Constitutional Law | ADRE Administrative Appeals | LC2018-000316
After losing an administrative hearing to homeowner Annette Cohen, CBS-136 HOA mounted a facial constitutional challenge against the ADRE dispute process. When Judge Patricia Ann Starr ordered formal service on the Attorney General and legislative leadership, the HOA stipulated to dismiss.
Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: CBS-136 Homeowners Association v. Annette Cohen, Arizona Department of Real Estate, and State of Arizona, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000316 (minute entries use LC2018-000316-001 DT); related Office of Administrative Hearings / ADRE matter; Hon. Patricia Ann Starr.
Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000316, an administrative appeal filed on August 10, 2018. Following an adverse administrative ruling in favor of homeowner Annette Cohen before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), CBS-136 Homeowners Association appealed to Superior Court and mounted a direct facial constitutional challenge against the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) dispute resolution statutes (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 et seq.). Judge Patricia Ann Starr substituted the State of Arizona as the proper party appellee, required formal service on the Arizona Attorney General, Speaker of the House, and President of the Senate under A.R.S. § 12-841(A), and the association subsequently stipulated to dismiss the appeal with prejudice, preserving the homeowner’s administrative victory. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The Superior Court held that under A.R.S. § 12-908, the Department of Real Estate is not a necessary party to every HOA dispute appeal, but an HOA’s facial constitutional challenge against state dispute resolution statutes requires substitution of the State of Arizona and mandatory statutory service on the Attorney General, Speaker of the House, and President of the Senate pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-841(A).
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- CBS-136 Homeowners Association (Plaintiff/Appellant)
Homeowners association in Sun City West that appealed an adverse administrative decision and attacked the statutory dispute process as facially unconstitutional. - Brian E. Ditsch (Counsel)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Counsel of record representing CBS-136 Homeowners Association.
Respondent Side
- Annette Cohen (Defendant/Appellee)
Homeowner who prevailed against the HOA at the Office of Administrative Hearings and defended her victory pro per in Superior Court. - State of Arizona (Defendant/Appellee)
Office of the Arizona Attorney General
Substituted as party appellee by court order to defend the facial constitutionality of Arizona's HOA administrative dispute resolution statutes. - Arizona Department of Real Estate (Dismissed Appellee)
State regulatory agency that referred the petition to OAH; dismissed as a non-jural entity and superseded by the State of Arizona. - Dena Rosen Benjamin (Counsel)
Office of the Arizona Attorney General
Assistant Attorney General representing the State of Arizona upon substitution.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Patricia Ann Starr (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Superior Court Judge who ordered service on legislative leadership, substituted the State of Arizona, and presided over the appeal.
What happened
Homeowner Annette Cohen prevailed against CBS-136 HOA in an administrative dispute before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The Real Estate Commissioner denied the HOA’s petition for rehearing, rendering the ALJ order binding.
CBS-136 HOA appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2018-000316), raising a facial constitutional challenge to A.R.S. § 32-2199.01.
Homeowner Cohen moved to dismiss the appeal, which the court denied because the Rules of Civil Procedure do not govern administrative reviews.
ADRE moved to dismiss itself as a non-jural entity under A.R.S. § 12-908.
Judge Patricia Ann Starr substituted the State of Arizona as appellee and ordered the HOA to serve the Attorney General, Senate President, and House Speaker under A.R.S. § 12-841(A).
Assistant Attorney General Dena Rosen Benjamin entered an appearance for the State.
The parties subsequently filed a joint stipulation for dismissal, terminating the appeal and leaving the administrative ruling in place.
Video overview of the case record
An AI-generated video overview of CBS-136 Homeowners Association v. Annette Cohen and State of Arizona (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000316). HOA launched facial constitutional challenge to ADRE dispute statute; State intervened before stipulated dismissal. 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 CBS-136 Homeowners Association v. Annette Cohen and State of Arizona. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.
Procedural timeline
CBS-136 HOA files Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review of Administrative Decision in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2018-000316).
Judge Patricia Ann Starr enters minute entry denying homeowner Cohen's motion to dismiss appeal.
Court enters order substituting State of Arizona for ADRE and ordering statutory service of facial constitutional brief on Attorney General and legislative leadership.
Assistant Attorney General Dena Rosen Benjamin files Notice of Appearance for the State of Arizona.
Court grants HOA motion for consolidated reply brief exceeding standard word limit.
Court enters formal Order of Dismissal following parties' joint stipulation for dismissal.
Judge Starr enters minute entry denying homeowner's post-dismissal motion for sanctions.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 9 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.
Minute Entry ADRE Extension Compliance
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Granting ADRE Extension
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Extending Answering Brief Deadline
Type: Court order/minute entry
Responding party's first substantive response to the complaint or petition.
Minute Entry Denying Homeowner Motion To Dismiss
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 Extending Reply Brief Deadline
Type: Court order/minute entry
Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.
