Financial Audits | A.R.S. §§ 33-1243(J), 32-2199.02 | LC2017-000142
When a condominium owner asked three times over about a year for the association’s annual audit, and the association neither completed it on time nor handed it over, the State imposed a $5,000 penalty. Judge Patricia A. Starr affirmed, holding the penalty was authorized by statute and not excessive.
Last updated November 5, 2026. Case: Olive Grove Village Association, Inc. v. Barbara Printy, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2017-000142 (minute entries use LC2017-000142-001 DT); appeal from the Arizona Department of Real Estate final administrative decision of December 8, 2016; Hon. Patricia A. Starr.
Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2017-000142, an appeal under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act from a final decision of the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE). A condominium owner, Barbara Printy, asked her association three times over about a year for a copy of its annual financial audit; the association neither completed the audit on time nor provided it, and an administrative law judge ordered the association to pay her filing fee plus a $5,000 civil penalty. The association appealed, and Superior Court Judge Patricia A. Starr affirmed the penalty in full, holding it did not conflict with the administrative penalty statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.02) and was not excessive. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
Affirmed. A $5,000 civil penalty imposed on a condominium association for failing to complete and provide its annual financial audit as required by A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) was lawful: it does not conflict with the administrative law judge’s penalty authority under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, and it is not excessive where the association ignored three requests over roughly a year and produced the audit only the day before the hearing.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Barbara Printy (Petitioner/Appellee)
Condominium owner who requested the association's annual audit three times and filed the administrative petition; prevailed below and on appeal when the $5,000 penalty was affirmed. - Philip B. Whitaker (Counsel)
Counsel for Appellee Barbara Printy.
Respondent Side
- Olive Grove Village Association, Inc. (Respondent/Appellant)
Arizona nonprofit corporation; Phoenix condominium association
Association that failed to complete and provide its annual financial audit on time; penalized $5,000 by the administrative law judge and unsuccessful on appeal. - Jonathan D. Ebertshauser (Counsel)
Counsel for Appellant Olive Grove Village Association, Inc.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Patricia A. Starr (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Superior Court Judge who affirmed the Department's final administrative decision and the $5,000 civil penalty. - Arizona Department of Real Estate (Originating Agency)
State agency whose December 8, 2016 final administrative decision — adopting the administrative law judge's ruling after the Department took no action — was reviewed and affirmed.
What happened
Barbara Printy owned a unit in a Phoenix condominium community governed by Olive Grove Village Association, Inc. Under A.R.S. § 33-1243(J), a condominium association must have its annual financial statements audited or reviewed within 90 days after the end of its fiscal year. Printy asked the association for a copy of its audit report three times — in April 2015, October 2015, and March 2016 — and the association did not provide one.
In March 2016 Printy filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging that the association violated its CC&Rs, its bylaws, and A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) by failing to complete an audit of its 2014 financials within 90 days of the end of the fiscal year. The association did not hire a certified public accountant to perform the audit until August 2016, and it gave Printy the completed audit on October 11, 2016 — the day before the scheduled administrative hearing.
The administrative law judge granted Printy’s petition and ordered the association to pay her filing fee and a $5,000 civil penalty. The Department took no further action, so the judge’s decision was certified as the Department’s final administrative decision on December 8, 2016. The association’s motion for rehearing was denied.
The association appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court, where the case was assigned to Judge Patricia A. Starr. After briefing — in which the association’s opening and reply briefs and Printy’s answering brief were each filed late — and with no party requesting oral argument, the court took the matter under advisement. On January 19, 2018, Judge Starr affirmed the Department’s decision in full, holding the $5,000 penalty neither conflicted with A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 nor was excessive, and entered judgment as final under Rule 54(c).
Procedural timeline
Barbara Printy first asks Olive Grove Village Association for a copy of its annual financial audit report.
Printy requests the audit a second time; the association does not provide it.
Printy requests the audit a third time and files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the association violated its CC&Rs, bylaws, and A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) by not auditing its 2014 financials within 90 days of year-end.
The association hires a certified public accountant to perform the overdue 2014 audit.
The association gives Printy the completed audit — one day before the scheduled administrative hearing.
The administrative law judge's ruling (granting the petition and imposing the filing fee plus a $5,000 civil penalty) becomes the Department's final administrative decision; the association's motion for rehearing is later denied.
Olive Grove Village Association files a notice of appeal for judicial review in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2017-000142).
Judge Patricia A. Starr issues administrative-review orders on service, the agency record, and briefing; a nunc pro tunc order corrects the first paragraph to name the association as the appellant.
The court notes that no opening brief has been filed and orders the association to file one within 45 days or face dismissal.
The association files its (late) opening brief.
The court sets an October 27, 2017 deadline for Printy's answering brief and says the appeal will otherwise be decided on the opening brief alone.
With briefing complete and no party requesting oral argument, the court sets the administrative review for determination.
Judge Starr affirms the $5,000 penalty, holding it neither conflicts with A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 nor is excessive, and enters judgment as final under Rule 54(c).
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
Minute entry setting service, agency-record, and briefing requirements for the administrative appeal before Judge Patricia A. Starr.
Nunc Pro Tunc Correcting Appellant
Type: Court/source PDF
Nunc pro tunc order correcting the May 15, 2017 minute entry to identify Olive Grove Village Association, Inc. as the appellant.
No Opening Brief Filed
Type: Briefing paper
Minute entry noting that no opening brief had been filed and ordering the association to file one within 45 days or face dismissal.
