrooms, and laundry room of the unit. Furthermore, he did not seek prior written approval because he was unaware of the restriction.

Respondent's Position: The Association, represented by counsel, asserted its right and obligation to enforce its governing documents as written. Counsel argued that the recorded covenants were binding upon the Petitioner when he took the deed. The rule explicitly prohibits vinyl flooring in all third-floor units to address noise mitigation, a factor contemplated by the developer or subsequent amendment. The Community Manager, Robert Stein, testified that the Association followed typical enforcement procedures, and a neighbor below had complained about rolling noises emanating from the unit. The Association requested dismissal, arguing it had not violated its CC&Rs or Arizona law.

Legal Outcome and Final Decision

The ALJ issued the decision on November 13, 2023.

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated its documents or Arizona law. The decision emphasized the following legal points:

  1. Binding Nature of Documents: Although the Petitioner's points regarding LVP's aesthetic appeal and value were "valid," the Declarations and Rules are clear and unambiguous regarding the prohibition of hard floor coverings (including vinyl) in third-floor units.
  2. Failure to Seek Approval: The Petitioner admitted receiving the Declaration prior to closing, not fully reading it, and failing to seek permission to install the flooring. Had he sought approval, he likely would have been informed of the prohibition.

The ALJ ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition be DENIED. Consequently, the Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.

Questions

Question

Can I install hard flooring like vinyl or hardwood in my upper-floor condo unit?

Short Answer

Not if the CC&Rs specifically prohibit it to mitigate noise, even if the product is high quality.

Detailed Answer

If the governing documents explicitly prohibit hard floor coverings in specific units (such as second or third-floor units) to mitigate noise, the HOA can enforce this restriction regardless of the quality or sound rating of the material installed.

Alj Quote

Except for entry areas where hard floor coverings have been installed by Declarant, and except for kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas, hard floor coverings (e.g., ceramic tile, natural stone, vinyl, hardwood or laminated flooring) shall be prohibited in all other areas… and all third floor Units.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 4.24

Topic Tags

  • architectural restrictions
  • flooring
  • noise mitigation

Question

Is it a valid defense that I didn't read the CC&Rs before making a change?

Short Answer

No. If you received the documents, you are responsible for knowing the rules.

Detailed Answer

Admitting that you received the Declaration and Rules but did not read them is not a valid defense against a violation. The tribunal will likely find against a homeowner who had the opportunity to review the restrictions but failed to do so.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted in his testimony that he timely received a copy of the Declaration and Rules approximately a week prior to closing. Petitioner also admitted that he did not fully read the same… The tribunal finds that Petitioner has not met his burden.

Legal Basis

Contractual Obligation / Constructive Notice

Topic Tags

  • homeowner responsibilities
  • CC&Rs
  • ignorance of law

Question

Does my HOA have to approve a renovation if the new material is 'better' or more valuable than what is required?

Short Answer

No. Clear rules in the CC&Rs override arguments about aesthetics or resale value.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner presents valid points about the superior look or potential resale value of a prohibited improvement (like LVP flooring vs. carpet), the ALJ will enforce the clear and unambiguous language of the governing documents.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner probably had valid points about the look and potential value of LVP flooring versus carpeting, unfortunately, the Declarations and Rules are clear and unambiguous…

Legal Basis

Enforcement of Governing Documents

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • property value
  • renovations

Question

What happens if I start a renovation without asking for HOA permission first?

Short Answer

You risk violating rules you weren't aware of and may be forced to stop or reverse the work.

Detailed Answer

Skipping the approval process is risky. If a homeowner fails to seek permission, they miss the opportunity to be informed of specific prohibitions before spending money on installation.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted that he did not seek permission from the Association to install the LVP flooring, which had he done, he probably would have been informed that the Rules did not allow for the same.

