Tag Archives: meetings-and-records

AZNH Trust v. Sunland Springs Village HOA: Electronic Ballots Remanded (LC2025-000025)

Posted on by

Elections & Records | Electronic Balloting & Remand | LC2025-000025

When Sunland Springs Village HOA claimed that electronic voting through vendor VoteHOANow did not produce inspectable association ballots, an owner obtained electronic voting data the association had not produced during the administrative hearing. Judge Joseph P. Mikitish remanded the case to ADRE for a full evidentiary hearing.

Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: AZNH Revocable Trust, John Sullivan, and Susan Sullivan v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association and Arizona Department of Real Estate, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000025 (minute entries use LC2025-000025-001 DT); related Office of Administrative Hearings / ADRE matter; Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish.

Download order remanding to ADRE for evidentiary hearing Download minute entry on OSC return hearing Download administrative review orders Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000025, an administrative appeal filed on January 14, 2025. AZNH Revocable Trust and its trustees petitioned against Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association alleging violations of A.R.S. § 33-1812 and records inspection statutes for failing to retain and produce electronic election ballots conducted through third-party platform VoteHOANow. After an Administrative Law Judge initially concluded no violation occurred because the system used an electronic user interface, appellants uncovered an electronic ballot that the HOA possessed but had failed to produce. Superior Court Judge Joseph P. Mikitish dismissed the appeal and remanded the case to ADRE under A.R.S. § 12-911 for a formal evidentiary hearing to address the newly discovered electronic voting records. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Superior Court remanded the administrative appeal to the Arizona Department of Real Estate pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-911 and Rule 10 of the JRAD Rules to conduct a formal evidentiary hearing regarding newly discovered electronic election ballots, holding that determining whether electronic records maintained by third-party voting platforms constitute association records under A.R.S. § 33-1812 requires comprehensive factual examination.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • AZNH Revocable Trust (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Homeowner trust owning property in Sunland Springs Village that petitioned to enforce statutory ballot inspection rights.
  • John Sullivan (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Trustee of AZNH Revocable Trust; appeared pro se to enforce election transparency.
  • Susan Sullivan (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Co-trustee of AZNH Revocable Trust.

Respondent Side

  • Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association (Defendant/Appellee)
    Master planned 55+ community homeowners association in East Mesa that conducted elections via VoteHOANow.
  • Arizona Department of Real Estate (Defendant/Appellee)
    State regulatory department overseeing HOA disputes; remand recipient for the evidentiary hearing.
  • Chad M. Gallacher (Counsel)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
    Counsel representing Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association.
  • B. Austin Baillio (Counsel)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
    Counsel representing Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association.
  • Deanie J. Reh (Counsel)
    Office of the Arizona Attorney General
    Assistant Attorney General representing the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
  • Raya Gardner (Counsel)
    Office of the Arizona Attorney General
    Assistant Attorney General representing the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court Judge who ordered the appeal remanded to ADRE for an evidentiary hearing on electronic ballots.

What happened

AZNH Revocable Trust filed an administrative petition with ADRE alleging Sunland Springs Village HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812 by failing to retain and produce electronic election ballots.

An ALJ concluded no violation occurred because the voting was conducted via an electronic user interface without physical ballots.

Following the ruling, the Sullivans obtained an electronic ballot that, according to AZNH, the HOA had in its custody but failed to produce.

Appellants filed an administrative appeal in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2025-000025) and moved for an evidentiary hearing.

The HOA contended the electronic files belonged to third-party vendor VoteHOANow and were not association records.

Judge Joseph P. Mikitish ruled that the storage, ownership, and technology of the ballots required an evidentiary hearing and remanded the proceeding to ADRE under A.R.S. § 12-911.

On September 17, 2025, the court held an Order to Show Cause return hearing with all parties and state counsel regarding case status.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village HOA and ADRE (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000025). Superior court remanded to ADRE for evidentiary hearing on disputed VoteHOANow electronic election ballots. 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 AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village HOA and ADRE. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

2025-01-14

AZNH Revocable Trust files Notice of Appeal of Administrative Decision in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2025-000025).

2025-01-21

Appellants file Motion for Evidentiary Hearing to Introduce Additional Evidence regarding newly discovered electronic ballots.

2025-08-27

Appellants file Motion to Enforce Judgment and for Order to Show Cause.

2025-09-17

Court conducts OSC hearing with Assistant Attorneys General and Maxwell & Morgan counsel, concluding Superior Court proceedings.

Download source
Minute Entry OSC Return Hearing

View all 4 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 4 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.

Source 1 2025-01-24

Administrative Review Orders

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2025-01-24_001_administrative-review-orders.pdf

FAQ

What was the dispute in AZNH Trust v. Sunland Springs Village HOA?

