Petitioner prevailed on the claim regarding the failure to provide financial compilations (ISS-002) and was awarded a filing fee refund. Respondent prevailed on claims regarding meeting recordings (ISS-001) and communication restrictions (ISS-003). A rehearing on ISS-003 affirmed the decision in favor of the Respondent.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove violations regarding meeting recordings (as the Board provided recordings) and communication restrictions (as the Board may manage communication channels for onerous requests).
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to allow videotaping
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated statute by prohibiting members from recording meetings. The ALJ found that because the Board recorded the meetings and made them available, prohibiting members from recording did not violate the statute.
Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party on this item.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Failure to provide compiled financial statements
The HOA failed to complete and provide the 2017 financial compilation within the statutory timeframe (180 days after fiscal year end). Documents were not sent to the accountant until one month prior to the hearing.
Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 (filing fee refund) within 30 days.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Denial of reasonable access and communication
Petitioner alleged that requiring him to communicate solely through the HOA's attorney violated his rights. The ALJ found this was standard practice when requests become onerous and did not constitute a violation.
Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party on this item.
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
19F-H1918009-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-03-04
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Rogelio A. Garcia
Counsel
—
Respondent
Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association
Counsel
Nathan Tennyson
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition for rehearing, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. The HOA was not required to provide the statutory details or the notice of the right to petition ADRE because the Petitioner failed to submit a written response by certified mail within 21 days of the violation notices.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. The HOA was not required to provide the information listed in A.R.S. § 33-1242 (C) or the notice of right to petition in (D) because the Petitioner did not submit a written response by certified mail within twenty-one days, which is the triggering requirement for those obligations.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of statutory requirements for homeowner association violation notices.
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 requirements regarding violation notices. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to establish the violation because he did not respond by certified mail within the 21-day statutory period, meaning the HOA was not triggered to fulfill its obligations under § 33-1242(C) and (D).
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Garcia vs. Villagio at Tempe HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the findings, arguments, and conclusions from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Rogelio A. Garcia and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association (“Villagio”). The core of the dispute was Mr. Garcia’s allegation that Villagio violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1242 in its handling of violation notices related to an alleged breach of short-term rental policies.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed Mr. Garcia’s petition in both an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, finding that he failed to meet the burden of proof. The decisions consistently hinged on a critical point: Mr. Garcia did not respond to Villagio’s violation notices by certified mail within the 21-day period prescribed by the statute. This failure meant that the HOA’s subsequent obligations under the statute—specifically, to provide the name of the violation’s observer and to give notice of the right to a state administrative hearing—were never triggered. Villagio successfully argued that by including its own internal appeal process in the violation notices, it had fulfilled its legal requirements under the circumstances. The final ruling deemed Villagio the prevailing party, with the decision after rehearing being binding on both parties.
Background of the Dispute
The case, No. 19F-H1918009-REL, was adjudicated by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson within the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, following a petition filed by Mr. Garcia with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Timeline of Notices and Fines
Villagio issued a series of notices to Mr. Garcia alleging that his unit was being rented in violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding short-term leases.
Date of Notice
Allegation / Action Taken
Instructions Provided to Homeowner
March 8, 2018
Alleged violation of short-term lease provisions.
“If you wish to contest this notice… file an appeal with the Board of Directors… Requests for an appeal must be received within 10 days of receipt of this notice.”
March 22, 2018
A fine of $1,000 posted to Mr. Garcia’s account for the ongoing violation.
Same instructions to appeal within 10 days. The notice also included the phrase, “Please bring this issue into compliance within 10 days of this notice.”
April 5, 2018
A fine of $2,000 posted to Mr. Garcia’s account for the ongoing violation.
Same instructions to appeal within 10 days.
Procedural History
1. Violation Notices: Villagio sent the three notices in March and April 2018.
2. Homeowner Inaction (Statutory): Mr. Garcia did not respond to any of the notices by sending a certified letter within the 21-day period allowed by A.R.S. § 33-1242(B).
3. Homeowner Action (Internal): Mr. Garcia did eventually file an appeal with Villagio regarding the violation and fines, but the HOA did not change its position.
4. Petition Filed: On or about August 17, 2018, Mr. Garcia filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging Villagio violated state statutes.
5. Initial Hearing: An evidentiary hearing was held on October 30, 2018.
6. First Decision: On November 19, 2018, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision dismissing Mr. Garcia’s petition.
7. Rehearing Granted: Mr. Garcia requested a rehearing, which was granted and scheduled.
8. Rehearing: The rehearing was held on February 12, 2019, with testimony from Mr. Garcia and Tom Gordon, Villagio’s Community Manager.
9. Final Decision: On March 4, 2019, the ALJ issued a final decision again dismissing Mr. Garcia’s petition. This order was declared binding and appealable only to the superior court.
Core Legal Arguments and Statutory Interpretation
The case centered on the interpretation and application of A.R.S. § 33-1242, which governs the process for notifying and responding to violations of condominium documents.
Statutory Framework: A.R.S. § 33-1242
• Section (B): A unit owner receiving a violation notice may provide the association with a written response via certified mail within 21 calendar days of the notice date.
• Section (C):If the owner sends a response as described in Section (B), the association must then respond within 10 business days with specific information, including the name of the person who observed the violation and the process to contest the notice.
• Section (D): An association must give a unit owner written notice of their option to petition for a state administrative hearing unless the information regarding the contest process (required in Section C, paragraph 4) is already provided in the initial violation notice.
Petitioner’s Position (Rogelio A. Garcia)
Mr. Garcia argued that Villagio violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 on several grounds:
• The violation letters did not allow him to respond by certified mail within 21 days.
• The notices failed to include the first and last name of the person(s) who observed the violation.
• The notices failed to inform him of his right to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department.
• During the rehearing, he contended that Villagio effectively prevented him from using the 21-day statutory response period. He claimed the rapid succession of notices (14 days apart) and the language demanding compliance “within 10 days” led him to believe he “would only be 10 days before he would acquire another violation.”
Respondent’s Position (Villagio at Tempe HOA)
Villagio disputed all of Mr. Garcia’s allegations, arguing that its actions were fully compliant with the statute:
• The obligation to provide the observer’s name under Section (C) is only triggered after the homeowner first submits a timely certified mail response, which Mr. Garcia failed to do.
• The obligation to provide notice of the right to a state administrative hearing under Section (D) was not applicable because Villagio did provide its internal process for contesting the notice in every letter sent.
• They did not prevent Mr. Garcia from responding. At the rehearing, Mr. Garcia admitted under cross-examination that he was not prohibited by any court order from sending a response.
• Villagio’s Community Manager, Tom Gordon, testified that while the HOA’s policy gives homeowners 10 days to contest internally, the association does not restrict them from also using the 21-day statutory response period.
• As a further defense in the rehearing, Villagio argued that A.R.S. § 33-1242 was not applicable at all, asserting the statute addresses violations concerning the “condition of the property,” whereas Mr. Garcia’s violation concerned the “use of his property.”
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Decision
The Administrative Law Judge’s decisions in both the initial hearing and the rehearing were consistent, ruling decisively in favor of the Respondent, Villagio.
Burden of Proof
In both decisions, the Judge established that Mr. Garcia, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proof to show that a violation occurred. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with the “most convincing force.”
Key Conclusions of Law
1. Homeowner’s Failure to Respond Was Decisive: The Judge found it was “undisputed” that Mr. Garcia did not respond to any of the three notices within the 21-day period via certified mail. This failure was the central reason his petition was dismissed.
2. HOA Obligations Were Not Triggered: Because Mr. Garcia did not initiate the process described in A.R.S. § 33-1242(B), Villagio’s corresponding obligation under Section (C) to provide the observer’s name was never activated.
3. Internal Appeal Process Satisfied Statutory Requirement: The Judge concluded that because Villagio included instructions on how to contest the notice (i.e., appeal to the Board of Directors) in its letters, it was not required under Section (D) to provide separate notice of the right to a state administrative hearing.
4. No Evidence of Prevention: The Judge found that Mr. Garcia “provided no evidence to establish that Villagio prevented him from responding.” The issuance of subsequent notices and fines before the 21-day period had lapsed was not found to constitute a legal barrier that prevented Mr. Garcia from exercising his statutory right to respond.
5. Final Order: Mr. Garcia failed to establish that Villagio violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. His petition was ordered to be dismissed, and Villagio was deemed the prevailing party. The order issued after the rehearing on March 4, 2019, is binding on the parties and can only be appealed by seeking judicial review in the superior court within 35 days of service.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918009-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Garcia v. Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association
Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided source documents.
1. What was the initial violation alleged by the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association (Villagio) against Rogelio A. Garcia?
2. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B), what specific action must a unit owner take after receiving a violation notice to trigger the association’s obligations under subsection C?
3. Who bears the burden of proof in this type of administrative hearing, and what is the standard of proof required?
4. Why did the Administrative Law Judge rule that Villagio was not required to provide Mr. Garcia with the name of the person who observed the violation?
5. What was Mr. Garcia’s primary argument during the February 12, 2019 rehearing for why he felt he was prevented from responding to the violation notices?
6. What argument did Villagio present at the rehearing distinguishing between the “condition” of a property and the “use” of a property?
7. What two fines were imposed on Mr. Garcia’s account, and on what dates were the notices sent?
8. Why did the Judge conclude that Villagio was not obligated to inform Mr. Garcia of his right to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department?
9. What was the testimony of Tom Gordon, the Community Manager for Villagio, regarding the association’s policy for contesting a notice?
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on October 30, 2018, and the rehearing on February 12, 2019?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. What was the initial violation alleged by the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association (Villagio) against Rogelio A. Garcia? The initial violation alleged by Villagio was that Mr. Garcia’s unit was being rented in violation of the short-term lease provisions located in Villagio’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The first notice of this violation was mailed to Mr. Garcia on March 8, 2018.
2. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B), what specific action must a unit owner take after receiving a violation notice to trigger the association’s obligations under subsection C? To trigger the association’s obligations, a unit owner who receives a written notice of violation must provide the association with a written response. This response must be sent by certified mail within twenty-one calendar days after the date of the notice.
3. Who bears the burden of proof in this type of administrative hearing, and what is the standard of proof required? The petitioner, Mr. Garcia, bears the burden of proof to show that the respondent committed the alleged violation. The standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is defined as evidence with the most convincing force that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue.