Legal Basis

Architectural Review Process

Topic Tags

  • procedural requirements
  • renovations
  • violations

Question

Who has to prove their case in an HOA dispute hearing?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the governing documents or laws.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the Declarations and Association Rules.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof (ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119)

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • burden of proof
  • hearings

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard involves superior evidentiary weight that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Legal Standard of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • evidence

Question

If I lose my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

No. Reimbursement is generally denied if the petition is denied.

Detailed Answer

If the ALJ rules against the homeowner and denies the petition, the order will typically state that the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee…

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • costs
  • penalties
  • fees

Case

Docket No
23F-H066-REL
Case Title
Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-11-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I install hard flooring like vinyl or hardwood in my upper-floor condo unit?

Short Answer

Not if the CC&Rs specifically prohibit it to mitigate noise, even if the product is high quality.

Detailed Answer

If the governing documents explicitly prohibit hard floor coverings in specific units (such as second or third-floor units) to mitigate noise, the HOA can enforce this restriction regardless of the quality or sound rating of the material installed.

Alj Quote

Except for entry areas where hard floor coverings have been installed by Declarant, and except for kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas, hard floor coverings (e.g., ceramic tile, natural stone, vinyl, hardwood or laminated flooring) shall be prohibited in all other areas… and all third floor Units.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 4.24

Topic Tags

  • architectural restrictions
  • flooring
  • noise mitigation

Question

Is it a valid defense that I didn't read the CC&Rs before making a change?

Short Answer

No. If you received the documents, you are responsible for knowing the rules.

Detailed Answer

Admitting that you received the Declaration and Rules but did not read them is not a valid defense against a violation. The tribunal will likely find against a homeowner who had the opportunity to review the restrictions but failed to do so.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted in his testimony that he timely received a copy of the Declaration and Rules approximately a week prior to closing. Petitioner also admitted that he did not fully read the same… The tribunal finds that Petitioner has not met his burden.

Legal Basis

Contractual Obligation / Constructive Notice

Topic Tags

  • homeowner responsibilities
  • CC&Rs
  • ignorance of law

Question

Does my HOA have to approve a renovation if the new material is 'better' or more valuable than what is required?

Short Answer

No. Clear rules in the CC&Rs override arguments about aesthetics or resale value.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner presents valid points about the superior look or potential resale value of a prohibited improvement (like LVP flooring vs. carpet), the ALJ will enforce the clear and unambiguous language of the governing documents.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner probably had valid points about the look and potential value of LVP flooring versus carpeting, unfortunately, the Declarations and Rules are clear and unambiguous…

Legal Basis

Enforcement of Governing Documents

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • property value
  • renovations

Question

What happens if I start a renovation without asking for HOA permission first?

Short Answer

You risk violating rules you weren't aware of and may be forced to stop or reverse the work.

Detailed Answer

Skipping the approval process is risky. If a homeowner fails to seek permission, they miss the opportunity to be informed of specific prohibitions before spending money on installation.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted that he did not seek permission from the Association to install the LVP flooring, which had he done, he probably would have been informed that the Rules did not allow for the same.

Legal Basis

Architectural Review Process

Topic Tags

  • procedural requirements
  • renovations
  • violations

Question

Who has to prove their case in an HOA dispute hearing?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the governing documents or laws.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the Declarations and Association Rules.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof (ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119)

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • burden of proof
  • hearings

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard involves superior evidentiary weight that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Legal Standard of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • evidence

Question

If I lose my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

No. Reimbursement is generally denied if the petition is denied.