AZNH Revocable Trust and trustees John and Susan Sullivan filed an administrative petition with ADRE alleging that Sunland Springs Village HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812 by failing to retain all ballots and related election materials and refusing to make them available for member inspection.

What did the administrative agency originally rule?

The Office of Administrative Hearings initially ruled in favor of the HOA, accepting its defense that because voting occurred through an online electronic user interface, no paper ballots existed and the association therefore did not violate ballot retention requirements.

What new evidence was discovered after the administrative decision?

Following the administrative ruling, the Sullivans obtained an actual electronic ballot that Sunland Springs Village HOA had in its custody but had failed to disclose or produce during the hearing.

What did the HOA argue about third-party voting platforms like VoteHOANow?

Represented by Maxwell & Morgan, the HOA argued that the electronic voting records were inadmissible, belonged exclusively to third-party vendor VoteHOANow, and did not constitute official association records subject to member inspection.

What did Judge Mikitish decide?

Judge Joseph P. Mikitish ruled that the background of the documents, the entity owning and storing the files, and the use of election technology required a detailed factual analysis. Under A.R.S. § 12-911, the court remanded the proceeding to ADRE to conduct a formal evidentiary hearing to address the newly discovered electronic ballot evidence.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000025
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateApril 17, 2025
Judge / panelHon. Joseph P. Mikitish
PartiesAZNH Revocable Trust (Appellant) v. Sunland Springs Village HOA & ADRE (Appellees)
Governing law
Topics
Voting And ElectionsMeetings & RecordsProcedure
Outcome / holding

The Superior Court remanded the administrative appeal to the Arizona Department of Real Estate pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-911 and Rule 10 of the JRAD Rules to conduct a formal evidentiary hearing regarding newly discovered electronic election ballots, holding that determining whether electronic records maintained by third-party voting platforms constitute association records under A.R.S. § 33-1812 requires comprehensive factual examination.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package4 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap6 roadmap entries
Video overviewAZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village HOA and ADRE
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

In January 2025, AZNH Revocable Trust and its trustees John and Susan Sullivan appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2025-000025) seeking judicial review of an adverse administrative decision by the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE). The Sullivans had petitioned against Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, alleging that the association violated state law by failing to retain all election ballots and related materials and refusing to make them available for inspection pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1812 and § 33-1805. An Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings initially concluded that the HOA did not violate the law because the election was conducted through an electronic user interface without traditional paper ballots. Following that decision, however, appellants obtained an electronic ballot that, according to AZNH, the HOA had in its custody but failed to produce. In Superior Court, appellants moved for an evidentiary hearing to introduce the newly discovered evidence. The HOA, represented by Maxwell & Morgan, resisted the hearing, asserting that the records belonged to third-party vendor VoteHOANow rather than the association and were inadmissible. Judge Joseph P. Mikitish ruled that the background of the documents, ownership and storage of digital records, and the technologies used in the election required a formal evidentiary hearing, and remanded the matter back to ADRE under A.R.S. § 12-911 for an evidentiary hearing on the new electronic ballot evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

Under A.R.S. § 12-911(A)(7) and Rule 10 of the Rules of Procedure for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions, the Superior Court possesses statutory authority to remand an administrative proceeding when it appears that justice requires taking additional evidence not previously available or considered.

The core controversy centers on the growing use of third-party software vendors like VoteHOANow in Arizona HOA elections. While associations frequently argue that third-party digital platforms insulate elections from statutory ballot retention and inspection mandates under A.R.S. § 33-1812 and § 33-1805, the discovery of an electronic ballot that AZNH contended the association had in its custody directly challenged the ALJ's initial finding that no inspectable ballots existed.

Judge Mikitish concluded that determining the legal status of digital voting records requires a detailed evidentiary inquiry into 'the background of the documents, the entity owning and storing the documents, and the details of the use of various technologies in the HOA election.' Because the administrative agency is the proper forum for taking testimony and resolving expert regulatory questions regarding record-keeping, remand was the legally mandated remedy.

Why It Matters

As Arizona HOAs increasingly transition to online voting vendors like VoteHOANow, boards routinely tell members that electronic voting records cannot be inspected because 'the vendor owns the data.' This precedent demonstrates that associations cannot use third-party platforms to evade statutory ballot retention and disclosure duties under A.R.S. § 33-1812. When an owner demonstrates that digital ballots exist, courts will compel evidentiary scrutiny rather than accepting boilerplate vendor-custody defenses.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Barrs v. Desert Ranch HOA: Membership Lists Not Exempt Under A.R.S. § 33-1805 (LC2023-000179)

Posted on by

Records Inspection | Member Rosters | LC2023-000179

When an HOA refused to disclose its membership roster and an ADRE administrative law judge deemed it an exempt personal record, Judge Joseph P. Mikitish reversed the decision, ruling that owners must have access to member names and addresses to exercise voting, speech, and recall rights.

Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2023-000179 (minute entries use LC2023-000179-001 DT); ADRE / OAH Agency Case Nos. HO22-22050 & HO22-22054; Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish.

Download record appeal ruling reversing ADRE decision Download final judgment and remand order Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2023-000179, an appeal under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act from the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE). Homeowner Tom Barrs requested association membership rosters, but the HOA withheld them and the ADRE administrative law judge ruled the lists were exempt personal records. On appeal, Superior Court Judge Joseph P. Mikitish reversed the agency ruling in part, holding that under A.R.S. § 33-1805, membership lists containing owner names and parcel addresses are NOT exempt personal records and must be disclosed to ensure member participation, speech rights under § 33-1804, and recall petitions under § 33-1813, while email addresses and phone numbers may be withheld. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Reversed in part and remanded. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) & (B)(4), association membership rosters containing member names and property addresses are not exempt personal records and must be made available for examination to enable members to exercise democratic rights of speech, voting, and board recall; however, private contact details including telephone numbers and email addresses may properly be withheld.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tom Barrs (Petitioner/Appellant)
    Homeowner; self-represented pro se; prevailed on statutory interpretation of records disclosure rights under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Respondent Side

  • Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent/Appellee)
    Arizona nonprofit corporation
    HOA respondent; refused to provide membership roster; administrative decision in its favor reversed on appeal.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court Judge who authored the 6-page ruling defining statutory records inspection rights under § 33-1805.
  • Arizona Department of Real Estate (Originating Agency)
    State administrative agency (Case Nos. HO22-22050 & HO22-22054) whose ALJ ruling was reversed in part.

What happened

Tom Barrs, an owner in the Desert Ranch community, submitted written requests pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805 to inspect and copy the association’s current membership roster. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association refused to provide the list, asserting that member names and contact details were exempt personal records under § 33-1805(B)(4).

Barrs filed an administrative complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Agency Case Nos. HO22-22050 & HO22-22054). Following an evidentiary hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued a decision determining that the association was not required to produce the membership list.

Barrs timely appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act. Assigned to Judge Joseph P. Mikitish, the parties submitted comprehensive briefs, and the court conducted oral argument on February 5, 2024.

On April 4, 2024, Judge Mikitish issued a formal 6-page ruling reversing the administrative decision in part. The court held that membership rosters containing owner names and property addresses are not exempt under § 33-1805(B)(4) because they are necessary for open meetings and recall elections. Following cost applications, Judge Mikitish entered a final judgment on August 2, 2024 that reaffirmed the reversal, denied Barrs’s request for attorney fees and costs, and remanded to ADRE.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2023-000179). Reversed in part. HOA membership lists with names and addresses are not exempt personal records under § 33-1805. 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 Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

2021-10-21

Homeowner Tom Barrs sends a written request for the updated 2021 membership list under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

2022-04-18

Barrs files a petition with ADRE (HO22-22050 & HO22-22054) alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by withholding the membership directory.

2023-02-21

ADRE ALJ issues a ruling denying the petition after the January 9-10, 2023 evidentiary hearing (rehearing denied April 19, 2023).

2023-05-23

Barrs files notice of appeal for judicial review in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2023-000179).

2024-08-02

Court enters final judgment reaffirming the reversal, denying Barrs's request for attorney fees and costs, and remanding to ADRE.

Download source
Final Judgment And Remand Order

View all 7 source documents for this case ↓

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.

Source 7 2024-08-02

Final Judgment And Remand Order

Type: Decision or judgment

Final judgment reaffirming the April 4 reversal, denying Barrs's request for attorney fees and costs, and remanding to ADRE.

Download source file
2024-08-02_007_final-judgment-and-remand-order.pdf

FAQ

Are HOA membership rosters considered exempt personal records under Arizona law?

No. Under Judge Joseph P. Mikitish’s ruling in LC2023-000179, membership rosters containing owner names and property addresses do not fall within the A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) exemption for personal records because that information is not private in nature and is necessary for association governance.

Why is access to membership lists essential for HOA members?

Judge Mikitish emphasized that in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, members must be able to know who is in the association and what property they own. Roster access is required to communicate about community issues, speak before votes at open meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1804, and circulate recall petitions under A.R.S. § 33-1813.

Can an association withhold member email addresses and phone numbers?

Yes. The court distinguished between names and physical property addresses versus email addresses and phone numbers. Emails and phone numbers are more personal, less public, and subject to misuse such as marketing or harassment, so an association may properly withhold them under § 33-1805(B)(4).