4. Why did the Administrative Law Judge rule that Villagio was not required to provide Mr. Garcia with the name of the person who observed the violation? The judge ruled that Villagio was not required to provide the observer’s name because that obligation is only triggered after a unit owner responds to the violation notice in writing by certified mail within 21 days. It is undisputed that Mr. Garcia did not respond to the notices within the 21-day period, so Villagio’s obligation was never activated.
5. What was Mr. Garcia’s primary argument during the February 12, 2019 rehearing for why he felt he was prevented from responding to the violation notices? Mr. Garcia argued that Villagio prevented him from responding by certified mail within 21 days because it failed to wait 21 days before issuing additional notices and imposing fines. He stated that the notices’ language requiring compliance within 10 days made him believe he would acquire another violation before the 21-day statutory response period had passed.
6. What argument did Villagio present at the rehearing distinguishing between the “condition” of a property and the “use” of a property? Villagio contended that A.R.S. § 33-1242 does not apply to this case at all because the statute addresses violations related to the “condition” of the property. Villagio argued that it notified Mr. Garcia that the “use” of his property violated its short-term rental policy, not that a physical condition of the property was in violation.
7. What two fines were imposed on Mr. Garcia’s account, and on what dates were the notices sent? A fine of $1,000 was posted to Mr. Garcia’s account, with the notice being sent on March 22, 2018. Subsequently, a $2,000 fine was posted to his account for the same violation, and that notice was sent on April 5, 2018.
8. Why did the Judge conclude that Villagio was not obligated to inform Mr. Garcia of his right to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department? The Judge concluded that Villagio was not obligated to provide this information because A.R.S. § 33-1242(D) only requires it if the association fails to provide the unit owner with the process for contesting the notice. Villagio’s notices all contained instructions on how to contest the violation, specifically by filing an appeal with the Board of Directors via a provided website.
9. What was the testimony of Tom Gordon, the Community Manager for Villagio, regarding the association’s policy for contesting a notice? Tom Gordon testified that homeowners are provided with 10 days to contest a notice with Villagio, pursuant to Villagio’s short-term rental policy. When asked if Villagio would have abided by “this statute” (A.R.S. § 33-1242) if Mr. Garcia had responded in twenty-one days, Mr. Gordon replied, “No.”
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on October 30, 2018, and the rehearing on February 12, 2019? In both the initial hearing and the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge found that Mr. Garcia failed to establish that Villagio violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. Consequently, Mr. Garcia’s petition was dismissed in both instances, and Villagio was deemed the prevailing party.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Develop detailed essay-format answers to the following prompts, drawing evidence and examples exclusively from the provided source documents.
1. Analyze the central arguments presented by both Rogelio A. Garcia and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association regarding the application of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242. How did the Administrative Law Judge interpret the statute in relation to these arguments in the final decision?
2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” and “preponderance of the evidence” as applied in this case. Explain how Mr. Garcia’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
3. Trace the timeline of events from the first notice sent by Villagio on March 8, 2018, to the final order on March 4, 2019. Explain how Mr. Garcia’s actions, or lack thereof, at key moments influenced the legal obligations of the association and the ultimate outcome of the case.
4. Evaluate Villagio’s argument that A.R.S. § 33-1242 applies only to the “condition” of a property and not its “use.” Although the judge’s decision did not ultimately hinge on this point, discuss the potential implications of this distinction in homeowner association disputes.
5. Explain the two distinct procedural paths available to a unit owner after receiving a violation notice as outlined in this case: the association’s internal appeal process and the statutory process under A.R.S. § 33-1242. Why did the path Mr. Garcia chose fail to trigger the statutory protections he sought?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the administrative hearing and rehearing, evaluates evidence, and issues a decision. In this case, Velva Moses-Thompson.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. (A.R.S.)
The abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona that regulate condominiums and planned communities.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency that has authority over homeowner association disputes and with which homeowners may petition for a hearing.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their allegations. In this case, Mr. Garcia bore the burden of proof.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents of the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association, which contain the short-term lease provisions Mr. Garcia was alleged to have violated.
Office of Administrative Hearings
The venue where the evidentiary hearing and rehearing for this matter were held.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Rogelio A. Garcia.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this matter, defined as “The greater weight of the evidence…that has the most convincing force…sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Rehearing
A second hearing on a matter, granted in this case at Mr. Garcia’s request after the initial Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918009-REL-RHG
He Fought His HOA and Followed Their Rules. Here’s Why He Still Lost.
1.0 Introduction: The Dreaded Letter
For many homeowners, it’s a familiar and unwelcome sight: a crisp envelope from the Homeowners Association (HOA) containing a formal, intimidating violation notice. Your first instinct is to act, to follow the instructions, and to fight back against what feels like an unfair accusation. You read the letter, see a process for an appeal, and dutifully follow it, believing you are protecting your rights. But what if the process outlined in the letter isn’t the one that truly matters under the law?
This isn’t a theoretical warning. It’s the hard lesson learned by a real homeowner in Arizona, Rogelio A. Garcia, who took on his HOA, Villagio at Tempe. He believed the association had violated his rights, and unlike many homeowners, he didn’t ignore the notices—he took action. He filed an appeal with the HOA, just as their letter instructed. Yet, he lost his case, not because he was wrong on the facts, but because he fell into a subtle procedural trap, following the HOA’s internal process while missing a separate, more powerful one defined by state law.
This article breaks down the top three legal takeaways from that court decision. It reveals how taking the wrong action can be just as costly as taking no action at all, offering crucial strategic insights for any homeowner facing a dispute with their association.
2.0 Takeaway 1: Your Rights Often Have an ‘On’ Switch You Must Flip First
Mr. Garcia’s primary complaint was that the HOA failed to provide him with the name of the person who reported his alleged violation—a requirement under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1242. On the surface, this seems like a clear-cut right afforded to homeowners.
However, the court revealed a counter-intuitive legal reality. The HOA’s legal obligation to provide the reporter’s name was not automatic. That right only became active—the obligation was only triggered—if the homeowner first took a specific, formal step: sending a written response to the violation notice via certified mail within 21 calendar days. The record was clear that Mr. Garcia did not send such a response to the March 8, March 22, or April 5 notices. This single procedural failure was fatal to his claim.
The judge’s finding on this point was direct and unambiguous:
“Because Mr. Garcia did not respond in the 21 day period, Villagio was not required to provide Mr. Garcia with the first and last name of the person or persons who observed the violation.”
This illustrates a critical principle: your most important legal rights may exist in state law, but they often lie dormant. To activate them, you must flip the “on” switch by taking the precise action required by statute, which may be entirely different from the process described in the HOA’s notice.
3.0 Takeaway 2: An Internal Process Can Legally Replace—and Distract From—a State-Level One
So why would an engaged homeowner like Mr. Garcia, who went so far as to file an appeal, neglect to send the critical 21-day certified letter? The answer lies in the second key takeaway: the HOA’s violation notice offered its own, separate appeal process with a much shorter deadline, creating a critical and costly distraction.
Mr. Garcia’s second major argument was that Villagio violated the law by not informing him of his right to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department. Again, the law contained a crucial nuance. Under A.R.S. § 33-1242(D), an HOA is only required to notify a homeowner of the state hearing option if it fails to provide its own process for contesting the notice. Villagio’s letters did include a process: the homeowner could “file an appeal with the Board of Directors… within 10 days of receipt of this notice.”
Court records show Mr. Garcia followed this path and “filed an appeal with Villagio.” By doing so, he engaged with the HOA on their terms, likely focusing all his energy on meeting that urgent 10-day deadline. Because Villagio provided this internal process, the judge concluded it had met its legal obligation and was not required to inform Mr. Garcia about the alternative state-level hearing. This created a procedural trap: the HOA satisfied its legal requirement by offering an internal process that simultaneously diverted the homeowner’s attention from the more powerful, but less obvious, 21-day statutory deadline that would have unlocked his other rights.
4.0 Takeaway 3: Conflicting Deadlines Can Create a Legal Minefield
During a rehearing, Mr. Garcia argued that the HOA’s communication style effectively “prevented” him from using his full 21-day statutory response window. The notices demanded compliance within 10 days and were sent every 14 days with escalating fines. He felt the rapid succession of notices created a pressure cooker, making it impossible to properly exercise his rights.
The court flatly rejected this argument, highlighting a harsh legal truth. The judge found no evidence that Villagio had explicitly told Mr. Garcia he could not respond or had physically prevented him from sending a certified letter. The issuance of a second notice with a demanding 10-day timeline did not legally nullify the 21-day window he had to respond to the first. When asked directly if he was prohibited by a court order from sending a response, Mr. Garcia answered, “No.”
This reveals a common tactic, whether intentional or not, in HOA disputes. The violation notices contained two conflicting timelines: a prominent, urgent “10 days to comply” demand and the less obvious, but legally superior, 21-day statutory right to respond. This conflict creates confusion and pressure, causing homeowners to focus on the immediate threat (the 10-day deadline) while missing the most important legal one. The court, however, places the burden squarely on the homeowner to navigate this minefield, as feeling pressured is not a legal defense for failing to meet a statutory deadline.
5.0 Conclusion: Know the Rules Before You Play the Game
The case of Mr. Garcia versus the Villagio at Tempe HOA is a powerful reminder that successfully challenging an HOA is not about being “right,” or even about taking action. It is about taking the correct, procedurally perfect action defined by law.
Mr. Garcia was not passive; he engaged and appealed the violation. His case was lost because he followed the path laid out for him by the HOA, not the one laid out for him by state statute. This crucial distinction—between an association’s internal process and the homeowner’s statutory rights—can mean the difference between victory and defeat. Before you act on any violation notice, you must first understand the precise rules of engagement, which may not be written in the notice itself.
If you received a violation notice today, would you know whether the appeal process in the letter is your only option, or a potential distraction from the legal first step required to truly protect your rights?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Rogelio A. Garcia(petitioner) Appeared on behalf of himself
Respondent Side
Nathan Tennyson(HOA attorney) Brown Olcott, PLLC
Tom Gordon(community manager) Villagio / AAMAZ Testified as witness for Villagio
Amanda Shaw(property manager/agent) AAM LLC Listed as agent for Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
19F-H1918009-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-03-04
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Rogelio A. Garcia
Counsel
—
Respondent
Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association
Counsel
Nathan Tennyson
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1242
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition based on a rehearing, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 because the Petitioner's failure to respond by certified mail within 21 days meant the HOA's duties to provide further information or notice of the right to petition ADRE were never triggered.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to carry the burden of proof to show that the Respondent committed the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242. The HOA was deemed not obligated to provide the specific statutory disclosures because the Petitioner did not respond to the notices of violation by certified mail within 21 calendar days.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of HOA notice requirements
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 by failing to provide specific information (observer name, notice of ADRE petition right) and restricting the 21-day response period in violation notices concerning short term lease provisions. The ALJ found that because the Petitioner did not respond by certified mail within 21 days, the HOA was not required to provide the information under A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) or the notice of administrative hearing option under A.R.S. § 33-1242(D).