Detailed Answer

If the ALJ rules against the homeowner and denies the petition, the order will typically state that the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee…

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • costs
  • penalties
  • fees

Case

Docket No
23F-H066-REL
Case Title
Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-11-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Sebastien Verstraet (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Ron Riecks (witness)
    Flooring installer for Petitioner; also referred to as Ron Reichkes

Respondent Side

  • Joshua M. Bolen (attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
  • Marcus R. Martinez (attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
  • Robert Stein (property manager)
    City Property Management
    Testified as a witness for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE

Thomas P Hommrich v. The Lakewood Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H009-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-09
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 2.1 by adopting the Residential Parking Policy. The Policy was deemed a valid clarification authorized by existing CC&R provisions (4.2(t) and 5.3).
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas P. Hommrich Counsel —
Respondent The Lakewood Community Association Counsel Quinten Cupps, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Section 2.1 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements (CC&Rs)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 2.1 by adopting the Residential Parking Policy. The Policy was deemed a valid clarification authorized by existing CC&R provisions (4.2(t) and 5.3).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the governing documents.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs Section 2.1 regarding adoption of Residential Parking Policy

Petitioner alleged that the Association's adoption of the Residential Parking Policy violated CC&Rs Section 2.1 because the policy used the unauthorized term 'Rules and Regulations' rather than 'restrictions,' thereby attempting to amend the CC&Rs without following the proper process, particularly concerning the use of government-owned property.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Parking Policy, Rules vs Restrictions, Burden of Proof, Planned Community
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H009-REL Decision – 1101544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T10:04:05 (47.0 KB)

24F-H009-REL Decision – 1111460.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T10:04:11 (102.6 KB)

This concise summary details the administrative legal hearing in the matter of Thomas P. Hommrich v The Lakewood Community Association (No. 24F-H009-REL), which convened on October 24, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The Petitioner, Thomas P. Hommrich, alleged that the Respondent, The Lakewood Community Association, violated Section 2.1 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements (CC&Rs) by adopting the Residential Parking Policy (Parking Policy). Section 2.1 governs public property (such as streets), stating that while such property is not generally subject to the Declaration, restrictions imposed upon owners regarding its use "shall be applicable at all times".

The specific dispute centered on the Association's authority to enforce on-street parking restrictions on government-owned property without formally amending the CC&Rs. Petitioner’s Request for Partial Summary Judgment regarding the policy was denied prior to the hearing.

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Argument:

Petitioner Hommrich asserted that the Parking Policy was invalid because it referred to itself as a set of "Rules and Regulations". He argued that under the CC&Rs (specifically referencing Section 5.3 and 12.2), "Rules and Regulations" (or "Association Rules") are only authorized to govern common areas. Therefore, for the Association to legally regulate parking on public streets, the restriction must be contained within a formal amendment to the Declaration, following a strict amendment process. By using "rules and regulations" instead of "restrictions," the Association unlawfully usurped the authority required to govern non-common property.

Respondent's Argument:

The Association contended that the Parking Policy was validly adopted under the authority granted in multiple CC&R sections, particularly Section 4.2(t) and Section 12.2. Section 4.2(t) grants the authority to adopt "additional parking rules and restrictions". Furthermore, Section 12.2 dictates that rules adopted by the Board shall have the "same force and effect as if they were set forth in this declaration," negating the necessity for an amendment to the CC&Rs to adopt every new rule. The Association argued the policy merely clarified existing use restrictions found in 4.2(t), and that the semantic difference emphasized by the Petitioner was irrelevant.

Legal Points and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the alleged violation of Section 2.1 by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner's assertion that the semantic difference between "rules and regulations" and "rules and restrictions" was critical was irrelevant in determining the Association's authority under Section 2.1. The Association demonstrated that the Parking Policy was passed by a majority vote in compliance with Section 5.3 and that the policy did not subvert Section 4.2(t), but rather further clarified prohibited on-street parking.

The Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof.

Final Decision:

The ALJ issued an Order dismissing Petitioner’s petition.

Questions

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over disputes regarding HOA document violations?

Short Answer

Yes, owners or associations may petition the department for hearings concerning violations of community documents.

Detailed Answer

The Department is authorized by statute to receive petitions regarding disputes between owners and associations, specifically concerning violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department and paid a filing fee as outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • dispute resolution

Question

Can an HOA enforce restrictions on public streets or government-owned property within the community?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs explicitly state that restrictions apply to owners concerning the use of such property.

