Administrative Review | A.R.S. §§ 12-901, 12-905, 12-910 | LC2019-000075
Hayden Square Condominium HOA appealed an Arizona Department of Real Estate default decision to Superior Court. The court granted a stay and rejected a trial de novo, then dismissed the whole appeal for lack of jurisdiction: because the association’s motion to vacate was still pending, the agency’s decision was never ‘final.’ A staff ‘Coordinator’ letter calling it ‘final agency action’ did not count.
Last updated August 13, 2026. Case: Hayden Square Condominium HOA v. Weiss and Arizona Department of Real Estate, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2019-000075 (minute entries use LC2019-000075-001 DT); related Arizona Department of Real Estate No. HO19-18/041; Hon. Patricia A. Starr and Hon. Douglas Gerlach.
Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2019-000075, an administrative appeal (Appeal for Judicial Review) in which Hayden Square Condominium HOA challenged an Arizona Department of Real Estate default decision. It is a trial-court minute-entry record, not a published, precedential appellate opinion, and it did not resolve the underlying HOA dispute on the merits. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
Because the Arizona Department of Real Estate never ruled on the association’s timely motion to vacate its default decision, no ‘final administrative decision’ existed, and the Superior Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-905(A). A staff ‘Coordinator’ letter calling the default ‘final agency action’ was not the Commissioner’s ruling on the motion and could not make the decision appealable.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Hayden Square Condominium Homeowners Association (Plaintiff/Appellant)
The condominium association that appealed the Arizona Department of Real Estate default decision to Superior Court. - Ashley N. Moscarello (Counsel)
Hayden Square Condominium Homeowners Association
Counsel of record for the association, as shown on the court's minute entries.
Respondent Side
- Chris I. Weiss (Defendant/Appellee)
Homeowner and petitioner in the underlying Arizona Department of Real Estate dispute; appeared self-represented (pro per) and opposed the appeal. - Arizona Department of Real Estate (Agency/Appellee)
The agency whose default decision was under review; it took no position on the stay and filed an amicus brief. - Lynette Evans (Counsel)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Counsel who appeared for the Department after the appeal was filed.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Patricia A. Starr (Judge)
Superior Court judge who issued the early administrative-review orders, granted the stay, and denied the trial de novo. - Hon. Douglas Gerlach (Judge)
Superior Court judge who took over the calendar and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
What happened
Homeowner Chris I. Weiss filed a dispute petition against Hayden Square Condominium Homeowners Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE No. HO19-18/041). After the association filed its response about nine days past the deadline, ADRE entered a ‘Default Decision’ against the association on January 25, 2018.
The association timely moved to vacate the default. ADRE never had the Commissioner rule on that motion; instead, a Department ‘Coordinator’ issued a February 8, 2019 letter stating the Default Decision was ‘a final agency action.’ Treating that letter as its final decision, the association filed a Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review in Maricopa County Superior Court on February 28, 2019.
Judge Patricia A. Starr handled the early motions. She required the association to properly serve the Department’s counsel, allowed the Department to file an amicus brief, and — applying the four-factor test from Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n — granted the association’s motion to stay the default pending appeal. She denied the association’s motion for a trial de novo, holding that A.R.S. § 12-910 permits an evidentiary hearing only as necessary to review the agency, not a new trial.
After the calendar passed to Judge Douglas Gerlach, the court dismissed the appeal on July 26, 2019 for lack of jurisdiction. Because the association’s motion to vacate was still pending and undecided, no ‘final administrative decision’ existed to appeal under A.R.S. §§ 12-901(2) and 12-905(A). The court declined to award fees or costs and entered the dismissal as a final order.
Procedural timeline
ADRE entered a Default Decision against the association (ADRE No. HO19-18/041).
The Default Decision was served on the association by mail.
The association timely filed a motion to vacate the default.
An ADRE 'Coordinator' sent a letter declaring the default 'a final agency action.'
The association filed its Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review, opening LC2019-000075.
Judge Starr issued administrative-review orders (service, record transmittal, and briefing).
The court deferred ruling on the stay until ADRE's counsel was properly served, and separately granted ADRE leave to file an amicus brief.
Judge Starr granted the motion to stay the default pending appeal (Smith four-factor test).
Judge Starr denied the association's motion for a trial de novo (A.R.S. § 12-910).
Judge Gerlach set the administrative review for determination on the briefs.
Judge Gerlach dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction; final order.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 7 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.
Administrative Review Orders
Type: Court order/minute entry
Judge Starr's opening administrative-review order directing the association to serve the appeal, arrange preparation of the agency record, and follow the briefing schedule under A.R.S. §§ 12-904 and 12-906.
Order Granting ADRE Amicus
Type: Court order/minute entry
Order granting the Arizona Department of Real Estate leave to file an amicus brief in the appeal.
Order On Motion For Stay Service
Type: Court order/minute entry
Order deferring the association's motion to stay the default until it properly served the Department's counsel and gave the Department an opportunity to state its position.
Order Granting Stay Pending Appeal
Type: Court order/minute entry
Order granting the association's motion to stay the Department's default decision pending appeal, applying the four-factor test of Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission.
Order Denying Trial De Novo
Type: Court order/minute entry
Order denying the association's motion for a trial de novo, holding that A.R.S. § 12-910 authorizes an evidentiary hearing only to the extent necessary to review the agency's action, not a new trial.
Minute Entry Set For Determination
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry noting that briefing was complete and setting the administrative review for determination on the record without oral argument.