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1242
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, notice of violation, statutory interpretation, right to respond, administrative hearing
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Garcia vs. Villagio at Tempe HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the findings, arguments, and conclusions from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Rogelio A. Garcia and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association (“Villagio”). The core of the dispute was Mr. Garcia’s allegation that Villagio violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1242 in its handling of violation notices related to an alleged breach of short-term rental policies.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed Mr. Garcia’s petition in both an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, finding that he failed to meet the burden of proof. The decisions consistently hinged on a critical point: Mr. Garcia did not respond to Villagio’s violation notices by certified mail within the 21-day period prescribed by the statute. This failure meant that the HOA’s subsequent obligations under the statute—specifically, to provide the name of the violation’s observer and to give notice of the right to a state administrative hearing—were never triggered. Villagio successfully argued that by including its own internal appeal process in the violation notices, it had fulfilled its legal requirements under the circumstances. The final ruling deemed Villagio the prevailing party, with the decision after rehearing being binding on both parties.
Background of the Dispute
The case, No. 19F-H1918009-REL, was adjudicated by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson within the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, following a petition filed by Mr. Garcia with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Timeline of Notices and Fines
Villagio issued a series of notices to Mr. Garcia alleging that his unit was being rented in violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding short-term leases.
Date of Notice
Allegation / Action Taken
Instructions Provided to Homeowner
March 8, 2018
Alleged violation of short-term lease provisions.
“If you wish to contest this notice… file an appeal with the Board of Directors… Requests for an appeal must be received within 10 days of receipt of this notice.”
March 22, 2018
A fine of $1,000 posted to Mr. Garcia’s account for the ongoing violation.
Same instructions to appeal within 10 days. The notice also included the phrase, “Please bring this issue into compliance within 10 days of this notice.”
April 5, 2018
A fine of $2,000 posted to Mr. Garcia’s account for the ongoing violation.
Same instructions to appeal within 10 days.
Procedural History
1. Violation Notices: Villagio sent the three notices in March and April 2018.
2. Homeowner Inaction (Statutory): Mr. Garcia did not respond to any of the notices by sending a certified letter within the 21-day period allowed by A.R.S. § 33-1242(B).
3. Homeowner Action (Internal): Mr. Garcia did eventually file an appeal with Villagio regarding the violation and fines, but the HOA did not change its position.
4. Petition Filed: On or about August 17, 2018, Mr. Garcia filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging Villagio violated state statutes.
5. Initial Hearing: An evidentiary hearing was held on October 30, 2018.
6. First Decision: On November 19, 2018, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision dismissing Mr. Garcia’s petition.
7. Rehearing Granted: Mr. Garcia requested a rehearing, which was granted and scheduled.
8. Rehearing: The rehearing was held on February 12, 2019, with testimony from Mr. Garcia and Tom Gordon, Villagio’s Community Manager.
9. Final Decision: On March 4, 2019, the ALJ issued a final decision again dismissing Mr. Garcia’s petition. This order was declared binding and appealable only to the superior court.
Core Legal Arguments and Statutory Interpretation
The case centered on the interpretation and application of A.R.S. § 33-1242, which governs the process for notifying and responding to violations of condominium documents.
Statutory Framework: A.R.S. § 33-1242
• Section (B): A unit owner receiving a violation notice may provide the association with a written response via certified mail within 21 calendar days of the notice date.
• Section (C):If the owner sends a response as described in Section (B), the association must then respond within 10 business days with specific information, including the name of the person who observed the violation and the process to contest the notice.
• Section (D): An association must give a unit owner written notice of their option to petition for a state administrative hearing unless the information regarding the contest process (required in Section C, paragraph 4) is already provided in the initial violation notice.
Petitioner’s Position (Rogelio A. Garcia)
Mr. Garcia argued that Villagio violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 on several grounds:
• The violation letters did not allow him to respond by certified mail within 21 days.
• The notices failed to include the first and last name of the person(s) who observed the violation.
• The notices failed to inform him of his right to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department.
• During the rehearing, he contended that Villagio effectively prevented him from using the 21-day statutory response period. He claimed the rapid succession of notices (14 days apart) and the language demanding compliance “within 10 days” led him to believe he “would only be 10 days before he would acquire another violation.”
Respondent’s Position (Villagio at Tempe HOA)
Villagio disputed all of Mr. Garcia’s allegations, arguing that its actions were fully compliant with the statute:
• The obligation to provide the observer’s name under Section (C) is only triggered after the homeowner first submits a timely certified mail response, which Mr. Garcia failed to do.
• The obligation to provide notice of the right to a state administrative hearing under Section (D) was not applicable because Villagio did provide its internal process for contesting the notice in every letter sent.
• They did not prevent Mr. Garcia from responding. At the rehearing, Mr. Garcia admitted under cross-examination that he was not prohibited by any court order from sending a response.
• Villagio’s Community Manager, Tom Gordon, testified that while the HOA’s policy gives homeowners 10 days to contest internally, the association does not restrict them from also using the 21-day statutory response period.
• As a further defense in the rehearing, Villagio argued that A.R.S. § 33-1242 was not applicable at all, asserting the statute addresses violations concerning the “condition of the property,” whereas Mr. Garcia’s violation concerned the “use of his property.”
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Decision
The Administrative Law Judge’s decisions in both the initial hearing and the rehearing were consistent, ruling decisively in favor of the Respondent, Villagio.
Burden of Proof
In both decisions, the Judge established that Mr. Garcia, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proof to show that a violation occurred. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with the “most convincing force.”
Key Conclusions of Law
1. Homeowner’s Failure to Respond Was Decisive: The Judge found it was “undisputed” that Mr. Garcia did not respond to any of the three notices within the 21-day period via certified mail. This failure was the central reason his petition was dismissed.
2. HOA Obligations Were Not Triggered: Because Mr. Garcia did not initiate the process described in A.R.S. § 33-1242(B), Villagio’s corresponding obligation under Section (C) to provide the observer’s name was never activated.
3. Internal Appeal Process Satisfied Statutory Requirement: The Judge concluded that because Villagio included instructions on how to contest the notice (i.e., appeal to the Board of Directors) in its letters, it was not required under Section (D) to provide separate notice of the right to a state administrative hearing.
4. No Evidence of Prevention: The Judge found that Mr. Garcia “provided no evidence to establish that Villagio prevented him from responding.” The issuance of subsequent notices and fines before the 21-day period had lapsed was not found to constitute a legal barrier that prevented Mr. Garcia from exercising his statutory right to respond.
5. Final Order: Mr. Garcia failed to establish that Villagio violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. His petition was ordered to be dismissed, and Villagio was deemed the prevailing party. The order issued after the rehearing on March 4, 2019, is binding on the parties and can only be appealed by seeking judicial review in the superior court within 35 days of service.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918009-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Garcia v. Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association
Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided source documents.
1. What was the initial violation alleged by the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association (Villagio) against Rogelio A. Garcia?
2. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B), what specific action must a unit owner take after receiving a violation notice to trigger the association’s obligations under subsection C?
3. Who bears the burden of proof in this type of administrative hearing, and what is the standard of proof required?
4. Why did the Administrative Law Judge rule that Villagio was not required to provide Mr. Garcia with the name of the person who observed the violation?
5. What was Mr. Garcia’s primary argument during the February 12, 2019 rehearing for why he felt he was prevented from responding to the violation notices?
6. What argument did Villagio present at the rehearing distinguishing between the “condition” of a property and the “use” of a property?
7. What two fines were imposed on Mr. Garcia’s account, and on what dates were the notices sent?
8. Why did the Judge conclude that Villagio was not obligated to inform Mr. Garcia of his right to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department?
9. What was the testimony of Tom Gordon, the Community Manager for Villagio, regarding the association’s policy for contesting a notice?
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on October 30, 2018, and the rehearing on February 12, 2019?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. What was the initial violation alleged by the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association (Villagio) against Rogelio A. Garcia? The initial violation alleged by Villagio was that Mr. Garcia’s unit was being rented in violation of the short-term lease provisions located in Villagio’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The first notice of this violation was mailed to Mr. Garcia on March 8, 2018.
2. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B), what specific action must a unit owner take after receiving a violation notice to trigger the association’s obligations under subsection C? To trigger the association’s obligations, a unit owner who receives a written notice of violation must provide the association with a written response. This response must be sent by certified mail within twenty-one calendar days after the date of the notice.
3. Who bears the burden of proof in this type of administrative hearing, and what is the standard of proof required? The petitioner, Mr. Garcia, bears the burden of proof to show that the respondent committed the alleged violation. The standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is defined as evidence with the most convincing force that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue.
4. Why did the Administrative Law Judge rule that Villagio was not required to provide Mr. Garcia with the name of the person who observed the violation? The judge ruled that Villagio was not required to provide the observer’s name because that obligation is only triggered after a unit owner responds to the violation notice in writing by certified mail within 21 days. It is undisputed that Mr. Garcia did not respond to the notices within the 21-day period, so Villagio’s obligation was never activated.
5. What was Mr. Garcia’s primary argument during the February 12, 2019 rehearing for why he felt he was prevented from responding to the violation notices? Mr. Garcia argued that Villagio prevented him from responding by certified mail within 21 days because it failed to wait 21 days before issuing additional notices and imposing fines. He stated that the notices’ language requiring compliance within 10 days made him believe he would acquire another violation before the 21-day statutory response period had passed.
6. What argument did Villagio present at the rehearing distinguishing between the “condition” of a property and the “use” of a property? Villagio contended that A.R.S. § 33-1242 does not apply to this case at all because the statute addresses violations related to the “condition” of the property. Villagio argued that it notified Mr. Garcia that the “use” of his property violated its short-term rental policy, not that a physical condition of the property was in violation.
7. What two fines were imposed on Mr. Garcia’s account, and on what dates were the notices sent? A fine of $1,000 was posted to Mr. Garcia’s account, with the notice being sent on March 22, 2018. Subsequently, a $2,000 fine was posted to his account for the same violation, and that notice was sent on April 5, 2018.