Detailed Answer

Even if property is dedicated to the public, the CC&Rs can impose restrictions on owners and residents regarding their use of that property, which remain applicable at all times.

Alj Quote

Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs in pertinent part states, 'property within Lakewood which is not part of a Lot or Parcel and which is owned by or dedicated to the public or governmental entity shall not be subject to this Declaration although restrictions imposed in this Declaration upon the Owners and Residents concerning the use and maintenance of such property shall be applicable at all times.'

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 2.1

Topic Tags

  • parking
  • public streets
  • authority

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence; it is not the HOA's initial burden to disprove the claim.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • procedural
  • burden of proof

Question

What standard of evidence is used to decide HOA disputes?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard requires evidence that convinces the judge that the claim is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standard

Question

Can an HOA Board pass a parking policy without amending the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs allow the Board to adopt reasonable rules by majority vote, a policy passed in compliance with that section is valid, provided it clarifies rather than subverts the existing CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

It was undisputed Respondent passed the Parking Policy by majority vote in compliance with Section 5.3. … The Parking Policy did not subvert Section 4.2(t) nor did it contradict said policy, rather it further clarified prohibited on-street parking.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 5.3

Topic Tags

  • board authority
  • rules vs amendments

Question

Does the specific terminology 'rules' vs. 'restrictions' invalidate a policy?

Short Answer

Generally, no. Semantic differences are often considered irrelevant if the authority to regulate exists.

Detailed Answer

Arguments relying on semantic distinctions between 'rules and regulations' and 'restrictions' may fail if the Board has the clear authority to regulate the activity (e.g., parking) under the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s assertion that the semantic difference between the terms 'rules and regulations' and 'rules and restrictions' is irrelevant in determining whether Respondent had the authority under Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs to clarify Section 4.2(t).

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • legal interpretation
  • semantics

Question

What happens if a homeowner fails to meet the burden of proof?

Short Answer

The petition will be dismissed.

Detailed Answer

If the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that the HOA violated its documents, the Administrative Law Judge must dismiss the case.

Alj Quote

The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that, because Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof that Respondent committed the alleged violation, his petition must be dismissed.

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • outcome
  • dismissal

Question

How long does a party have to request a rehearing after an ALJ decision?

Short Answer

30 days.

Detailed Answer

A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • appeal
  • deadlines

Case

Docket No
24F-H009-REL
Case Title
Thomas P. Hommrich v The Lakewood Community Association
Decision Date
2023-11-09
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over disputes regarding HOA document violations?

Short Answer

Yes, owners or associations may petition the department for hearings concerning violations of community documents.

Detailed Answer

The Department is authorized by statute to receive petitions regarding disputes between owners and associations, specifically concerning violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department and paid a filing fee as outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • dispute resolution

Question

Can an HOA enforce restrictions on public streets or government-owned property within the community?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs explicitly state that restrictions apply to owners concerning the use of such property.

Detailed Answer

Even if property is dedicated to the public, the CC&Rs can impose restrictions on owners and residents regarding their use of that property, which remain applicable at all times.

Alj Quote

Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs in pertinent part states, 'property within Lakewood which is not part of a Lot or Parcel and which is owned by or dedicated to the public or governmental entity shall not be subject to this Declaration although restrictions imposed in this Declaration upon the Owners and Residents concerning the use and maintenance of such property shall be applicable at all times.'

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 2.1

Topic Tags

  • parking
  • public streets
  • authority

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence; it is not the HOA's initial burden to disprove the claim.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • procedural
  • burden of proof

Question

What standard of evidence is used to decide HOA disputes?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard requires evidence that convinces the judge that the claim is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standard

Question

Can an HOA Board pass a parking policy without amending the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs allow the Board to adopt reasonable rules by majority vote, a policy passed in compliance with that section is valid, provided it clarifies rather than subverts the existing CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

It was undisputed Respondent passed the Parking Policy by majority vote in compliance with Section 5.3. … The Parking Policy did not subvert Section 4.2(t) nor did it contradict said policy, rather it further clarified prohibited on-street parking.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 5.3

Topic Tags

  • board authority
  • rules vs amendments

Question

Does the specific terminology 'rules' vs. 'restrictions' invalidate a policy?

