Administrative Review | A.R.S. § 33-1805 & Former § 41-2198 | LC2014-000354
When homeowner Nancy Saxton demanded financial records from The Lakes Community Association, the HOA provided redacted copies and offered in-person inspection at its attorney’s office. An ALJ and Judge Crane McClennen affirmed that her administrative petition was time-barred and that the HOA complied with the law.
Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Nancy Saxton v. The Lakes Community Association and Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2014-000354 (minute entries use LC2014-000354-001 DT); related Office of Administrative Hearings No. 13F-H1316008-BFS; The Hon. Crane McClennen.
Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2014-000354, an administrative appeal under former A.R.S. § 41-2198 reviewing a DFBLS decision. Superior Court Judge Crane McClennen affirmed the administrative dismissal of homeowner Nancy Saxton’s records petition, holding that her complaint was barred by the one-year statute of limitations in former A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B) and that the association satisfied its inspection obligations by offering unredacted review at counsel’s office. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The Superior Court affirmed the DFBLS administrative dismissal, holding that homeowner petitions challenging HOA record disclosures are subject to the strict one-year statute of limitations in former A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B). Furthermore, an association satisfies its inspection obligations under A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing redacted copies and making unredacted originals available for review at its attorney’s office.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Nancy Saxton (Plaintiff/Appellant)
Homeowner in The Lakes in Tempe who appealed the administrative dismissal of her records inspection petition. - Randal Studer (Counsel)
Studer Law Office
Counsel of record representing homeowner Nancy Saxton.
Respondent Side
- The Lakes Community Association (Defendant/Appellee)
Large master planned community association in Tempe that successfully defended its document production. - Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (Agency/Appellee)
State administrative department whose certified decision was under judicial review. - Charles E. Maxwell (Counsel)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Counsel of record representing The Lakes Community Association. - Mary D. Williams (Counsel)
Arizona Attorney General's Office
Assistant Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
Neutral Parties
- The Hon. Crane McClennen (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Superior Court judge who affirmed the administrative dismissal and entered costs against Saxton.
What happened
In November 2012, Nancy Saxton demanded to inspect financial records of The Lakes Community Association.
The association delivered redacted documents in three installments ending January 8, 2013.
On September 27, 2013, association counsel invited Saxton to inspect unredacted records at counsel’s office; Saxton did not do so.
On November 25, 2013, Saxton filed an administrative petition with DFBLS alleging violations of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
ALJ M. Douglas held a hearing and issued a decision on June 2, 2014 dismissing the petition as time-barred and finding the association complied with disclosure requirements.
Saxton appealed to Superior Court on July 24, 2014 (LC2014-000354).
On April 22, 2015, Judge Crane McClennen issued a Record Appeal Ruling affirming the dismissal, and on July 27, 2015 awarded $535.70 in costs to the association.
Procedural timeline
Nancy Saxton serves formal Demand to Inspect Financial Records on The Lakes Community Association.
Association produces third installment of financial records with extensive redactions.
Association attorney offers in-person inspection of unredacted records at counsel's office.
Saxton files administrative petition with DFBLS alleging violations of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
ALJ M. Douglas issues decision dismissing petition as time-barred and finding association complied.
Saxton files Complaint for Judicial Review in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2014-000354).
Judge Crane McClennen presides over oral argument on the administrative appeal.
Judge McClennen enters Record Appeal Ruling affirming the administrative dismissal in favor of the HOA.
Superior Court signs formal Order awarding $535.70 in taxable costs against Saxton.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 6 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
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Order Setting Oral Argument
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Order Resetting Oral Argument
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Oral Argument Minute Entry Under Advisement
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Record Appeal Ruling Affirming ALJ Dismissal
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Final Order Awarding Taxable Costs
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
FAQ
What records did Nancy Saxton request from The Lakes Community Association?
In November 2012, Saxton filed demands to inspect association financial records pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805. The association produced three sets of documents between December 2012 and January 2013, but redacted substantial portions. In September 2013, counsel for the association offered to allow Saxton to inspect the unredacted originals at counsel’s office, but Saxton did not attend.