8. Why did the Judge conclude that Villagio was not obligated to inform Mr. Garcia of his right to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department? The Judge concluded that Villagio was not obligated to provide this information because A.R.S. § 33-1242(D) only requires it if the association fails to provide the unit owner with the process for contesting the notice. Villagio’s notices all contained instructions on how to contest the violation, specifically by filing an appeal with the Board of Directors via a provided website.
9. What was the testimony of Tom Gordon, the Community Manager for Villagio, regarding the association’s policy for contesting a notice? Tom Gordon testified that homeowners are provided with 10 days to contest a notice with Villagio, pursuant to Villagio’s short-term rental policy. When asked if Villagio would have abided by “this statute” (A.R.S. § 33-1242) if Mr. Garcia had responded in twenty-one days, Mr. Gordon replied, “No.”
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on October 30, 2018, and the rehearing on February 12, 2019? In both the initial hearing and the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge found that Mr. Garcia failed to establish that Villagio violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. Consequently, Mr. Garcia’s petition was dismissed in both instances, and Villagio was deemed the prevailing party.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Develop detailed essay-format answers to the following prompts, drawing evidence and examples exclusively from the provided source documents.
1. Analyze the central arguments presented by both Rogelio A. Garcia and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association regarding the application of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242. How did the Administrative Law Judge interpret the statute in relation to these arguments in the final decision?
2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” and “preponderance of the evidence” as applied in this case. Explain how Mr. Garcia’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
3. Trace the timeline of events from the first notice sent by Villagio on March 8, 2018, to the final order on March 4, 2019. Explain how Mr. Garcia’s actions, or lack thereof, at key moments influenced the legal obligations of the association and the ultimate outcome of the case.
4. Evaluate Villagio’s argument that A.R.S. § 33-1242 applies only to the “condition” of a property and not its “use.” Although the judge’s decision did not ultimately hinge on this point, discuss the potential implications of this distinction in homeowner association disputes.
5. Explain the two distinct procedural paths available to a unit owner after receiving a violation notice as outlined in this case: the association’s internal appeal process and the statutory process under A.R.S. § 33-1242. Why did the path Mr. Garcia chose fail to trigger the statutory protections he sought?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the administrative hearing and rehearing, evaluates evidence, and issues a decision. In this case, Velva Moses-Thompson.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. (A.R.S.)
The abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona that regulate condominiums and planned communities.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency that has authority over homeowner association disputes and with which homeowners may petition for a hearing.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their allegations. In this case, Mr. Garcia bore the burden of proof.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents of the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association, which contain the short-term lease provisions Mr. Garcia was alleged to have violated.
Office of Administrative Hearings
The venue where the evidentiary hearing and rehearing for this matter were held.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Rogelio A. Garcia.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this matter, defined as “The greater weight of the evidence…that has the most convincing force…sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Rehearing
A second hearing on a matter, granted in this case at Mr. Garcia’s request after the initial Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918009-REL-RHG
He Fought His HOA and Followed Their Rules. Here’s Why He Still Lost.
1.0 Introduction: The Dreaded Letter
For many homeowners, it’s a familiar and unwelcome sight: a crisp envelope from the Homeowners Association (HOA) containing a formal, intimidating violation notice. Your first instinct is to act, to follow the instructions, and to fight back against what feels like an unfair accusation. You read the letter, see a process for an appeal, and dutifully follow it, believing you are protecting your rights. But what if the process outlined in the letter isn’t the one that truly matters under the law?
This isn’t a theoretical warning. It’s the hard lesson learned by a real homeowner in Arizona, Rogelio A. Garcia, who took on his HOA, Villagio at Tempe. He believed the association had violated his rights, and unlike many homeowners, he didn’t ignore the notices—he took action. He filed an appeal with the HOA, just as their letter instructed. Yet, he lost his case, not because he was wrong on the facts, but because he fell into a subtle procedural trap, following the HOA’s internal process while missing a separate, more powerful one defined by state law.
This article breaks down the top three legal takeaways from that court decision. It reveals how taking the wrong action can be just as costly as taking no action at all, offering crucial strategic insights for any homeowner facing a dispute with their association.
2.0 Takeaway 1: Your Rights Often Have an ‘On’ Switch You Must Flip First
Mr. Garcia’s primary complaint was that the HOA failed to provide him with the name of the person who reported his alleged violation—a requirement under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1242. On the surface, this seems like a clear-cut right afforded to homeowners.
However, the court revealed a counter-intuitive legal reality. The HOA’s legal obligation to provide the reporter’s name was not automatic. That right only became active—the obligation was only triggered—if the homeowner first took a specific, formal step: sending a written response to the violation notice via certified mail within 21 calendar days. The record was clear that Mr. Garcia did not send such a response to the March 8, March 22, or April 5 notices. This single procedural failure was fatal to his claim.
The judge’s finding on this point was direct and unambiguous:
“Because Mr. Garcia did not respond in the 21 day period, Villagio was not required to provide Mr. Garcia with the first and last name of the person or persons who observed the violation.”
This illustrates a critical principle: your most important legal rights may exist in state law, but they often lie dormant. To activate them, you must flip the “on” switch by taking the precise action required by statute, which may be entirely different from the process described in the HOA’s notice.
3.0 Takeaway 2: An Internal Process Can Legally Replace—and Distract From—a State-Level One
So why would an engaged homeowner like Mr. Garcia, who went so far as to file an appeal, neglect to send the critical 21-day certified letter? The answer lies in the second key takeaway: the HOA’s violation notice offered its own, separate appeal process with a much shorter deadline, creating a critical and costly distraction.
Mr. Garcia’s second major argument was that Villagio violated the law by not informing him of his right to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department. Again, the law contained a crucial nuance. Under A.R.S. § 33-1242(D), an HOA is only required to notify a homeowner of the state hearing option if it fails to provide its own process for contesting the notice. Villagio’s letters did include a process: the homeowner could “file an appeal with the Board of Directors… within 10 days of receipt of this notice.”
Court records show Mr. Garcia followed this path and “filed an appeal with Villagio.” By doing so, he engaged with the HOA on their terms, likely focusing all his energy on meeting that urgent 10-day deadline. Because Villagio provided this internal process, the judge concluded it had met its legal obligation and was not required to inform Mr. Garcia about the alternative state-level hearing. This created a procedural trap: the HOA satisfied its legal requirement by offering an internal process that simultaneously diverted the homeowner’s attention from the more powerful, but less obvious, 21-day statutory deadline that would have unlocked his other rights.
4.0 Takeaway 3: Conflicting Deadlines Can Create a Legal Minefield
During a rehearing, Mr. Garcia argued that the HOA’s communication style effectively “prevented” him from using his full 21-day statutory response window. The notices demanded compliance within 10 days and were sent every 14 days with escalating fines. He felt the rapid succession of notices created a pressure cooker, making it impossible to properly exercise his rights.
The court flatly rejected this argument, highlighting a harsh legal truth. The judge found no evidence that Villagio had explicitly told Mr. Garcia he could not respond or had physically prevented him from sending a certified letter. The issuance of a second notice with a demanding 10-day timeline did not legally nullify the 21-day window he had to respond to the first. When asked directly if he was prohibited by a court order from sending a response, Mr. Garcia answered, “No.”
This reveals a common tactic, whether intentional or not, in HOA disputes. The violation notices contained two conflicting timelines: a prominent, urgent “10 days to comply” demand and the less obvious, but legally superior, 21-day statutory right to respond. This conflict creates confusion and pressure, causing homeowners to focus on the immediate threat (the 10-day deadline) while missing the most important legal one. The court, however, places the burden squarely on the homeowner to navigate this minefield, as feeling pressured is not a legal defense for failing to meet a statutory deadline.
5.0 Conclusion: Know the Rules Before You Play the Game
The case of Mr. Garcia versus the Villagio at Tempe HOA is a powerful reminder that successfully challenging an HOA is not about being “right,” or even about taking action. It is about taking the correct, procedurally perfect action defined by law.
Mr. Garcia was not passive; he engaged and appealed the violation. His case was lost because he followed the path laid out for him by the HOA, not the one laid out for him by state statute. This crucial distinction—between an association’s internal process and the homeowner’s statutory rights—can mean the difference between victory and defeat. Before you act on any violation notice, you must first understand the precise rules of engagement, which may not be written in the notice itself.
If you received a violation notice today, would you know whether the appeal process in the letter is your only option, or a potential distraction from the legal first step required to truly protect your rights?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Rogelio A. Garcia(petitioner) Appeared on behalf of himself
Respondent Side
Nathan Tennyson(HOA attorney) Brown Olcott, PLLC
Tom Gordon(community manager) Villagio / AAMAZ Testified as witness for Villagio
Amanda Shaw(property manager/agent) AAM LLC Listed as agent for Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition for rehearing, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. The HOA was not required to provide the statutory details or the notice of the right to petition ADRE because the Petitioner failed to submit a written response by certified mail within 21 days of the violation notices.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. The HOA was not required to provide the information listed in A.R.S. § 33-1242 (C) or the notice of right to petition in (D) because the Petitioner did not submit a written response by certified mail within twenty-one days, which is the triggering requirement for those obligations.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of statutory requirements for homeowner association violation notices.
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 requirements regarding violation notices. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to establish the violation because he did not respond by certified mail within the 21-day statutory period, meaning the HOA was not triggered to fulfill its obligations under § 33-1242(C) and (D).
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition for rehearing, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. The HOA was not required to provide the statutory details or the notice of the right to petition ADRE because the Petitioner failed to submit a written response by certified mail within 21 days of the violation notices.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. The HOA was not required to provide the information listed in A.R.S. § 33-1242 (C) or the notice of right to petition in (D) because the Petitioner did not submit a written response by certified mail within twenty-one days, which is the triggering requirement for those obligations.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of statutory requirements for homeowner association violation notices.
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 requirements regarding violation notices. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to establish the violation because he did not respond by certified mail within the 21-day statutory period, meaning the HOA was not triggered to fulfill its obligations under § 33-1242(C) and (D).