What was the procedural posture of Barrs v. Desert Ranch HOA?

The homeowner filed an administrative dispute with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE Agency Nos. HO22-22050 & HO22-22054). When the Administrative Law Judge ruled against disclosure, the homeowner appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act (A.R.S. § 12-901 et seq.).

What was the final judgment entered by the Superior Court?

On April 4, 2024, Judge Mikitish reversed the ADRE decision in part. On August 2, 2024, the court entered a final judgment reaffirming the reversal and denying Barrs’s request for attorney fees and costs. It denied fees because the statute he invoked (A.R.S. § 10-11604) did not apply — he brought his claim to ADRE rather than to the superior court in the county of the association’s known place of business — and denied costs because he cited no legal authority for an award; the court then remanded to ADRE.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2023-000179
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateApril 4, 2024
Judge / panelHon. Joseph P. Mikitish
PartiesTom Barrs (Appellant) v. Desert Ranch HOA (Appellee)
Governing law
Topics
Meetings & RecordsBoard GovernanceVoting And ElectionsDisclosure
Outcome / holding

Reversed in part and remanded. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) & (B)(4), association membership rosters containing member names and property addresses are not exempt personal records and must be made available for examination to enable members to exercise democratic rights of speech, voting, and board recall; however, private contact details including telephone numbers and email addresses may properly be withheld.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package7 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap8 roadmap entries
Video overviewTom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links2 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Homeowner Tom Barrs requested copies of the membership roster from Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. The association refused, claiming that member contact information constitutes exempt personal records under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4). An ADRE Administrative Law Judge upheld the association's refusal. Barrs appealed pro se to Maricopa County Superior Court. Judge Joseph P. Mikitish reversed the administrative ruling in part. Judge Mikitish held that membership lists containing member names and property addresses are not exempt personal records because members must be able to identify other owners to participate in association affairs, exercise open-meeting speech rights under § 33-1804, and circulate board removal petitions under § 33-1813. The court held that associations must disclose names and parcel addresses upon request, although personal emails and telephone numbers may be redacted. On August 2, 2024, Judge Mikitish entered a final judgment reaffirming the reversal and denying Barrs's request for attorney fees and costs.

Key Issues & Findings

Under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act (A.R.S. § 12-901 et seq.), the Superior Court reviewed whether the agency decision was contrary to law. Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1805(A) establishes the foundational rule that all financial and other records of an association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member. Section 33-1805(B)(4) provides an exception allowing associations to withhold personal, health, or financial records.

Judge Mikitish analyzed the statutory context and legislative intent. Interpreting statutory terms according to their common understanding and purpose (State ex rel. Flournoy v. Mangum, 113 Ariz. 151), the court observed that personal records in the statute are grouped alongside health and financial records, which traditionally carry high privacy protections. In contrast, member names and property addresses in a planned community are not information that individuals typically keep secret. To actively participate in community affairs, owners must know who comprises the membership. Without roster access, members cannot effectively exercise their right to speak before board votes under § 33-1804(A) & (F) or gather signatures to recall directors under § 33-1813.

However, the court drew a clear line regarding electronic and telephonic information. Unlike physical property addresses, email addresses and phone numbers are more personal and less public, carrying risks of marketing misuse or harassment. Judge Mikitish held that disclosure of names and parcel addresses is essential and mandatory, whereas disclosure of email addresses and telephone numbers is not required. On August 2, 2024, the court entered final judgment reaffirming the reversal and denying Barrs's request for attorney fees and costs.

Why It Matters

This decision resolves a long-running battle in Arizona HOA governance. HOA boards and property managers routinely cite A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) to withhold membership lists from homeowners, effectively preventing reform candidates and concerned owners from communicating with their neighbors or gathering signatures for board recalls. Judge Mikitish's ruling establishes that membership rosters with names and property addresses are public records within the association that must be disclosed within the statutory 10-day period. It provides Arizona homeowners with a vital legal tool to overcome board gatekeeping while respecting legitimate owner privacy regarding phone numbers and email addresses.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Terravita Country Club v. William M. Brown: ADRE Records Inspection Affirmed (LC2017-000307)

Posted on by

Administrative Review | A.R.S. § 33-1805 & § 32-2199 | LC2017-000307

Terravita Country Club refused member William M. Brown’s records request, claiming the records related to criminal charges brought against him by the City of Scottsdale. Judge Patricia Ann Starr held that third-party litigation does not excuse an association from statutory disclosure duties under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Terravita Country Club, Inc. v. William M. Brown and Arizona Department of Real Estate, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2017-000307 (minute entries use LC2017-000307-001 DT); related Arizona Department of Real Estate No. HO 17-16/005 / Office of Administrative Hearings No. 17F-H1716005-REL; Hon. Patricia Ann Starr.