Why was the administrative petition dismissed as time-barred?
Under former A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B) (and current A.R.S. § 32-2199.01), a petition for an administrative hearing must be filed within one year of the date of the alleged violation. Because Saxton received the redacted records by January 8, 2013, but did not file her DFBLS petition until November 25, 2013, the ALJ and Superior Court held that her claims regarding the timeliness and initial production were barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
Can an HOA satisfy records requests by offering inspection at its attorney's office?
Yes. Where an association maintains sensitive or confidential records that require supervision to protect against improper disclosure of privileged material, offering the homeowner a reasonable opportunity to view unredacted documents at the office of association legal counsel complies with A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Did the Superior Court award costs against the homeowner?
Yes. Following the affirmance of the administrative dismissal, The Lakes Community Association filed a Statement of Costs and Notice of Taxation. On July 27, 2015, Judge Crane McClennen ordered Saxton to pay $535.70 in taxable costs to the association.
What is the key takeaway for homeowners seeking HOA records?
Homeowners must calendar the strict one-year administrative statute of limitations from the very first denial or defective production. Waiting to negotiate or refusing an invitation to inspect documents at counsel’s office can lead to complete dismissal of statutory claims.
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. LC2014-000354 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | April 22, 2015 |
| Judge / panel | The Hon. Crane McClennen |
| Parties | Nancy Saxton (Appellant) v. The Lakes Community Association and Arizona DFBLS (Appellees) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | Meetings & RecordsProcedureAttorney Fees |
| Outcome / holding | The Superior Court affirmed the DFBLS administrative dismissal, holding that homeowner petitions challenging HOA record disclosures are subject to the strict one-year statute of limitations in former A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B). Furthermore, an association satisfies its inspection obligations under A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing redacted copies and making unredacted originals available for review at its attorney's office. |
| Primary public source | View hosted source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 6 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 9 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | No video embed currently configured |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Featured download links | 3 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
In November 2012, homeowner Nancy Saxton submitted written demands to inspect financial records of The Lakes Community Association in Tempe pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805. The association produced documents in three installments between December 2012 and January 2013, but redacted extensive financial entries. In September 2013, association counsel offered to permit Saxton to examine unredacted records at counsel's law office; Saxton did not avail herself of the offer. On November 25, 2013, Saxton filed an administrative petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (DFBLS). Following a hearing, Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas dismissed the petition on June 2, 2014, concluding that: (1) Saxton failed to file her petition within the mandatory one-year statute of limitations under former A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B); and (2) the association fulfilled its statutory duties by offering unredacted inspection at counsel's office. Saxton appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2014-000354). Judge Crane McClennen affirmed the administrative decision on April 22, 2015, and on July 27, 2015 awarded taxable costs to the association.
Under former A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), an administrative complaint must be filed within one year of the alleged violation. Saxton's records demands were served in November 2012, and the association produced its final set of redacted documents on January 8, 2013. Saxton did not file her administrative petition until November 25, 2013. The administrative law judge and Judge McClennen held that the one-year limitations period ran from the production dates, barring claims related to the timeliness and sufficiency of the initial responses.
On the substantive records issue under A.R.S. § 33-1805, the court held that associations may redact privileged or confidential data and that offering an inspection of unredacted files at the office of association legal counsel constitutes making the records 'reasonably available for examination.' Because Saxton failed to attend the scheduled inspection, she could not establish a statutory violation. Judge McClennen confirmed the administrative findings under A.R.S. § 12-910 and awarded $535.70 in taxable costs against Saxton.
For homeowners, this decision underscores that administrative dispute deadlines in Arizona are strictly enforced. When an HOA redacts or delays records, the homeowner must initiate legal or administrative proceedings within one year. For community associations, the ruling confirms that offering supervised inspection of unredacted files at legal counsel's office is a legally recognized way to balance member transparency against confidentiality obligations.