Home Builders Association of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale, 187 Ariz. 479, 483, 930 P.2d 993, 997(1997)
Canon School Dist. No. 50 v. W.E.S. Constr. Co., 177 Ariz. 526, 529, 869 P.2d 500, 503 (1994)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1918009-REL Decision – 671673.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:23 (85.4 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918009-REL
Briefing Document: Garcia v. Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes two Administrative Law Judge Decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Rogelio A. Garcia (Petitioner) and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the case is Mr. Garcia’s allegation that the HOA violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1242 by failing to follow specific procedures after issuing notices for a violation of its short-term rental policy.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed Mr. Garcia’s petition in both an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The central finding was that Mr. Garcia failed to meet a critical prerequisite outlined in the statute: he did not respond to the violation notices by certified mail within the 21-day period. This failure meant that the HOA’s corresponding statutory obligations—such as providing the name of the person who observed the violation—were never triggered.
Furthermore, the judge determined that the HOA was not required to inform Mr. Garcia of his right to an administrative hearing because the violation notices themselves included instructions on the HOA’s internal process for contesting the matter. Mr. Garcia’s argument that the HOA’s rapid issuance of fines and subsequent notices prevented him from responding was found to be unsubstantiated by evidence. The decisions underscore a strict interpretation of the statute, placing the initial burden of response on the unit owner.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
This matter was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings after a petition was filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The case involved an initial hearing and a rehearing requested by the Petitioner.
Entity / Individual
Petitioner
Rogelio A. Garcia
Respondent
Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association (“Villagio”)
Respondent’s Counsel
Nathan Tennyson, Esq.
Adjudicating Body
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Case Number (Initial)
19F-H1918009-REL
Case Number (Rehearing)
19F-H1918009-REL-RHG
Core Allegation
Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242 by the Respondent.
II. Chronology of Events
• March 8, 2018: Villagio mails the first letter to Mr. Garcia, alleging a violation of short-term lease provisions in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The letter instructs him to file an appeal with the Board of Directors within 10 days of receipt.
• March 22, 2018: Villagio mails a second notice for the same violation, informing Mr. Garcia that a $1,000 fine has been posted to his account. This notice also contains instructions for contesting the violation.
• April 5, 2018: Villagio mails a third notice, informing Mr. Garcia that a $2,000 fine has been posted to his account for the continuing violation.
• Response from Garcia: Mr. Garcia did not respond to any of the three notices within the 21-calendar-day period specified by statute. He did, at some point, file an appeal directly with Villagio, which held a hearing but did not change its position.
• August 17, 2018 (approx.): Mr. Garcia files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, formally initiating the administrative hearing process.
• October 30, 2018: The first evidentiary hearing is held before Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson.
• November 19, 2018: The initial Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued, dismissing Mr. Garcia’s petition.
• January 3, 2019 (approx.): The Arizona Department of Real Estate issues an order setting a rehearing for the matter, following a request from Mr. Garcia.
• February 12, 2019: The rehearing is held. Mr. Garcia testifies on his own behalf, and Villagio presents testimony from Community Manager Tom Gordon.
• March 4, 2019: The final Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued, again dismissing Mr. Garcia’s petition.
III. Central Legal Issue: Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1242
The entire dispute centered on the procedural requirements laid out in A.R.S. § 33-1242, which governs how an HOA must handle notices of violation to a unit owner. The key provisions are:
• Unit Owner’s Responsibility (Subsection B): A unit owner who receives a written notice of violation may provide the association with a written response. This response must be sent by certified mail within twenty-one calendar days after the date of the notice.
• Association’s Obligations upon Response (Subsection C):Within ten business days after receiving the certified mail response, the association must provide a written explanation that includes:
1. The specific provision of the condominium documents allegedly violated.
2. The date the violation occurred or was observed.
3. The first and last name of the person(s) who observed the violation.
4. The process the unit owner must follow to contest the notice.
• Association’s Obligation Regarding Administrative Hearings (Subsection D): An association must provide written notice of the owner’s option to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department unless the information required in Subsection C, paragraph 4 (the contest process) is provided in the initial notice of violation.
IV. Analysis of Arguments and Evidence
Petitioner’s Position (Rogelio A. Garcia)
Mr. Garcia’s arguments, presented across both hearings, focused on three primary claims of statutory violation by Villagio:
1. Failure to Provide Required Information: Villagio violated the statute by not providing him with the first and last name of the person who observed the violation.
2. Failure to Notify of Hearing Rights: Villagio did not inform him of his right to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department.
3. Prevention of Response: Mr. Garcia contended that Villagio effectively prevented him from responding via certified mail within the 21-day statutory period. He argued that the notices’ demand for compliance within 10 days, combined with the issuance of a second notice and a fine just 14 days after the first, led him to believe he only had 10 days to act before incurring another violation.
Respondent’s Position (Villagio at Tempe HOA)
Villagio presented a defense based on a direct reading of the statute and Mr. Garcia’s inaction:
1. Statutory Obligations Not Triggered: Villagio’s central argument was that its obligations under A.R.S. § 33-1242(C)—including the duty to name the observer—are only triggered after a unit owner submits a written response by certified mail within 21 days. Since Mr. Garcia never sent such a response, these obligations never came into effect.
2. Internal Contest Process Satisfied Statute: Per A.R.S. § 33-1242(D), the duty to notify an owner of their right to an administrative hearing only applies if the HOA fails to provide its own contest process. Villagio argued that because all three notices explicitly stated the process for appealing to the Board of Directors, it had fulfilled its statutory duty.
3. No Prevention of Response: Mr. Garcia was never legally or physically prevented from sending a certified letter. During cross-examination, he admitted he was not under any court order prohibiting him from responding.
4. Statute Inapplicability (Argument from Rehearing): Villagio further contended that A.R.S. § 33-1242 applies specifically to violations concerning the “condition of the property,” not the “use” of the property. Since short-term renting is a use, Villagio argued the statute did not apply to this situation at all.
Key Testimony from Rehearing
During the February 12, 2019 rehearing, Villagio’s Community Manager, Tom Gordon, testified.
• On direct examination, Mr. Gordon stated that Villagio does not restrict homeowners from responding to violation notices within the 21-day period.
• On cross-examination, when asked by Mr. Garcia if Villagio would have abided by “this statute” had he responded in 21 days, Mr. Gordon replied, “No.” He explained this by stating that homeowners are given 10 days to contest a notice with Villagio pursuant to its own short-term rental policy.
V. Administrative Law Judge’s Decisions and Rationale
The judge’s findings were consistent across both the initial decision and the rehearing decision, leading to the same conclusion in each instance.
Initial Decision (November 19, 2018)
• Finding of Fact: It was undisputed that Mr. Garcia did not respond to the March 8, March 22, or April 5, 2018 notices within 21 calendar days.
• Conclusion 1: Because Mr. Garcia did not respond within the 21-day period, Villagio was not required to provide him with the first and last name of the person(s) who observed the violation.
• Conclusion 2: Because Villagio notified Mr. Garcia of the process for contesting the notice, it was not required under A.R.S. § 33-1242(D) to provide him with notice of the right to petition for an administrative hearing.
• Outcome: Mr. Garcia failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation occurred. The petition was dismissed.
Rehearing Decision (March 4, 2019)
The judge reaffirmed the initial findings and addressed Mr. Garcia’s argument that he was prevented from responding.
• Finding on “Prevention”: The judge found no evidence that Villagio informed Mr. Garcia he could not respond within 21 days or otherwise prevented him from doing so. The issuance of a second notice 14 days after the first was not deemed a preventative act that nullified Mr. Garcia’s statutory window to respond to the first notice.
• Statutory Construction: The decision invoked the legal principle that “what the Legislature means, it will say,” indicating a strict, literal interpretation of the statute’s requirements.
• Reaffirmed Conclusions: The judge again concluded that because Mr. Garcia failed to submit a written response by certified mail, Villagio’s obligations under A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) were not triggered, and its inclusion of an internal appeal process satisfied the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1242(D).
• Outcome: Mr. Garcia’s petition was dismissed for a second time, with Villagio deemed the prevailing party.
VI. Final Disposition
The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Mr. Garcia’s petition be dismissed. The decision issued after the rehearing on March 4, 2019, is binding on the parties. Any party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918009-REL
Study Guide: Garcia v. Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association
This guide is designed to review the key facts, legal arguments, and outcomes of the administrative case between Rogelio A. Garcia and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association, as detailed in case number 19F-H1918009-REL.
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based on the provided source context.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their respective roles?
2. What specific violation did the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association initially accuse Mr. Garcia of committing?
3. What was the core of Mr. Garcia’s legal complaint against the Homeowners Association?
4. According to the court’s findings, what crucial step did Mr. Garcia fail to take after receiving the violation notices?
5. What was Villagio’s main argument for why it was not obligated to provide Mr. Garcia with the name of the person who observed the violation?
6. Under what circumstance did Villagio argue it was not required to provide Mr. Garcia with notice of his right to petition for an administrative hearing?
7. What new fines were imposed on Mr. Garcia in the notices dated March 22, 2018, and April 5, 2018?
8. At the rehearing, what was Mr. Garcia’s explanation for why he was unable to respond to the notices within the statutory 21-day period?
9. What argument did Villagio introduce at the rehearing concerning the distinction between a property’s “condition” and its “use”?
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Rogelio A. Garcia, the Petitioner who brought the complaint, and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association, the Respondent defending against the complaint. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson.
2. Villagio accused Mr. Garcia of violating the short-term lease provisions located in the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The association alleged that Mr. Garcia’s unit was being rented in violation of its short-term rental policy.
3. Mr. Garcia alleged that Villagio violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242. He claimed Villagio failed to provide him the opportunity to respond by certified mail within 21 days, did not inform him of his right to an administrative hearing, and did not provide the name of the person who observed the violation.
4. The court found that Mr. Garcia did not respond to the violation notices sent on March 8, March 22, and April 5, 2018. Specifically, he failed to provide the association with a written response by sending it via certified mail within 21 calendar days after the date of the notices.
5. Villagio argued that its obligation to provide the observer’s name under A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) is only triggered if the unit owner first submits a written response by certified mail within the 21-day period. Because Mr. Garcia did not do so, Villagio was not required to provide that information.
6. Villagio argued it was not required to provide notice of the right to petition for a hearing because it had already fulfilled its legal obligation under A.R.S. § 33-1242(D). The violation notices it sent to Mr. Garcia contained instructions on the process for contesting the notice with the Board of Directors.
7. The notice dated March 22, 2018, informed Mr. Garcia that a fine of $1,000 had been posted to his account. The subsequent notice on April 5, 2018, stated that an additional $2,000 fine had been posted for the same violation.