Short Answer

Generally, no. Semantic differences are often considered irrelevant if the authority to regulate exists.

Detailed Answer

Arguments relying on semantic distinctions between 'rules and regulations' and 'restrictions' may fail if the Board has the clear authority to regulate the activity (e.g., parking) under the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s assertion that the semantic difference between the terms 'rules and regulations' and 'rules and restrictions' is irrelevant in determining whether Respondent had the authority under Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs to clarify Section 4.2(t).

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • legal interpretation
  • semantics

Question

What happens if a homeowner fails to meet the burden of proof?

Short Answer

The petition will be dismissed.

Detailed Answer

If the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that the HOA violated its documents, the Administrative Law Judge must dismiss the case.

Alj Quote

The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that, because Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof that Respondent committed the alleged violation, his petition must be dismissed.

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • outcome
  • dismissal

Question

How long does a party have to request a rehearing after an ALJ decision?

Short Answer

30 days.

Detailed Answer

A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • appeal
  • deadlines

Case

Docket No
24F-H009-REL
Case Title
Thomas P. Hommrich v The Lakewood Community Association
Decision Date
2023-11-09
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas P. Hommrich (petitioner)
    Property owner, appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Quinten Cupps (HOA attorney)
    VIal Fotheringham, LLP
    Represented The Lakewood Community Association
  • Sandra Smith (community manager)
    Lakewood Community Association
    Witness who testified on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge for the hearing and final decision
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge who issued the October 12, 2023 Order
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Moses Thompson (Judge)
    Judge cited in precedent case (Brian Seatic v Lake Resort Condominium)

Other Participants

  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission/contact
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission/contact
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission/contact
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission/contact
  • Brian Seatic (party)
    Party in precedent case (Brian Seatic v Lake Resort Condominium) cited during the hearing

Virginia Guest v Bella Tierra Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H007-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-08
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome The petition was granted in part and denied in part. Petitioner won the claim regarding the unauthorized certified letter charges, resulting in removal of the charges and a $500.00 fee refund. Petitioner lost the claims regarding the animal restriction (chickens are banned fowl) and the failure to engage in mediation (ADR provision 9.15 was inapplicable).
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Virginia Guest Counsel —
Respondent Bella Tierra Community Association Counsel Nicholas C. S. Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 5.1, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803

Outcome Summary

The petition was granted in part and denied in part. Petitioner won the claim regarding the unauthorized certified letter charges, resulting in removal of the charges and a $500.00 fee refund. Petitioner lost the claims regarding the animal restriction (chickens are banned fowl) and the failure to engage in mediation (ADR provision 9.15 was inapplicable).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove violations of CC&Rs § 9.1.1 and CC&Rs § 9.15. Chickens are banned as birds/fowl under CC&Rs § 3.3, and the mediation clause only applies to disputes involving Declarant Parties, not general homeowner disputes.

Key Issues & Findings

Wrongfully charging costs of certified letters/appeal response as a balance forward

Petitioner alleged Respondent wrongfully forwarded the cost of sending certified letters (categorized as a 'balance forward') onto her account without authority in the CC&Rs, violating rules for imposing fines.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 of her filing fee and remove the balance forward associated with certified letter costs from her assessment.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs § 5.1
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803

Analytics Highlights

Topics: animal restriction, HOA enforcement, certified mail fee, dispute resolution, fines
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs § 9.1.1
  • CC&Rs § 3.3
  • CC&Rs § 9.15
  • CC&Rs § 5.1

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H007-REL Decision – 1095892.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:14:29 (55.6 KB)