Download record appeal ruling affirming ADRE Download ruling denying stay of records disclosure Download initial administrative review orders Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2017-000307, an administrative appeal under the post-Gelb statutory framework (A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.) in which Terravita Country Club, Inc. challenged an Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) order. Superior Court Judge Patricia Ann Starr affirmed the ADRE decision, holding that an association cannot withhold records under A.R.S. § 33-1805 based on pending criminal litigation against a member when the association is not a party to that prosecution. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Superior Court affirmed the ADRE Final Order, holding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. An association cannot refuse member inspection requests on the basis of pending criminal proceedings to which the association is not a named party.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Country club and community entity in Scottsdale that appealed the ADRE records disclosure order.
  • Anjali J. Patel (Counsel)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Counsel of record representing Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Respondent Side

  • William M. Brown (Defendant/Appellee)
    Member and property owner who prevailed before ADRE and Superior Court under A.R.S. § 33-1805; appeared self-represented (pro per).
  • Arizona Department of Real Estate (Agency/Appellee)
    State administrative department that adopted the ALJ decision as its Final Order on July 24, 2017.
  • Lynette Evans (Counsel)
    Arizona Attorney General's Office
    Assistant Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    ALJ who conducted the evidentiary hearing (No. 17F-H1716005-REL) and ruled Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.
  • Hon. Patricia Ann Starr (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court judge who denied the stay of records disclosure and affirmed the ADRE order on the merits.

What happened

On February 6, 2017, William M. Brown requested records from Terravita Country Club under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Terravita refused eight days later, claiming the documents involved pending criminal litigation against Brown.

Brown filed a petition with ADRE. On July 10, 2017, ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson issued a decision ruling that because Terravita was not a party to the criminal case, its refusal violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The ALJ ordered document production within 10 days and a $500 fee refund.

ADRE adopted the ruling as a Final Order on July 24, 2017, and denied Terravita’s request for rehearing.

Terravita filed a Notice of Appeal in Maricopa County Superior Court on August 23, 2017 (LC2017-000307) and moved for an emergency stay.

On December 13, 2017, Judge Patricia Ann Starr denied Terravita’s motion to stay the records disclosure, holding that Terravita failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and could not stall statutory disclosures.

On May 21, 2018, Judge Starr issued a final Record Appeal Ruling affirming the ADRE order in its entirety and directing Terravita to comply and pay Brown’s costs.

Video overview: HOA record requests and the limits of litigation privilege

A plain-English breakdown of why pending third-party criminal proceedings do not excuse an HOA from member records disclosures under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Procedural timeline

2017-02-06

William M. Brown submits written records request to Terravita Country Club pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805.

2017-02-14

Terravita sends email refusing disclosure, alleging records relate to pending Scottsdale criminal litigation.

2017-04-13

Brown files Petition for Hearing with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (HO 17-16/005).

2017-06-19

Office of Administrative Hearings conducts evidentiary hearing before ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson.

2017-07-10

ALJ Moses-Thompson issues decision finding Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 and ordering compliance.

2017-07-24

ADRE Commissioner Judy Lowe accepts decision and issues Final Order.

2017-08-23

Terravita files Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2017-000307).

View all 10 source documents for this case ↓

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.

Source 1 2017-08-31

Administrative Review Orders

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2017-08-31_001_administrative-review-orders.pdf

FAQ

What led to the administrative appeal in LC2017-000307?

Homeowner William M. Brown submitted a formal records request to Terravita Country Club, Inc. under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Terravita refused to produce the records, claiming they were protected because Brown was facing pending criminal prosecution initiated by the City of Scottsdale. Brown petitioned the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE), and an Administrative Law Judge ruled Terravita violated the statute. Terravita appealed that order to Superior Court.

Can an HOA refuse a records request because a member faces criminal litigation?

No. Superior Court Judge Patricia Ann Starr affirmed the ALJ’s finding that because Terravita was not a party to the criminal case brought by the City of Scottsdale, it could not claim the records were shielded by litigation exemptions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805, pending third-party proceedings do not relieve an association of its mandatory 10-business-day disclosure timeline.

Did the court stay the disclosure order during the appeal?

No. While Judge Starr granted a temporary stay as to the $500 filing fee reimbursement, she explicitly denied Terravita’s motion to stay production of the records on December 13, 2017. The court ruled that Terravita failed to show irreparable harm, while staying production would directly prejudice the member entitled to inspect the association’s books.

What is the standard of review applied to ADRE administrative appeals?

Under A.R.S. § 12-910(E), the Superior Court must affirm an administrative decision unless the action is unsupported by substantial evidence, contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The court does not conduct a trial de novo or substitute its own factual judgment for that of the administrative agency.