8. Mr. Garcia contended that Villagio prevented him from responding because it did not wait 21 days before issuing subsequent notices and fines. He believed he only had 10 days to comply based on language in the notices, which created confusion and pressure.
9. At the rehearing, Villagio argued that A.R.S. § 33-1242 did not apply because the statute addresses violations related to the “condition of the property.” Villagio asserted its notices concerned the “use” of Mr. Garcia’s property (short-term renting), not its physical condition.
10. In both the initial hearing decision issued on November 19, 2018, and the rehearing decision issued on March 4, 2019, the Administrative Law Judge found that Mr. Garcia failed to prove Villagio had violated the statute. Consequently, Mr. Garcia’s petition was dismissed in both instances.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to provoke deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, drawing evidence and reasoning exclusively from the case documents.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson to dismiss Mr. Garcia’s petition. How did the judge interpret and apply the specific subsections of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 to the facts presented in the initial hearing and the rehearing?
2. Trace the progression of arguments made by both Rogelio A. Garcia and Villagio from the initial petition through the rehearing. How did their claims and defenses evolve, and what new evidence or legal theories were introduced in the second hearing?
3. Discuss the significance of the “burden of proof” in this case, which rested upon Mr. Garcia. Explain the standard of a “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the legal decision and detail why the judge concluded Mr. Garcia failed to meet this standard.
4. Evaluate the strength and potential implications of Villagio’s argument, introduced at the rehearing, that A.R.S. § 33-1242 applies only to the “condition” of a property and not its “use.” Although the judge did not base the final decision on this point, discuss how this interpretation could affect future disputes between homeowners and associations.
5. Based on the dates and actions described in the two decisions, construct a detailed procedural timeline of this case. Begin with the first violation letter from Villagio and conclude with the notice of the right to appeal the rehearing decision, including all key notices, filings, hearings, and fines.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Velva Moses-Thompson.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. (A.R.S.)
The Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. The central statute in this case was A.R.S. § 33-1242.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove its allegations. In this matter, Mr. Garcia bore the burden of proof to show that Villagio committed the alleged violation.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing documents that dictate how a condominium or planned community must be operated and maintained, and which contain the rules that unit owners must follow. Mr. Garcia was accused of violating the short-term lease provisions of Villagio’s CC&Rs.
Certified Mail
A type of mail service that provides the sender with a mailing receipt and electronic verification that an article was delivered or that a delivery attempt was made. A.R.S. § 33-1242(B) specifies this method for a unit owner’s written response to a violation notice.
Evidentiary Hearing
A formal proceeding, similar to a trial, where parties present evidence (such as testimony and documents) to a neutral decision-maker. Hearings were held in this case on October 30, 2018, and February 12, 2019.
Office of Administrative Hearings
A state agency that conducts impartial hearings for other state agencies, boards, and commissions. This office was responsible for conducting the hearings in this case.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Rogelio A. Garcia was the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as “The greater weight of the evidence…sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to reconsider the original decision, often granted to review the evidence or arguments. Mr. Garcia requested and was granted a rehearing after the initial decision was issued.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association was the Respondent.
Unit Owner
A person who owns a unit within a condominium or planned community and is subject to the association’s governing documents. Mr. Garcia is a unit owner in the Villagio at Tempe community.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918009-REL
Select all sources
671673.pdf
692638.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
19F-H1918009-REL-RHG
2 sources
These sources consist of two Administrative Law Judge Decisions from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Rogelio A. Garcia (Petitioner) and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association (Respondent). The first document records the initial decision from October 2018, which dismissed Mr. Garcia’s petition alleging the HOA violated Arizona statute § 33-1242 by not providing required information following a notice of violation for short-term leasing. The second document details the rehearing decision from February 2019, which again found that Mr. Garcia failed to prove the HOA violated the statute because he did not respond to the violation notices by certified mail within the mandatory 21-day period to trigger the HOA’s legal obligations. Both rulings concluded that since the HOA provided him with the process for contesting the notices, they were not required to provide written notice of his option to petition for an administrative hearing. Consequently, both decisions dismissed Mr. Garcia’s petition and designated the HOA as the prevailing party.
What are the legal requirements concerning notice and response for HOA violations?
How did the unit owner’s failure to respond impact their statutory rights?
What legal interpretation was key to dismissing the homeowner’s administrative petition?
Based on 2 sources
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Rogelio A. Garcia(petitioner) Appeared on behalf of himself,
Respondent Side
Nathan Tennyson(HOA attorney) Brown Olcott, PLLC Appeared on behalf of Respondent Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association,
Tom Gordon(Community Manager/witness) AAM LLC Community Manager for Villagio; testified on behalf of Villagio
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Administrative Law Judge,
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of electronic transmission of the decision,
Other Participants
Amanda Shaw(Representative/Contact) AAM LLC Listed as c/o for service of process for Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the governing documents or relevant statutes in assessing fines for unauthorized parking.
Why this result: Petitioner continually violated CC&R § 4.7 and failed to prove Respondent violated any CC&R or statute, particularly as A.R.S. § 33-1242 did not apply to disputes concerning the use of limited common elements.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA violation of CC&Rs and Statutes by imposing parking fines
Petitioner challenged the HOA's decision to assess continuous fines against her account totaling $2,544.00 for repeatedly parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit 52, arguing the fines and enforcement lacked proper statutory process and violated CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof and that the statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1242) concerning property condition notices did not apply to this dispute regarding limited common elements (parking spaces).
Orders: Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1803
CC&R § 4.7
CC&R § 2.8.3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: parking violation, fines, HOA enforcement, limited common elements, due process, Arizona Department of Real Estate
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 12-349
CC&R § 4.7
CC&R § 2.8.3
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1818044-REL Decision – 663567.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:24:18 (270.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818044-REL
Briefing Document: Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 18F-H1818044-REL, involving Petitioner Michelle Ruffo and Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association. The core of the dispute centers on a series of fines levied by the Association against Ms. Ruffo for repeatedly parking in condominium parking spaces not assigned to her unit.
The Petitioner argued that she had informal written permission from other residents to use their spaces, that the Association’s notices of violation were procedurally flawed, that she was the victim of retaliatory harassment, and that her own assigned space was frequently occupied by others. The Respondent maintained that its actions were in strict accordance with the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which unambiguously require owners to use only their assigned parking spaces and outline a formal process for reallocating them, a process the Petitioner did not follow.
The ALJ ultimately denied the petition, finding that Ms. Ruffo failed to meet her burden of proof. The decision concluded that the Association acted within its rights, that its enforcement actions were consistent with its governing documents, and that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements represented the very “evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” As of the hearing date, the outstanding balance of fines, interest, and fees on the Petitioner’s account totaled $2,544.00.
Case Background
Parties Involved
Name / Entity
Representation / Key Details
Petitioner
Michelle Ruffo
Owner of unit 52, assigned parking space #131. Appeared on her own behalf.
Respondent
Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Assoc.
The condominium unit owners’ association. Represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq. of Brown Olcott, PLLC.
Adjudicator
Diane Mihalsky
Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.
Witnesses
Carol Lundberg
Testified for the Petitioner.
Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky & Gabino Trejo
Former and current property managers, respectively, who testified for the Respondent.
Core Dispute
The central issue is the Association’s imposition of fines against Ms. Ruffo for violating the community’s parking regulations. On or about April 17, 2018, Ms. Ruffo filed a petition alleging the Association violated its CC&Rs and several Arizona statutes by fining her for parking in spaces #38 and #40, which were not assigned to her unit #52. The Association denied any violation, asserting it was enforcing valid community rules.
Chronology of the Dispute
The conflict escalated over a period of approximately two years, marked by a series of notices, fines, and failed attempts at resolution.
• August 2, 2016: The Association sends a “Friendly Reminder” to Ms. Ruffo to cease parking in space #40 and use her assigned space, #131.
• August 5, 2016: A “Notice of Violation” is sent for the same issue, serving as a second warning.
• March 14, 2017: A “Final Non-Compliance Notice” is issued, noting violations in both space #40 and #38. The notice informs Ms. Ruffo of her right to a hearing with the Board of Directors if requested within 14 days.
• March 30, 2017: The first fine of $50.00 is assessed after Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle is again observed in space #38.
• April 17, 2017: Ms. Ruffo responds in writing, claiming she has permission to use the spaces and requests the fine be waived.
• April 27, 2017: The Association’s Board reviews and denies the waiver request. Ms. Ruffo was invited to address the Board but did not attend.
• June 6, 2017: A $200.00 fine is assessed for two observed violations in space #40.
• June 26, 2017: Another $200.00 fine is assessed for violations in spaces #40 and #38.
• July 11, 2017: The Association warns that access to community amenities (pool, fitness room) will be denied if fines remain unpaid. This action is later taken.
• August 31, 2017: A Board meeting is scheduled for Ms. Ruffo and her attorney, Mark F. Williman, to attend. Neither party attends, and they fail to provide advance notice. The Association incurs a $200 legal fee for its attorney’s attendance.
• September 25, 2017: Fines totaling $1,400.00 are assessed for multiple observed violations.
• September 27, 2017: The Association attempts to tow Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle. The attempt is aborted after she refuses to exit the vehicle and calls the Pima County Sheriff’s Office.
• October 4, 2017: The Association’s attorney informs Ms. Ruffo that another hearing will not be scheduled until she reimburses the Association for the $200 legal fee from the missed August 31 meeting.
• October 2017 – January 2018: A series of additional fines are assessed for ongoing violations, and Ms. Ruffo sends multiple letters requesting a hearing and protesting the fines and the $200 reimbursement requirement.
• April 17, 2018: Ms. Ruffo files the formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• September 18, 2018: The evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Analysis of Arguments and Evidence
Petitioner’s Position (Michelle Ruffo)
Ms. Ruffo’s defense was multi-faceted, based on claims of permission, procedural errors by the Association, and alleged harassment.
• Claim of Permission: Ms. Ruffo testified that since 2005, she had been parking in spaces #38 and #40 with written permission. She claimed a 2006 agreement with the Morleys, then owners of unit #56, for space #40. She also submitted a 2018 email from Julie Ruiz, a tenant in unit #53, granting permission to use space #38.
• Allegations of Improper Notices: She argued the Association’s notices violated A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) because they did not always identify the person who observed the violation or provide photographic evidence.
• Allegations of Harassment and Retaliation: Through an attorney, Ms. Ruffo alleged she was being “unlawfully discriminated against and harassed in retaliation for her role related to allegations that HOA President Mitch Treese misappropriated HOA funds.” The ALJ noted that no evidence was submitted at the hearing to support this claim.