Final Order Dismissing Appeal
Type: Court order/minute entry
Judge Gerlach's final order dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the Department never issued a final appealable decision on the association's still-pending motion to vacate (A.R.S. §§ 12-901(2), 12-905(A)).
FAQ
What was LC2019-000075 about?
It was Hayden Square Condominium Homeowners Association’s Superior Court appeal of a default decision that the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) entered against it in an HOA dispute (ADRE No. HO19-18/041) brought by homeowner Chris I. Weiss. The Superior Court reviewed the appeal but never reached the underlying merits.
Why was the appeal dismissed?
For lack of jurisdiction. Under A.R.S. §§ 12-901(2) and 12-905(A), a court may review only a ‘final’ administrative decision, and the association’s timely motion to vacate the default had never been ruled on. Until that motion is decided, the default is not yet final or appealable.
Didn't the Department say the decision was final?
A Department ‘Coordinator’ sent a February 8, 2019 letter calling the default ‘a final agency action,’ but the court held that letter could not make the decision appealable. Only the Real Estate Commissioner could rule on the motion to vacate, and any denial must state its ‘particular grounds and reasons’ (A.R.S. § 32-2199.04(C)), which the letter did not.
Did the association win a stay of the default?
Yes. Applying the four-factor test from Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Judge Patricia A. Starr granted a stay of the default decision pending the appeal on May 1, 2019.
Why was the request for a trial de novo denied?
Because A.R.S. § 12-910 lets the Superior Court hold an evidentiary hearing only ‘to the extent necessary’ to review the agency’s action, not a brand-new trial. The only question here — whether the association was entitled to a hearing before the agency — was purely legal, so no evidentiary hearing was required (Curtis v. Richardson).
What does this case mean for homeowners and HOAs?
Confirm you have a genuine final decision before appealing to Superior Court. If a motion to vacate, a request for rehearing, or another method of administrative review is still pending, the agency’s decision is not final, and an appeal filed too early will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Case Dossier
This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2019-000075 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | July 26, 2019 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Patricia A. Starr, Hon. Douglas Gerlach |
| Parties | Hayden Square Condominium HOA (Appellant) v. Chris I. Weiss and Arizona Department of Real Estate (Appellees) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | Procedure |
| Outcome / holding | Because the Arizona Department of Real Estate never ruled on the association's timely motion to vacate its default decision, no 'final administrative decision' existed, and the Superior Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-905(A). A staff 'Coordinator' letter calling the default 'final agency action' was not the Commissioner's ruling on the motion and could not make the decision appealable. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 7 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 11 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | No video embed currently configured |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Featured download links | 3 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Homeowner Chris I. Weiss filed an HOA-dispute petition against Hayden Square Condominium Homeowners Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE No. HO19-18/041). After the association filed its response about nine days late, ADRE entered a 'Default Decision' against it on January 25, 2018. The association timely moved to vacate the default, but ADRE never had the Commissioner rule on that motion; instead, a Department 'Coordinator' sent a letter declaring the default 'final agency action.' Treating that letter as the agency's final word, the association appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court. Judge Starr granted a stay of the default and denied the association's request for a trial de novo. Judge Gerlach then dismissed the entire appeal for lack of jurisdiction: under A.R.S. § 12-901(2), an agency decision is not final while a motion to vacate or for rehearing is pending, and only the Real Estate Commissioner — stating grounds — can deny it.
Under Arizona's Administrative Review Act, the Superior Court may review only a 'final administrative decision' (A.R.S. § 12-905(A)). A decision is not final when a party has filed 'an application for rehearing or other method of administrative review'; it becomes final only when that request 'is denied or the decision on rehearing or review is rendered' (A.R.S. § 12-901(2)). The association's motion to vacate the default was timely (Ariz. Admin. Code R4-28-1304(B)) and qualified at least as an 'other method of administrative review,' so the default could not become final until the Commissioner ruled on it.
ADRE never had the Commissioner rule. Instead, a 'Coordinator' sent a February 8, 2019 letter declaring the default 'a final agency action.' Judge Gerlach held that letter could not substitute for the Commissioner's ruling: it was signed by a coordinator rather than the Commissioner charged with deciding the motion (Ariz. Admin. Code R4-28-1310(F); A.R.S. § 32-2101(14)), and an order denying such a motion must contain 'a statement of the particular grounds and reasons' (A.R.S. § 32-2199.04(C)), which the letter lacked. The court also noted Arizona's strong policy favoring decisions on the merits and the apparent absence of prejudice from the association's nine-day-late response.
Earlier in the case, Judge Starr applied the four-factor stay test from Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n and granted a stay of the default pending appeal, but denied the association's motion for a trial de novo. She explained that A.R.S. § 12-910 authorizes an evidentiary hearing only 'to the extent necessary' to review the agency's action, not a fresh trial in Superior Court (Curtis v. Richardson). Because the only issue — whether the association was entitled to a hearing before the agency — was purely legal, no evidentiary hearing was required.
For homeowners and associations alike, this case marks exactly when an ADRE (or OAH) HOA decision becomes appealable. If a motion to vacate, a request for rehearing, or another method of administrative review is still pending, the agency's decision is not yet 'final,' and an appeal filed too early will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the association's was here. A letter from agency staff calling a decision 'final agency action' does not count; only a ruling by the decision-maker — here, the Real Estate Commissioner — stating its grounds starts the appeal clock.
The dismissal was not a loss on the merits. Because the motion to vacate remained pending and undecided, the association's default was never actually final, which left the agency free to still decide that motion. The practical lesson is to confirm a genuine, properly signed final decision before spending money on a Superior Court appeal.