Condominium Law | Statutes of Limitations & ADRE | LC2025-000055
When Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners appealed an administrative order requiring it to amend its non-compliant declaration, it argued the petition was time-barred. Judge Joseph P. Mikitish affirmed the ruling, holding civil statutes of limitations do not bar ADRE petitions.
Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners v. R.L. Whitmer, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000055 (minute entries use LC2025-000055-001 DT); related Office of Administrative Hearings / ADRE Case No. 25F-H001-REL; Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish and Hon. Jillian Francis.
Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000055, an administrative appeal filed on January 30, 2025. Condominium owner R.L. Whitmer petitioned the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) regarding governance violations by Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners, including failure to bring its 1972 declaration into compliance with the Arizona Condominium Act (A.R.S. § 33-1215). After an Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of Whitmer and ordered the association to amend the declaration, the association appealed. The HOA argued that the homeowner’s petition was barred by general civil statutes of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541) and that compliance was legally impossible because only owners can vote to amend CC&Rs.; Superior Court Judge Joseph P. Mikitish affirmed the administrative decision, holding that civil statutes of limitations govern court ‘actions’ under A.R.S. § 1-215 and do not bar administrative dispute petitions before ADRE, and that an association has an affirmative fiduciary duty to submit necessary statutory amendments to a vote of its members. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The Superior Court affirmed the administrative decision in favor of the owner, holding that civil statutes of limitations set forth in Title 12 govern court actions under A.R.S. § 1-215 and do not apply to administrative dispute petitions brought under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01, and that a condominium association cannot avoid compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1215 by asserting impossibility where it retains the authority and duty to conduct a member vote.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners (Respondent/Appellant)
Condominium council of homeowners in Scottsdale that appealed an administrative order requiring a vote to amend its declaration. - Emily H. Mann (Counsel)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Counsel of record representing Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners. - Alexis Firehawk (Counsel)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Co-counsel representing Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners.
Respondent Side
- R.L. Whitmer (Petitioner/Appellee)
Condominium owner who prevailed before the ALJ and successfully defended the order in Superior Court. - Ross P. Meyer (Counsel)
Meyer Law Firm, PLLC
Counsel of record representing condominium owner R.L. Whitmer.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Superior Court Judge who authored the substantive minute entry affirming the administrative decision. - Hon. Jillian Francis (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Superior Court Judge who entered subsequent administrative orders regarding substitution of counsel.
What happened
Condominium owner R.L. Whitmer filed an administrative petition with ADRE alleging Hilton Casitas’ recorded declaration violated A.R.S. § 33-1215.
An ALJ ruled in Whitmer’s favor, ordering the association to bring its declaration into statutory compliance.
Hilton Casitas appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2025-000055), arguing the petition was barred by the statute of limitations and impossible to perform.
Judge Joseph P. Mikitish denied the association’s motion to stay the administrative order pending appeal.
Following full briefing under JRAD Rule 6, Judge Mikitish affirmed the administrative order, holding civil limitation periods do not bar ADRE petitions.
The court rejected the impossibility defense, holding the HOA has an affirmative duty to conduct an owner vote to rectify non-compliant CC&Rs.;
Video overview of the case record
An AI-generated video overview of Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners v. R.L. Whitmer (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000055). Superior court held civil statutes of limitations do not bar ADRE petitions; affirmed declaration amendment order. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own records control.
Listen: audio deep dive on the case record
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the case record in Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners v. R.L. Whitmer. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.
Procedural timeline
Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners files Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions (LC2025-000055).
Court enters minute entry setting administrative briefing schedule following withdrawal of trial de novo request.
Judge Mikitish enters minute entry denying HOA motion for stay of administrative law decision.
Court confirms completion of briefing under JRAD Rule 6.
Judge Mikitish enters substantive minute entry ruling affirming the ALJ decision in full.
Judge Jillian Francis enters minute entry granting substitution of counsel.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 10 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.
Order Entered By Court Trial De Novo Schedule
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Granting Alternative Service
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Briefing Schedule
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Motion For Stay
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Minute Entry Denying Stay Of Administrative Decision
Type: Decision or judgment
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Status Conference
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Approving Status Conference
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Briefing Complete
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Ruling Affirming ALJ Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Substitution Of Counsel
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
FAQ
What was the dispute in Hilton Casitas v. Whitmer?
Condominium owner R.L. Whitmer filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging that Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners violated condominium statutes because its declaration, originally drafted in 1972, failed to include the legal name of the association as required by A.R.S. § 33-1215. An Administrative Law Judge ruled in Whitmer’s favor and ordered the association to amend the declaration.
Did the HOA argue that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations?