• Counter-Evidence: Ms. Ruffo submitted photographs dated from October 2016 to July 2017 showing other vehicles, including those of Associa maintenance and a landscaping contractor, parked in her assigned space #131.
• Dispute over Hearing Preconditions: She argued that the Association’s demand for a $200 reimbursement for its attorney’s fees as a condition for a new hearing was unlawful and not permitted under the CC&Rs.
Respondent’s Position (The Association)
The Association’s case rested on the explicit language of its governing documents and its adherence to established enforcement procedures.
• Primacy of the CC&Rs: The Association argued that its governing documents are unambiguous. Section 4.7 explicitly forbids owners from parking in any space other than the one assigned to their unit as a Limited Common Element.
• Formal Reallocation Process: Per Section 2.8.3, reallocating a Limited Common Element like a parking space requires a formal, written amendment executed by the unit owners involved and submitted to the Board for approval. Ms. Ruffo never followed this procedure.
• Rejection of Informal Agreements: The property manager testified that such private agreements are not legally binding or enforceable by the Association and create confusion, as evidenced by complaints from subsequent owners and tenants who were unable to use their assigned spaces.
• Adherence to Enforcement Policy: The Association followed its documented Violation Enforcement Policy, starting with a friendly reminder and escalating to formal notices and fines for continued non-compliance.
• Opportunity to Be Heard: Ms. Ruffo was provided opportunities to address the Board on April 27, 2017, and August 31, 2017. She failed to attend either meeting, and her failure to provide notice for the latter caused the Association to incur unnecessary legal fees.
• Witness Testimony: The former property manager, Ms. Chapman, testified that she had personally witnessed all the charged violations.
Governing Documents and Statutes
The case hinged on the interpretation of the Association’s CC&Rs and relevant Arizona state law.
Key CC&R Provisions
Section
Provision
Relevance
Motor Vehicles: “no Owner, Lessee or Occupant may park any . . . motor vehicle . . . in any Parking Spaces other than the Parking Space assigned to the Unit as a Limited Common Element.”
The central rule that the Petitioner was found to have repeatedly violated.
§ 2.8.3
Reallocation of Limited Common Elements: A reallocation requires a formal, recorded amendment executed by the owners and submitted to the Board.
The official procedure for changing parking space assignments, which the Petitioner did not follow for her informal agreements.
§ 13.1
Enforcement: Grants the Association the right to impose monetary penalties, suspend an owner’s right to use facilities, and tow vehicles in violation of the rules, after notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Provides the legal authority within the governing documents for the Association’s actions (fines, suspension of amenity access, attempted tow).
§ 1.36
“Parking Space” Definition: Defines a parking space as a portion of the Limited Common Elements.
Legally classifies the disputed parking spaces, making them subject to the rules governing Limited Common Elements.
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)
The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 33-1242(C), which requires an association, upon written request from an owner, to provide details of an alleged violation, including the observer’s name and the date. The ALJ determined this statute was inapplicable to the dispute. The judge’s reasoning was that the statute applies specifically to notices regarding the “condition of the property owned by the unit owner” (i.e., her physical condo unit #52), not her use of Limited Common Elements like parking spaces, which she does not own.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision was a conclusive denial of the petition, siding entirely with the Association.
Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied because Petitioner has not established that Respondent violated the CC&Rs or any statute in assessing fines against her for her repeated violations of CC&R § 4.7 by parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit #52.”
Key Legal Conclusions
• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving her claims by a preponderance of the evidence and failed to do so.
• Unambiguous Covenants: The CC&Rs regarding parking are unambiguous and must be enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. CC&R § 4.7 clearly requires owners to park in their assigned spaces.
• Invalidity of Informal Agreements: The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements illustrated “the evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” These undocumented side deals create instability and conflict when properties are sold or new tenants arrive, undermining the security and order of the community’s parking plan.
• Respondent’s Proper Conduct: The Association was found to have followed its own enforcement policy and provided the Petitioner with opportunities to be heard.
• Attorney’s Fee Condition: While the CC&Rs do not explicitly authorize charging an owner for attorney’s fees as a precondition for a hearing, the ALJ noted that A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(18) allows an association to “exercise any . . . powers necessary and proper for the governance and operation.” Furthermore, civil statutes often require a party to pay for fees they cause an opponent to incur unnecessarily.
• Futility of a Board Hearing: The ALJ concluded that, in light of the Petitioner’s arguments and her “continued violation of Respondent’s parking policy over nearly two years,” a hearing before the Association’s Board would not have changed her behavior or the outcome of the matter.
Financial Implications
The conflict resulted in significant financial penalties for the Petitioner. The fines were assessed on an escalating basis for continued violations.
• March 30, 2017: $50.00
• June 6, 2017: $200.00
• June 26, 2017: $200.00
• August 9, 2017: $200.00
• September 25, 2017: $1,400.00
• October 17, 2017: $100.00
• November 6, 2017: $100.00
As of the hearing on September 18, 2018, the total outstanding balance on Ms. Ruffo’s account, including interest and certified letter fees, was $2,544.00.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818044-REL
Study Guide: Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association
This guide is designed to review and assess understanding of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1818044-REL, Michelle Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided legal decision.
1. Who are the primary parties in this case, and what is the central dispute between them?
2. What was the Petitioner’s main justification for parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit?
3. According to the Association’s CC&Rs, what is the formal procedure required to reallocate a Limited Common Element, such as a parking space?
4. Describe the key enforcement actions the Condo Association took against the Petitioner in response to the ongoing parking violations.
5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge determine that Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1242(B) and (C) did not apply in this case?
6. Summarize the incident involving the tow truck on September 27, 2017.
7. What reason did the Association’s attorney provide for requiring the Petitioner to pay a $200 fee before another hearing would be scheduled?
8. What evidence did the Petitioner submit to demonstrate that her own assigned parking space, #131, was frequently occupied by others?
9. Identify the two property managers who provided telephonic testimony on behalf of the Respondent.
10. What was the final ruling in this case, and what was the judge’s primary reason for this decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michelle Ruffo, the Petitioner and owner of unit 52, and Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association, the Respondent. The central dispute is over fines imposed by the Association against Ms. Ruffo for her repeated violations of parking rules by parking in spaces not assigned to her unit.
2. The Petitioner justified her actions by claiming she had long-standing written permission from other unit owners or tenants to use their spaces. Specifically, she cited a 2006 agreement with the owners of unit #56 to use space #40 and more recent permission from a tenant in unit #53 to use space #38.
3. According to Section 2.8.3 of the CC&Rs, reallocating a Limited Common Element requires an amendment to the Declaration. This amendment must be executed by the owners involved, state how the element is being reallocated, and be submitted to the Board of Directors for approval before it can be recorded.
4. The Association’s enforcement actions escalated over time, beginning with a “Friendly Reminder” and moving to a “Notice of Violation” and a “Final Non-Compliance Notice.” Subsequently, the Association assessed escalating monetary fines, suspended the Petitioner’s access to amenities like the pool and fitness room, and attempted to have her vehicle towed.
5. The judge ruled the statute did not apply because it specifically pertains to written notices about the condition of the property owned by the unit owner. The dispute in this case was not about the condition of Ms. Ruffo’s unit (#52) but about her use of Limited Common Elements (parking spaces) that were not assigned to her.
6. On September 27, 2017, the Association attempted to tow the Petitioner’s vehicle from a space not assigned to her. The Petitioner was inside her vehicle and refused to leave, calling the Pima County Sheriff’s Office. The responding officer instructed the tow truck driver to remove the equipment and try again at another time.
7. The Association required the $200 fee to reimburse it for the attorney’s fees it incurred for a Board meeting scheduled on August 31, 2017. The Petitioner and her attorney at the time, Mr. Williman, failed to attend this meeting and did not provide notice of their absence until a few minutes before it was scheduled to begin.
8. The Petitioner submitted a series of dated photographs showing various other vehicles parked in her assigned space, #131. These vehicles included maintenance trucks bearing the Associa logo, a landscaping contractor’s truck and trailer, and several other private cars.
9. The two property managers who testified for the Respondent were Gabino Trejo, the current manager, and Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky (referred to as Ms. Chapman), the former manager.
10. The final ruling was a denial of Michelle Ruffo’s petition. The judge found that the Petitioner had not established that the Respondent violated any CC&Rs or statutes, concluding that the Association was justified in assessing fines for her repeated and clear violations of CC&R § 4.7, which requires owners to park in their assigned spaces.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer in a standard essay format.
1. Analyze the arguments and evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Discuss the specific CC&R sections, witness testimonies, and exhibits each side used to support their claims, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Respondent’s position more convincing.
2. The concept of “Limited Common Elements” is central to this case. Using the definitions provided in the CC&Rs (Sections 1.31, 1.36, and 2.8.1(e)), explain the legal significance of this designation in the dispute over parking spaces. How did the specific rules for reallocating these elements (CC&R § 2.8.3) undermine the Petitioner’s primary defense?
3. Trace the timeline of communication and escalating enforcement actions taken by the Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association against Michelle Ruffo, beginning with the “Friendly Reminder” in August 2016. Evaluate whether the Association followed its own Violation Enforcement Policy and the powers granted to it in the CC&Rs throughout this process.
4. Discuss the role of legal representation and the various attorneys involved in this case (Nathan Tennyson, Mark F. Williman, Eric J. Thomae, Jonathan Olcott). How did their actions, communications, and, in one instance, inaction, impact the proceedings and the relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent?
5. The Petitioner argued that her right to due process was violated because the violation notices she received did not contain photographs or identify the person who observed the violation. Explain the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning for rejecting this argument, specifically referencing the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1242 and the distinction made between a violation concerning the “condition of the property owned” versus the use of common elements.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms and Entities
Term / Entity
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Diane Mihalsky presided over the hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The codified laws of the state of Arizona. Several statutes, including those under Title 33 (Property) and Title 32 (Professions and Occupations), were cited in the case.
Associa Property Management Services
The property management company employed by the Respondent to manage the condominium complex. Both Ms. Chapman and Mr. Trejo were employees of Associa.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set out the guidelines for a planned community or condominium. The CC&Rs define the rights and obligations of the homeowners’ association and its members.
Gabino Trejo
The current property manager for the Respondent at the time of the hearing.
Limited Common Elements
As defined in CC&R § 1.31, a portion of the Common Elements allocated for the exclusive use of one or more, but fewer than all, of the Units. Parking spaces are explicitly defined as Limited Common Elements.