24F-H007-REL Decision – 1111192.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:14:34 (104.5 KB)

This summary addresses the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the matter of *Virginia Guest v. Bella Tierra Community Association* (No. 24F-H007-REL), held before Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio on October 19, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issues

Virginia Guest (Petitioner), an owner in the Bella Tierra Community Association (Respondent), filed a petition alleging three main violations by the Homeowners Association (HOA):

  1. Enforcement Authority: Whether the HOA wrongfully issued violation notices for owning chickens, thereby violating CC&Rs § 9.1.1 (enforcement rights). This centered on CC&Rs § 3.3, which bans "animal, bird, fowl, poultry, reptile or livestock," except for a "reasonable number of dogs, cats, parakeets or similar household birds".
  2. Dispute Resolution: Whether the HOA violated CC&Rs § 9.15 by failing to engage in mediation regarding the dispute over animal use.
  3. Improper Fines/Fees: Whether the HOA violated CC&Rs § 5.1 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803 by charging the Petitioner a "balance forward" (totaling $16.20 at the time of the hearing) to cover the cost of certified letters sent in response to her appeal.

Key Legal Arguments

Petitioner's Arguments:

Petitioner Guest argued that the chickens were permitted because they are domestic pets similar to parakeets and therefore qualify under the exception clause of CC&Rs § 3.3. She contended that the HOA was enforcing a rule that does not exist and acting arbitrarily, violating the enforcement provision (CC&Rs § 9.1.1). Guest insisted that mediation under CC&Rs § 9.15 was required because the Declarant Party (KB Home) still controls the HOA, making the dispute a claim regarding project use against the Declarant or its agents. Finally, she argued that the $16.20 charge for certified letters was an unauthorized fine, as CC&Rs § 5.1 only permits fines for document violations *after* notice and opportunity to be heard, not for administrative costs.

Respondent's Arguments:

The HOA (represented by Nicholas Nogami, Esq.) argued that chickens are plainly classified as "birds" and "fowl" and are thus explicitly banned by CC&Rs § 3.3. The HOA's authority to enforce its governing documents was deemed legitimate under CC&Rs § 9.1.1. Regarding mediation (CC&Rs § 9.15), the HOA asserted that the section only applies to disputes involving Declarant Parties (e.g., construction defects) and not standard homeowner enforcement claims, therefore mediation was not required. The HOA maintained that the $16.20 charge was a certified letter fee, not a fine, imposed to offset costs incurred for correspondence that state law required to be certified.

Final Decision and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on November 8, 2023, denying the petition in part and granting it in part.

  1. Enforcement (Chickens): DENIED. The ALJ concluded that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the HOA violated CC&Rs § 9.1.1. The CC&Rs plainly ban birds and fowl. The ALJ ruled that chickens are both birds and fowl, and while the Petitioner subjectively believes they are pets similar to parakeets, the plain language objectively bans them. The HOA thus had the authority to issue violation notices.
  2. Mediation (Dispute Resolution): DENIED. The ALJ found that CC&Rs § 9.15 restricts its application to disputes involving the Declarant Parties, particularly those related to construction defects or project conditions, and does not apply to homeowner disputes. Since the Petitioner is not a Declarant Party, mediation was not required.
  3. Improper Fees/Fines: GRANTED. The ALJ found that the HOA failed to establish that the CC&Rs empowered them to forward the cost of certified letters (the "balance forward") directly to the Petitioner prior to the completion of the hearing. The HOA violated CC&Rs § 5.1 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803 by assessing this unauthorized charg

Questions

Question

Can my HOA ban chickens even if I consider them household pets?

Short Answer

Yes. If the CC&Rs explicitly ban 'fowl' or 'poultry,' your subjective belief that they are pets does not override the objective ban.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that even if a homeowner views chickens as pets akin to parakeets, if the CC&Rs explicitly ban 'fowl' or 'poultry,' that ban is enforceable. The specific classification of the animal in the documents overrides the owner's usage of the animal as a pet.