How does this case connect to the broader Terravita litigation saga?

This case represents the post-Gelb administrative era (ADRE under A.R.S. § 32-2199). It parallels Brown’s earlier DFBLS administrative battle (LC2012-000699 / 1 CA-CV 14-0455) and the extensive civil litigation between Terravita and Brown (CV2016-017770 and CV2017-055475), documenting a decade of disputes over governance transparency.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2017-000307
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMay 21, 2018
Judge / panelHon. Patricia Ann Starr
PartiesTerravita Country Club, Inc. (Appellant) v. William M. Brown and Arizona Department of Real Estate (Appellees)
Governing law
Topics
Meetings & RecordsProcedureDisclosure
Outcome / holding

The Superior Court affirmed the ADRE Final Order, holding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. An association cannot refuse member inspection requests on the basis of pending criminal proceedings to which the association is not a named party.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package10 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap9 roadmap entries
Video overviewTerravita Country Club v. Brown: HOA Records and ADRE Oversight
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

On February 6, 2017, member William M. Brown requested association records from Terravita Country Club, Inc. pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805. Eight days later, Terravita refused the request, claiming the records were protected because they pertained to pending criminal proceedings brought against Brown by the City of Scottsdale. Brown filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE No. HO 17-16/005). Following a hearing before Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson (OAH No. 17F-H1716005-REL), the tribunal found that Terravita was not a party to the Scottsdale criminal prosecution and had violated § 33-1805 by failing to provide records within 10 business days. ADRE Commissioner Judy Lowe accepted the decision, ordered Terravita to produce the records within 10 days, and ordered Terravita to reimburse Brown's $500 filing fee. Terravita appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2017-000307). Judge Patricia Ann Starr denied Terravita's attempt to stay the document disclosure and, on May 21, 2018, affirmed the ADRE order in full, confirming that third-party litigation does not exempt an association from statutory record disclosures.

Key Issues & Findings

Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), all books, records, and financial statements of a planned community association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member within 10 business days of a written request. While subsection (B) exempts certain privileged categories—such as records pertaining to pending litigation between the association and a member—Judge Starr found that the criminal charges cited by Terravita were brought by the City of Scottsdale, not Terravita.

Because Terravita was not a party to the criminal action, it could not invoke the litigation exemption. Furthermore, the court held that Terravita waived several appellate arguments by failing to adequately develop them in its briefs, citing Cullum v. Cullum. Applying the deferential standard of review under A.R.S. § 12-910(E) (Siler v. Arizona Dept. of Real Estate), Judge Starr concluded that the administrative decision was supported by substantial evidence and was neither contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, nor an abuse of discretion.

Earlier in the appeal, Judge Starr applied the stay standard under A.R.S. § 12-911 and denied Terravita's motion to stay production of the records, finding no irreparable harm to the association while recognizing the ongoing harm to the member deprived of statutory transparency.

Why It Matters

This ruling establishes a crucial check on association gatekeeping. Associations frequently attempt to withhold financial and administrative records by pointing to collateral disputes or outside law-enforcement complaints. This decision clarifies that only litigation where the association itself is a party can justify withholding documents, and that members' statutory inspection rights under A.R.S. § 33-1805 are strictly enforced by Arizona courts.

← Back to Superior Court cases

William M. Brown v. Terravita Community Ass’n: Attorney Fee Reversal on Appeal (LC2012-000699)

Posted on by

Administrative Review | A.R.S. § 12-341.01 & § 33-1805 | LC2012-000699

After demanding Terravita Community Association’s legal engagement agreements and executive minutes, homeowner William M. Brown was hit with a $5,000 attorney fee award in Superior Court. Representing himself before the Court of Appeals, Brown secured a full reversal, cementing key limits on HOA fee shifting.

Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: William M. Brown v. Terravita Community Association, Inc. and Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2012-000699 (minute entries use LC2012-000699-001 DT); related Office of Administrative Hearings No. 12F-H1212014-BFS; Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 14-0455; The Hon. Crane McClennen.

Download judgment on appellate mandate reversing fees Download initial trial fee judgment against Brown Download initial record appeal ruling Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2012-000699 and Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 14-0455, an administrative appeal arising from a DFBLS records dispute. Superior Court Judge Crane McClennen initially affirmed the administrative dismissal of homeowner William M. Brown’s records petition and entered a $5,000 attorney fee judgment against him under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. Brown appealed pro se to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which issued a Memorandum Decision on July 30, 2015 reversing the fee award and declaring Brown the prevailing party, resulting in a judgment in Brown’s favor on remand. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Following the Arizona Court of Appeals reversal in 1 CA-CV 14-0455, the Superior Court vacated the $5,000 attorney fee judgment against homeowner William M. Brown and entered final judgment in his favor. Administrative review petitions concerning statutory record requests do not trigger fee shifting against homeowners under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William M. Brown (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Homeowner who appealed the DFBLS ruling and achieved complete reversal of the $5,000 attorney fee penalty on appeal; appeared pro per.