Minute Entry Substituting State Of Arizona And Constitutional Notice
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Granting Consolidated Reply Brief
Type: Court order/minute entry
Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.
Minute Entry Denying Homeowner Motion For Sanctions
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
FAQ
What led to the appeal in CBS-136 HOA v. Cohen?
Homeowner Annette Cohen filed a dispute petition against CBS-136 Homeowners Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE). The matter was heard before an Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), who ruled in favor of Cohen. The Real Estate Commissioner denied the association’s motion for rehearing, making the ALJ order binding.
What constitutional challenge did the HOA raise?
Represented by attorney Brian E. Ditsch, CBS-136 HOA appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court and argued that Arizona’s HOA dispute resolution statutes (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 et seq.) were facially unconstitutional, invoking legal arguments reminiscent of the earlier Gelb v. DFBLS jurisprudence.
How did Judge Starr handle the constitutional challenge?
Judge Patricia Ann Starr held that under A.R.S. § 12-841(A), any party asserting that a state statute is facially unconstitutional must formally serve its brief on the Arizona Attorney General, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and President of the Senate. The court refused to rule on constitutionality until proof of service on state leadership was provided.
Why was the State of Arizona substituted for ADRE?
ADRE moved to dismiss itself as an appellee, arguing it was a non-jural entity under amended A.R.S. § 12-908 and that the binding decision was issued by an ALJ. Judge Starr agreed that ADRE was not a necessary party to every HOA dispute, but recognized that the HOA’s constitutional challenge required state representation, ordering the State of Arizona substituted as party appellee.
How did the litigation conclude?
After Assistant Attorney General Dena Rosen Benjamin appeared on behalf of the State and briefing proceeded, the parties filed a joint stipulation for dismissal. The court entered an order of dismissal, leaving the homeowner’s administrative victory in full effect.
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. LC2018-000316 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | December 11, 2018 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Patricia Ann Starr |
| Parties | CBS-136 HOA (Appellant) v. Annette Cohen & State of Arizona (Appellees) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | ProcedureCC&RsBoard Governance |
| Outcome / holding | The Superior Court held that under A.R.S. § 12-908, the Department of Real Estate is not a necessary party to every HOA dispute appeal, but an HOA's facial constitutional challenge against state dispute resolution statutes requires substitution of the State of Arizona and mandatory statutory service on the Attorney General, Speaker of the House, and President of the Senate pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-841(A). |
| Primary public source | View hosted source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 9 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 7 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | CBS-136 Homeowners Association v. Annette Cohen and State of Arizona |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Featured download links | 3 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Following an adverse ruling by an Administrative Law Judge at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in favor of Sun City West homeowner Annette Cohen, CBS-136 Homeowners Association initiated an administrative appeal in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2018-000316). Rather than defending on the factual record, the association—represented by Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen—mounted a direct facial constitutional challenge against Arizona's HOA dispute resolution system established under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 et seq. ADRE moved to dismiss itself as a non-jural entity under amended A.R.S. § 12-908, but recognized that the facial constitutional attack required state representation. On December 11, 2018, Judge Patricia Ann Starr substituted the State of Arizona as party appellee and strictly enforced A.R.S. § 12-841(A), ordering that the HOA could not obtain a ruling on constitutionality without formally serving its brief on the Arizona Attorney General, Speaker of the House, and President of the Senate. Facing formal state intervention and rigorous review, the association subsequently entered a stipulation for dismissal, leaving the homeowner's administrative victory standing.
Under amended A.R.S. § 12-908, an administrative agency is no longer an indispensable party to every judicial review proceeding between private litigants (Lewis v. Arizona State Personnel Board). Because the binding decision before the court was issued by an Administrative Law Judge under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B) after the Commissioner denied rehearing, ADRE was entitled to dismissal.
However, because CBS-136 HOA challenged the fundamental facial constitutionality of the legislative scheme governing HOA dispute resolution, the State of Arizona was the indispensable sovereign entity to defend its statutes. Judge Starr held that compliance with A.R.S. § 12-841(A) was mandatory: any party alleging that a state statute is facially unconstitutional must serve the Attorney General, House Speaker, and Senate President. The court refused to adjudicate the constitutional claims absent verified proof of legislative and executive service. When confronted with this procedural hurdle and the entry of appearance by the Attorney General's Office, the association chose to stipulate to dismissal.
This case provides critical insight into how HOA industry counsel attempted to challenge the reconstituted ADRE dispute resolution system following the Court of Appeals decision in Gelb v. DFBLS. When homeowners successfully prevail before an ALJ, associations have attempted to invalidate the entire administrative forum on constitutional grounds. Judge Starr's enforcement of statutory service on state leadership and substitution of the Attorney General creates a formidable procedural barrier against collateral constitutional attacks by associations.