Alj Quote

Petitioner subjectively believes her chickens are pets and therefore qualify for the pet exception of the animal policy; however the CC&Rs plain language objectively bans not only birds but fowl. Chickens are both birds and fowl therefore, homeowners may not have live chickens on their property.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs § 3.3

Topic Tags

  • animals
  • chickens
  • CC&Rs interpretation
  • violations

Question

Can my HOA charge me for the cost of sending certified letters regarding a violation?

Short Answer

Not unless the CC&Rs explicitly authorize passing those specific administrative costs to the homeowner.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that an HOA cannot arbitrarily pass on administrative costs, such as certified mail fees for violation notices, unless the governing documents specifically empower them to do so. In this case, the HOA was ordered to remove the charge.

Alj Quote

Respondent failed to establish their CC&Rs empower them to forward the cost of litigation onto Petitioner prior to the completion of hearing. Therefore, Petitioner established Respondent violated CC&Rs § 5.1 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803

Legal Basis

CC&Rs § 5.1; A.R.S. § 33-1803

Topic Tags

  • fines
  • fees
  • administrative costs
  • certified mail

Question

Is my HOA required to go to mediation before enforcing a rule violation?

Short Answer

It depends on the specific language of the dispute resolution clause. Some clauses only apply to disputes with the developer (Declarant), not general homeowner enforcement.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner argued that a 'Dispute Notification and Resolution Procedure' required mediation. However, the ALJ found that the specific section cited applied only to 'Declarant Parties' (the developer/builders) regarding construction or design defects, not to standard enforcement actions between the HOA and a homeowner.

Alj Quote

The CC&Rs § 9.15 restricts its application to disputes involving the Declarant Parties, particularly those arising from or related to construction defects or conditions of the Project and not homeowner disputes. Because Petitioner is not a Declarant Party CC&Rs § 9.15 does not apply.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs § 9.15

Topic Tags

  • mediation
  • dispute resolution
  • procedure
  • declarant

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA violation?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing where the homeowner files the petition, the homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning their evidence must be more convincing than the HOA's.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&Rs § 3.3, CC&Rs § 9.15, CC&Rs § 5.1 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.

Legal Basis

Standard of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • hearings

Question

If I win part of my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fees reimbursed?

Short Answer

The ALJ may order partial reimbursement of filing fees if the petition is granted in part.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner lost the argument regarding chickens but won the argument regarding improper fees for certified letters. Consequently, the ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse $500 of the $1500 filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 of her $1500.00 filing fee within 30 days of the mailing date of the Administrative Law Judge Decision entered in this matter.

Legal Basis

ALJ Order

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • filing fees
  • penalties

Question

Does an exception for 'household birds' in the CC&Rs allow me to keep chickens?

Short Answer

Likely not, if chickens are also defined as 'fowl' which are otherwise banned.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the argument that chickens fell under the exception for 'parakeets or similar household birds,' finding instead that they fell under the explicit ban on 'fowl.'

Alj Quote

Notwithstanding Petitioner’s argument that her chickens are akin to parakeets, an exception to the no animal rule in the CC&Rs, birds and fowl are explicitly banned.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs § 3.3

Topic Tags

  • animals
  • CC&Rs interpretation
  • exceptions

Case

Docket No
24F-H007-REL
Case Title
Virginia Guest v Bella Tierra Community Association
Decision Date
2023-11-08
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA ban chickens even if I consider them household pets?

Short Answer

Yes. If the CC&Rs explicitly ban 'fowl' or 'poultry,' your subjective belief that they are pets does not override the objective ban.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that even if a homeowner views chickens as pets akin to parakeets, if the CC&Rs explicitly ban 'fowl' or 'poultry,' that ban is enforceable. The specific classification of the animal in the documents overrides the owner's usage of the animal as a pet.