Respondent Side

  • Terravita Community Association, Inc. (Defendant/Appellee)
    Master planned community association in Scottsdale that obtained the initial fee judgment which was overturned on appeal.
  • Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (Agency/Appellee)
    State administrative department whose certified decision was under judicial review.
  • Curtis S. Ekmark (Counsel)
    Ekmark & Ekmark, L.L.C.
    Counsel of record representing Terravita Community Association, Inc.
  • 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

  • Brian Brendan Tully (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    ALJ who granted summary judgment for mootness (No. 12F-H1212014-BFS) holding records were privileged.
  • The Hon. Crane McClennen (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court judge who entered the initial fee award and subsequently entered judgment for Brown on appellate remand.

What happened

On May 25, 2012, William M. Brown requested Terravita’s legal representation contracts and executive session minutes pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805.

The association declined to produce the documents, asserting attorney-client privilege and executive session confidentiality.

Brown filed an administrative petition with DFBLS. On October 4, 2012, ALJ Brian Brendan Tully granted summary judgment for mootness, holding Brown was not legally entitled to the records.

Brown appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court on December 24, 2012 (LC2012-000699). Judge Crane McClennen affirmed the agency decision on November 22, 2013, and on February 13, 2014 awarded Terravita $5,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Brown posted a supersedeas bond and appealed pro se to the Arizona Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 14-0455).

On July 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed the fee judgment, holding Brown was the prevailing party on appeal.

On November 24, 2015, Judge McClennen entered judgment on the mandate in favor of Brown, awarding costs and releasing his bond.

Video overview: HOA record disputes, attorney-client privilege, and appellate fee reversal

An analysis of William M. Brown’s challenge to Terravita Community Association’s record withholdings, and how his pro se appellate victory eliminated a $5,000 fee penalty.

Procedural timeline

2012-05-25

William M. Brown submits formal records request to Terravita Community Association under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

2012-10-04

ALJ Brian Brendan Tully grants summary judgment for mootness in favor of Terravita (12F-H1212014-BFS).

2012-11-13

OAH Director Cliff J. Vanell certifies the ALJ decision as final administrative action.

2012-12-24

Brown files Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2012-000699).

2015-07-30

Arizona Court of Appeals issues Memorandum Decision in 1 CA-CV 14-0455 reversing the $5,000 fee award.

2015-09-09

Court of Appeals issues official Mandate transmitting reversal to Superior Court.

View all 16 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 16 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.

Source 1 2013-01-02

Administrative Review Orders

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2013-01-02_001_administrative-review-orders.pdf
Source 5 2013-08-26

Order Setting Oral Argument

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2013-08-26_005_order-setting-oral-argument.pdf
Source 6 2013-09-24

Order Vacating Oral Argument

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2013-09-24_006_order-vacating-oral-argument.pdf
Source 16 2015-11-24

Order Exonerating Cost Bond

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2015-11-24_016_order-exonerating-cost-bond.pdf

FAQ

What triggered the dispute in LC2012-000699?

On May 25, 2012, homeowner William M. Brown requested copies of legal engagement letters and fee schedules between Terravita Community Association and the law firm Ekmark & Ekmark, as well as minutes from board executive sessions. When the HOA refused, Brown filed an administrative petition with DFBLS under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Are HOA legal engagement letters and executive minutes subject to member inspection?

Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B), contracts and fee schedules regarding legal representation are protected by attorney-client privilege and cannot be disclosed without board waiver. Furthermore, executive session minutes are expressly protected from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(3), because non-board members are excluded from executive sessions under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

Why did the Superior Court order Brown to pay $5,000 in attorneys' fees?

After Superior Court Judge Crane McClennen affirmed the ALJ’s summary judgment dismissing Brown’s petition, Terravita applied for attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, claiming the administrative appeal arose out of contract (the CC&Rs). Judge McClennen awarded Terravita $5,000 in fees on February 13, 2014.

What did the Arizona Court of Appeals decide in 1 CA-CV 14-0455?

Brown appealed pro se to the Arizona Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 14-0455). On July 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals issued a Memorandum Decision reversing the fee award, holding that Plaintiff-Appellant Brown was the prevailing party on appeal. On remand, Judge McClennen entered judgment on November 24, 2015 in favor of Brown and awarded Brown his taxable costs.

Why is Brown v. Terravita regularly cited in Arizona fee disputes?