Yes. Represented by Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, the association argued that Whitmer’s petition was barred by Arizona’s one-year statute of limitations for statutory liabilities (A.R.S. § 12-541(5)) or the four-year general limitation period.
Do civil statutes of limitations apply to ADRE administrative petitions?
No. Judge Joseph P. Mikitish held that under A.R.S. § 1-215, an ‘action’ is defined exclusively as a matter or proceeding in a court. Under the statutory interpretation doctrine expressio unius est exclusio alterius and Supreme Court precedent (City of Surprise v. ACC), general civil limitation periods apply only to court actions and do not limit administrative dispute petitions filed under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01.
Can an HOA escape an administrative order by claiming only owners can amend CC&Rs?
No. The HOA argued impossibility, asserting that because amendments require a two-thirds vote of owners under A.R.S. § 33-1227, the board could not be ordered to change the document. The court held that an association has an ongoing fiduciary duty of ordinary care and prudence under the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13 to submit necessary statutory compliance amendments to a member vote.
Did the court award attorneys' fees to the homeowner?
Whitmer requested attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349. The court denied the request, holding that an administrative judicial review is not a ‘civil action’ within the meaning of the fee statute.
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. LC2025-000055 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | January 23, 2026 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish, Hon. Jillian Francis |
| Parties | Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners (Appellant) v. R.L. Whitmer (Appellee) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | ProcedureCC&RsBoard Governance |
| Outcome / holding | The Superior Court affirmed the administrative decision in favor of the owner, holding that civil statutes of limitations set forth in Title 12 govern court actions under A.R.S. § 1-215 and do not apply to administrative dispute petitions brought under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01, and that a condominium association cannot avoid compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1215 by asserting impossibility where it retains the authority and duty to conduct a member vote. |
| Primary public source | View hosted source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 10 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 6 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners v. R.L. Whitmer |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Featured download links | 3 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
In 1972, the Hilton Casitas Condominium in Scottsdale was established under pre-Condominium Act statutes. In 1994, the association altered its internal structure, but never formally amended its recorded declaration to include the modern legal name of the association as required by A.R.S. § 33-1215. Condominium owner R.L. Whitmer filed an administrative petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 to compel compliance. An Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) found in Whitmer's favor and ordered the association to amend the declaration. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2025-000055), represented by Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen. The association raised two central defenses: (1) Whitmer's petition was time-barred by Arizona's general civil statutes of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-541; and (2) the order required an impossibility because only owners, not the board, can amend declarations under A.R.S. § 33-1227. Superior Court Judge Joseph P. Mikitish affirmed the administrative ruling in full. The court held that under A.R.S. § 1-215 and established Supreme Court doctrine, Title 12 statutes of limitations apply strictly to judicial 'actions' and do not bar administrative dispute petitions filed with ADRE. The court further held that while boards cannot unilaterally alter CC&Rs, an association possesses an affirmative duty under A.R.S. § 33-1242, § 33-1259, and Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13 to submit necessary statutory compliance amendments to a vote of the ownership.
The court's analysis addressed two fundamental questions of administrative and community association law.
First, on the statute of limitations, the association argued that either the one-year limitation for liabilities created by statute (A.R.S. § 12-541(5)) or the four-year catch-all provision barred the homeowner's petition. Judge Mikitish observed that A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 contains no statutory limitations period. Examining the statutory definition in A.R.S. § 1-215, the term 'action' is restricted to matters or proceedings in a court. Applying the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius and City of Surprise v. Arizona Corporation Commission, the court ruled that the Legislature intentionally structured the administrative forum to address ongoing CC&R and statutory governance non-compliance without the barrier of civil court limitation statutes.
Second, on the declaration's validity, the court confirmed that A.R.S. § 33-1215 unambiguously mandates that a condominium declaration include both the name of the condominium and the name of the association. Because Hilton Casitas' recorded declaration contained only the name of a long-superseded predecessor entity, it failed statutory muster. Addressing the association's impossibility defense, Judge Mikitish noted that under the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13 and A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(18), an association acts as a trustee and holds all necessary powers for proper governance. While the board cannot unilaterally rewrite the declaration without owner approval under A.R.S. § 33-1227, the association is legally obligated to use its governance authority to put the required amendment to an owner vote.
This decision eliminates a favorite defense used by HOA defense firms: asserting that homeowner complaints regarding illegal bylaws, defective declarations, or improper governance procedures are time-barred under Title 12. Judge Mikitish's holding establishes that administrative petitions before ADRE are not subject to civil court statutes of limitations. In addition, the ruling establishes that older associations operating under outdated declarations must proactively sponsor corrective votes rather than claiming helplessness.