Alj Quote

Petitioner subjectively believes her chickens are pets and therefore qualify for the pet exception of the animal policy; however the CC&Rs plain language objectively bans not only birds but fowl. Chickens are both birds and fowl therefore, homeowners may not have live chickens on their property.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs § 3.3

Topic Tags

  • animals
  • chickens
  • CC&Rs interpretation
  • violations

Question

Can my HOA charge me for the cost of sending certified letters regarding a violation?

Short Answer

Not unless the CC&Rs explicitly authorize passing those specific administrative costs to the homeowner.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that an HOA cannot arbitrarily pass on administrative costs, such as certified mail fees for violation notices, unless the governing documents specifically empower them to do so. In this case, the HOA was ordered to remove the charge.

Alj Quote

Respondent failed to establish their CC&Rs empower them to forward the cost of litigation onto Petitioner prior to the completion of hearing. Therefore, Petitioner established Respondent violated CC&Rs § 5.1 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803

Legal Basis

CC&Rs § 5.1; A.R.S. § 33-1803

Topic Tags

  • fines
  • fees
  • administrative costs
  • certified mail

Question

Is my HOA required to go to mediation before enforcing a rule violation?

Short Answer

It depends on the specific language of the dispute resolution clause. Some clauses only apply to disputes with the developer (Declarant), not general homeowner enforcement.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner argued that a 'Dispute Notification and Resolution Procedure' required mediation. However, the ALJ found that the specific section cited applied only to 'Declarant Parties' (the developer/builders) regarding construction or design defects, not to standard enforcement actions between the HOA and a homeowner.

Alj Quote

The CC&Rs § 9.15 restricts its application to disputes involving the Declarant Parties, particularly those arising from or related to construction defects or conditions of the Project and not homeowner disputes. Because Petitioner is not a Declarant Party CC&Rs § 9.15 does not apply.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs § 9.15

Topic Tags

  • mediation
  • dispute resolution
  • procedure
  • declarant

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA violation?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing where the homeowner files the petition, the homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning their evidence must be more convincing than the HOA's.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&Rs § 3.3, CC&Rs § 9.15, CC&Rs § 5.1 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.

Legal Basis

Standard of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • hearings

Question

If I win part of my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fees reimbursed?

Short Answer

The ALJ may order partial reimbursement of filing fees if the petition is granted in part.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner lost the argument regarding chickens but won the argument regarding improper fees for certified letters. Consequently, the ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse $500 of the $1500 filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 of her $1500.00 filing fee within 30 days of the mailing date of the Administrative Law Judge Decision entered in this matter.

Legal Basis

ALJ Order

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • filing fees
  • penalties

Question

Does an exception for 'household birds' in the CC&Rs allow me to keep chickens?

Short Answer

Likely not, if chickens are also defined as 'fowl' which are otherwise banned.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the argument that chickens fell under the exception for 'parakeets or similar household birds,' finding instead that they fell under the explicit ban on 'fowl.'

Alj Quote

Notwithstanding Petitioner’s argument that her chickens are akin to parakeets, an exception to the no animal rule in the CC&Rs, birds and fowl are explicitly banned.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs § 3.3

Topic Tags

  • animals
  • CC&Rs interpretation
  • exceptions

Case

Docket No
24F-H007-REL
Case Title
Virginia Guest v Bella Tierra Community Association
Decision Date
2023-11-08
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Virginia Guest (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas C. S. Nogami (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Marcus R. Martinez (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Jamie Petty (association manager / witness)
    Platinum Management
    Association manager for Bella Tierra Community Association; also referenced as Jamie Teddy/Miss Teddy
  • Sean Moynihan (HOA attorney)
    Senology
    General counsel for Respondent; referenced in Petitioner's claims; also referred to as John Moahan

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge for the hearing and decision
  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge who issued the September 22, 2023 Order
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of decisions/orders
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of decisions/orders
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of decisions/orders
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of decisions/orders