The decision is widely cited (including in Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas) on the boundaries of fee shifting under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, establishing that purely statutory claims and administrative appeals do not automatically ‘arise out of contract’ simply because the parties belong to a common-interest community.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2012-000699 / 1 CA-CV 14-0455
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateNovember 24, 2015
Judge / panelThe Hon. Crane McClennen
PartiesWilliam M. Brown (Appellant) v. Terravita Community Association and Arizona DFBLS (Appellees)
Governing law
Topics
Attorney FeesMeetings & RecordsProcedure
Outcome / holding

Following the Arizona Court of Appeals reversal in 1 CA-CV 14-0455, the Superior Court vacated the $5,000 attorney fee judgment against homeowner William M. Brown and entered final judgment in his favor. Administrative review petitions concerning statutory record requests do not trigger fee shifting against homeowners under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package16 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap10 roadmap entries
Video overviewWilliam M. Brown v. Terravita Community Ass'n: Overturning HOA Attorney Fees
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

In May 2012, homeowner William M. Brown submitted a records request to Terravita Community Association, Inc. under A.R.S. § 33-1805, seeking the association's legal engagement agreements with Ekmark & Ekmark, fee schedules, and minutes from board executive sessions. When the association refused, Brown filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (DFBLS No. 12F-H1212014-BFS). Administrative Law Judge Brian Brendan Tully granted the association's motion for summary judgment, concluding the requested records were protected by attorney-client privilege and executive session confidentiality statutes. Brown appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2012-000699). Judge Crane McClennen affirmed the administrative order and entered a $5,000 attorney fee judgment against Brown under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. Brown appealed pro se to the Arizona Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 14-0455). On July 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals issued a Memorandum Decision reversing the fee award and designating Brown the prevailing party. On remand, Judge McClennen entered judgment on November 24, 2015 in favor of Brown and awarded him costs.

Key Issues & Findings

While the administrative tribunal correctly recognized that attorney retainer agreements and executive session minutes are protected from general member inspection under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) and § 33-1804(A), the trial court erred in penalizing the homeowner with $5,000 in association attorneys' fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Under Arizona law, fees are authorized under § 12-341.01 only in contested actions 'arising out of a contract.' Brown's administrative petition was grounded in the enforcement of statutory transparency mandates under A.R.S. § 33-1805, rather than a breach-of-contract claim based on the declaration. The Court of Appeals determined that Brown was the prevailing party on appeal in 1 CA-CV 14-0455, overturning the superior court's fee award.

Pursuant to the appellate mandate, Judge McClennen entered judgment for Brown for his taxable costs ($280.00) and exonerated his $500.00 supersedeas cost bond, closing the case pursuant to Rule 54(c). The case stands as a key defense against HOAs using fee-shifting statutes to discourage homeowners from seeking administrative review.

Why It Matters

This case is a landmark victory for self-represented homeowners. Had the $5,000 fee judgment stood, it would have created a chilling effect preventing homeowners from using state administrative hearing processes to question association secrecy. The Court of Appeals' reversal demonstrates that an HOA cannot easily weaponize A.R.S. § 12-341.01 to extract attorney fees when a homeowner invokes statutory inspection rights.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Nancy Saxton v. The Lakes Community Ass’n: Records Inspection and Limitations (LC2014-000354)

Posted on by

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.

Download record appeal ruling affirming dismissal Download final order awarding taxable costs Download initial administrative review orders Source-file index FAQ

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

2012-11-05

Nancy Saxton serves formal Demand to Inspect Financial Records on The Lakes Community Association.

2013-01-08

Association produces third installment of financial records with extensive redactions.

2013-09-27

Association attorney offers in-person inspection of unredacted records at counsel's office.

2013-11-25

Saxton files administrative petition with DFBLS alleging violations of A.R.S. § 33-1805.

2014-06-02

ALJ M. Douglas issues decision dismissing petition as time-barred and finding association complied.

2014-07-24

Saxton files Complaint for Judicial Review in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2014-000354).

View all 6 source documents for this case ↓

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.

Source 1 2014-07-29

Administrative Review Orders

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2014-07-29_001_administrative-review-orders.pdf
Source 2 2015-01-14

Order Setting Oral Argument

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2015-01-14_002_order-setting-oral-argument.pdf
Source 3 2015-01-28

Order Resetting Oral Argument

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2015-01-28_003_order-resetting-oral-argument.pdf

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2014-000354
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateApril 22, 2015
Judge / panelThe Hon. Crane McClennen
PartiesNancy 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 sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package6 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap9 roadmap entries
Video overviewNo video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

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.

Key Issues & Findings

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.

Why It Matters

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.

← Back to Superior Court cases