Answering Brief Deadline
Type: Responsive pleading
Minute entry setting an October 27, 2017 deadline for the answering brief, after which the appeal would be decided on the opening brief alone.
Set For Determination
Type: Court/source PDF
Minute entry noting briefing was complete and no oral argument was requested, and setting the administrative review for determination.
Record Appeal Ruling Affirming ADRE Penalty
Type: Court order/minute entry
Record appeal ruling by Judge Patricia A. Starr affirming the Department's final decision and the $5,000 civil penalty, entered as final judgment under Rule 54(c).
FAQ
Does Arizona require a condominium association to audit its finances?
Yes. Under A.R.S. § 33-1243(J), a condominium association must have its annual financial statements audited or reviewed within 90 days after the end of its fiscal year. In this case the association failed to complete the audit of its 2014 financials on time, which is the violation that led to the penalty.
Can the State penalize an HOA that ignores a member's records request?
Yes. A member can file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, which is heard by an administrative law judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings. Under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A) the judge may order the association to comply and may levy a civil penalty for each violation. Here the judge ordered the association to pay Barbara Printy’s filing fee and a $5,000 civil penalty, and the Superior Court affirmed.
Does fixing the problem at the last minute erase the violation?
No. The association did not hire an accountant until August 2016 and gave Barbara Printy the completed audit on October 11, 2016 — the day before the scheduled hearing. Judge Starr held that this eleventh-hour compliance, after three ignored requests, did not make the penalty improper or excessive.
Was the $5,000 penalty excessive?
No. An administrative penalty is excessive only if it is ‘so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one’s sense of fairness’ (Schillerstrom v. State). Because Printy made three separate requests over roughly a year and the association responded only after she filed a petition, the court found the $5,000 penalty was not excessive.
The association argued the penalty was too high because the hearing could not have cost $5,000. Why did that fail?
Reading A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 together with A.R.S. § 32-2199.05, Judge Starr held that civil penalties are deposited in a fund that offsets the administrative-hearing function in general, not on a case-by-case basis tied to one hearing’s cost. The association cited no legal authority for its contrary reading, so the argument failed.
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. LC2017-000142 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | January 19, 2018 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Patricia A. Starr |
| Parties | Olive Grove Village Association, Inc. (Appellant) v. Barbara Printy (Appellee) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | Meetings & RecordsDisclosureBoard GovernanceProcedure |
| Outcome / holding | Affirmed. A $5,000 civil penalty imposed on a condominium association for failing to complete and provide its annual financial audit as required by A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) was lawful: it does not conflict with the administrative law judge's penalty authority under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, and it is not excessive where the association ignored three requests over roughly a year and produced the audit only the day before the hearing. |
| Primary public source | View hosted source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 6 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 13 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | No video embed currently configured |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Featured download links | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Barbara Printy, an owner in a Phoenix condominium community, asked Olive Grove Village Association three times — in April 2015, October 2015, and March 2016 — for a copy of its annual financial audit. The association neither completed the audit of its 2014 finances within the 90 days required by A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) nor gave Printy a copy. In March 2016 she filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging violations of the CC&Rs, the bylaws, and § 33-1243(J). The association did not hire an accountant until August 2016 and handed Printy the completed audit on October 11, 2016 — the day before the administrative hearing. The administrative law judge granted the petition and ordered the association to pay Printy's filing fee plus a $5,000 civil penalty, which became the Department's final decision. The association appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court. Judge Patricia A. Starr affirmed, holding the penalty neither conflicted with A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 nor was excessive, and entered final judgment under Rule 54(c).
The Superior Court reviewed the Department's final administrative decision under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act (A.R.S. § 12-901 et seq.). Under A.R.S. § 12-910(E), a reviewing court affirms an agency action unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence, contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion; the court does not retry the facts or substitute its judgment for the agency's where factual questions and agency expertise are involved (Siler v. Arizona Dept. of Real Estate).
The association first argued that the $5,000 penalty conflicted with A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, which authorizes an administrative law judge to order compliance and levy a civil penalty for each violation. Reading that statute together with A.R.S. § 32-2199.05 — which directs penalty monies into a fund that reimburses and offsets the costs of the administrative-hearing office — the court interpreted statutes de novo and held that the penalty is meant to support the administrative-law-judge function in general, not to be measured against the cost of a single hearing. The association cited no authority for its contrary reading and offered only its disbelief that costs could exceed $5,000, so the argument failed.
The association also argued the penalty was excessive. An administrative penalty is excessive only if it is 'so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one's sense of fairness' (Schillerstrom v. State), and whether the reviewing court would have imposed the same sanction is immaterial (Bear v. Nicholls). Because Printy made three separate requests, received a different answer each time, and the association audited its books only after she filed a petition and produced the audit at the eleventh hour, the court found the penalty was not excessive. It therefore concluded the Department's order was supported by substantial evidence, was not contrary to law, and was neither arbitrary and capricious nor an abuse of discretion, and affirmed.
This ruling shows that Arizona's financial-transparency rules for community associations have teeth. A condominium association must have its annual finances audited or reviewed on time under A.R.S. § 33-1243(J), and an owner who is stonewalled can take the dispute to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, where an administrative law judge can impose a civil penalty for each violation. Just as importantly, the decision confirms that an association cannot escape a penalty by fixing the problem at the last minute: producing the overdue audit the day before the hearing did not wipe out the violation or make a $5,000 penalty excessive. For owners facing boards that ignore records and audit requests, the case is a concrete example that persistence through the administrative process can produce real consequences for the association.