Mark F. Williman, Esq.
An attorney and friend of the Petitioner who agreed to help her resolve issues with the Board. He failed to attend a scheduled Board meeting on her behalf on August 31, 2017.
Michelle Ruffo
The Petitioner in the case, owner of condominium unit 52, and member of the Respondent association.
Parking Space
As defined in CC&R § 1.36, a portion of the Limited Common Elements intended for parking a single motor vehicle and allocated to a specific Unit Owner for their exclusive use.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, Michelle Ruffo.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in this case, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association
The Respondent in the case; the condominium unit owners’ association for the development where the Petitioner resides.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or an action is brought. In this case, the Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association.
Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky (Ms. Chapman)
The former property manager for the Respondent (from 2012 to early 2018) who handled most of the interactions and sent most of the violation notices to the Petitioner.
Violation Enforcement Policy
The Respondent’s official policy that outlines the procedure for addressing violations, including sending a “Friendly Reminder” and a “Notice of Violation,” and provides for a hearing if requested within 14 days.
Blog Post – 18F-H1818044-REL
How a Parking Spot Deal Led to a Tow Truck Standoff and a $2,544 HOA Bill: 4 Lessons
Introduction: The Handshake Deal That Cost a Fortune
It’s a common scenario in community living: you make a friendly, informal agreement with a neighbor. Maybe you agree to switch parking spots for convenience or let them use your guest pass. These simple handshake deals seem harmless, but what happens when they collide with the ironclad rules of a homeowners’ association (HOA)?
The real-life case of Michelle Ruffo and her condo association serves as a stark cautionary tale. A long-standing, informal parking arrangement escalated into a bitter dispute that culminated in a tow truck standoff, loss of amenities, and a final bill for $2,544 in fines and fees. This case reveals several surprising and critical lessons for anyone living in a community governed by an association.
1. Your Neighbor’s Permission Can Be Legally Worthless
The core of the dispute was Ms. Ruffo’s belief that she had the right to park in spaces other than her own. Since 2006, she had an agreement with another owner to use space #40. Later, she began parking in space #38, believing she had permission from that unit’s tenant. From her perspective, she had done her due diligence. This is the core conflict in community living: the perceived authority of a neighbor’s handshake versus the legal authority of the governing documents.
The association, however, operated under its official Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Those documents told a different story.
• Section 4.7 explicitly required owners to park only in their assigned spaces.
• Section 2.8.3 detailed the only valid procedure for changing parking allocations. Because parking spaces are “Limited Common Elements,” any reallocation required a formal, written amendment executed by the unit owners involved, submitted to the Board for approval, and then officially recorded.
Crucially, the property manager testified that the owner of the unit assigned to space #38 had explicitly denied giving Ms. Ruffo permission and reported that his tenants were complaining. Because Ms. Ruffo never followed the formal procedure, her informal agreements were not recognized or enforceable. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision highlighted the critical importance of these rules:
Because Petitioner never submitted any written agreement with another owner regarding reallocation of parking spaces to Respondent’s Board for its tacit approval, as CC&R § 2.8.3 requires, subsequent tenants and owners have no notice of Petitioner’s alleged agreements with their predecessors regarding parking spaces. If everyone adopted Petitioner’s sense of entitlement as to parking spaces at the Reflections, no one would be able to park their car with any security or plan.
2. Ignoring Official Notices Leads to More Than Just Fines
This conflict didn’t begin with a massive fine. The property management company, Associa, followed a documented escalation process that provided Ms. Ruffo with multiple opportunities to comply. For any homeowner, this documented paper trail should have been a five-alarm fire, signaling a problem that required immediate and formal resolution.
The warnings began on August 2, 2016, with a “Friendly Reminder,” followed by a “Notice of Violation” and a “Final Non-Compliance Notice.” The first fine of just $50 wasn’t assessed until March 30, 2017. But as the violations continued, so did the consequences. After a July 11, 2017 letter, the association shut off Ms. Ruffo’s “electric-key access to the pool and fitness center for the community,” a tangible loss of amenities.
The financial penalties then began to skyrocket. Fines of $200 were assessed in June and August. Then, on September 25, 2017, the association dropped the hammer: a single letter assessing $1,400 for 14 separate observed violations. Just two days later, on September 27, the dispute reached its climax. The association attempted to tow Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle. She was inside the car and refused to leave, prompting her to call the Sheriff’s Office to intervene. The situation had moved from letters and fines to a physical standoff in the parking lot.
3. Skipping a Hearing Can Get You a Bill for the HOA’s Lawyer
After retaining an attorney, Ms. Ruffo was scheduled to have her case heard by the Board on August 31, 2017. The association, anticipating a formal legal discussion, also had its own attorney present. In any formal dispute, failing to appear at your own requested hearing is a critical error. In this case, it not only cost Ruffo credibility but also came with an immediate invoice.
Minutes before the meeting, while the Board and its lawyer were waiting, Ruffo’s attorney sent a message that neither he nor his client would be attending. This last-minute cancellation had a direct financial consequence. The association’s attorney charged it $200 for the time spent on the aborted meeting. The Board then refused to schedule another hearing until Ms. Ruffo reimbursed the association for that $200 fee. This failure to engage was immediately followed by the association’s most severe actions: the $1,400 fine and the attempt to tow her vehicle.
4. “But They Do It Too!” Is Not a Winning Legal Defense
A common response to a violation notice is to point out that others are breaking the rules as well. Ms. Ruffo attempted this strategy, presenting photographic evidence that her own assigned space, #131, was frequently occupied by other vehicles, including maintenance vans bearing the property management company’s logo.
While the property manager testified that she had addressed the issue with the maintenance crew, the Judge ultimately found this argument unpersuasive. The ruling contained a crucial insight: The lesson isn’t just that this defense failed, but why it failed. The Judge noted that Ms. Ruffo “did not present any evidence… that she made any effort to report others parking in her assigned space when there was something that the property manager or Respondent could have done about it.” By failing to formally and properly report her own issue, she undermined her claim that the association was negligent, making it impossible to excuse her own persistent violations.
Conclusion: Read the Fine Print Before You Shake On It
This case serves as a powerful reminder of a fundamental truth of community living: in an HOA, the official, written governing documents are the ultimate authority. Informal “handshake deals,” no matter how reasonable they seem, can lead to serious consequences when they conflict with the rules. This dispute didn’t just involve letters; it led to escalating fines, the loss of amenities, a physical standoff with a tow truck, and ultimately a legal judgment.
This entire conflict, which cost thousands of dollars and countless hours, started with a parking spot—when was the last time you read your community’s rules?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michelle Ruffo(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf.
Carol Lundberg(witness) Resides in Unit 45; presented testimony by Petitioner.
Julie Ruiz(witness) Unit 53 Tenant Provided email confirming she gave Petitioner permission to park in Unit 53's space.
Mark F. Williman(attorney) Retained by Petitioner; failed to attend the August 31, 2017 Board meeting.
Eric J. Thomae(attorney) Retained by Petitioner sometime after October 24, 2017.
Respondent Side
Nathan Tennyson(HOA attorney) Brown Olcott, PLLC
Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky(property manager) Associa Property Management Services Former manager; referred to as Ms. Chapman in the decision.
Gabino Trejo(property manager) Associa Property Management Services Current manager.
John Pohlig(unit owner) Owner of unit assigned space #38; communicated he had not given Petitioner permission to park there.
Jonathan Olcott(HOA attorney)
Mitch Treese(HOA president) Alleged by Petitioner's attorney to have misappropriated HOA funds.
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol(administrative staff) Transmitted decision electronically.
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the governing documents or relevant statutes in assessing fines for unauthorized parking.
Why this result: Petitioner continually violated CC&R § 4.7 and failed to prove Respondent violated any CC&R or statute, particularly as A.R.S. § 33-1242 did not apply to disputes concerning the use of limited common elements.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA violation of CC&Rs and Statutes by imposing parking fines
Petitioner challenged the HOA's decision to assess continuous fines against her account totaling $2,544.00 for repeatedly parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit 52, arguing the fines and enforcement lacked proper statutory process and violated CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof and that the statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1242) concerning property condition notices did not apply to this dispute regarding limited common elements (parking spaces).
Orders: Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1803
CC&R § 4.7
CC&R § 2.8.3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: parking violation, fines, HOA enforcement, limited common elements, due process, Arizona Department of Real Estate
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 12-349
CC&R § 4.7
CC&R § 2.8.3
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1818044-REL Decision – 663567.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:52 (270.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818044-REL
Briefing Document: Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 18F-H1818044-REL, involving Petitioner Michelle Ruffo and Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association. The core of the dispute centers on a series of fines levied by the Association against Ms. Ruffo for repeatedly parking in condominium parking spaces not assigned to her unit.
The Petitioner argued that she had informal written permission from other residents to use their spaces, that the Association’s notices of violation were procedurally flawed, that she was the victim of retaliatory harassment, and that her own assigned space was frequently occupied by others. The Respondent maintained that its actions were in strict accordance with the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which unambiguously require owners to use only their assigned parking spaces and outline a formal process for reallocating them, a process the Petitioner did not follow.
The ALJ ultimately denied the petition, finding that Ms. Ruffo failed to meet her burden of proof. The decision concluded that the Association acted within its rights, that its enforcement actions were consistent with its governing documents, and that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements represented the very “evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” As of the hearing date, the outstanding balance of fines, interest, and fees on the Petitioner’s account totaled $2,544.00.
Case Background
Parties Involved
Name / Entity
Representation / Key Details
Petitioner
Michelle Ruffo
Owner of unit 52, assigned parking space #131. Appeared on her own behalf.
Respondent
Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Assoc.
The condominium unit owners’ association. Represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq. of Brown Olcott, PLLC.
Adjudicator
Diane Mihalsky
Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.
Witnesses
Carol Lundberg
Testified for the Petitioner.
Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky & Gabino Trejo
Former and current property managers, respectively, who testified for the Respondent.
Core Dispute
The central issue is the Association’s imposition of fines against Ms. Ruffo for violating the community’s parking regulations. On or about April 17, 2018, Ms. Ruffo filed a petition alleging the Association violated its CC&Rs and several Arizona statutes by fining her for parking in spaces #38 and #40, which were not assigned to her unit #52. The Association denied any violation, asserting it was enforcing valid community rules.
Chronology of the Dispute
The conflict escalated over a period of approximately two years, marked by a series of notices, fines, and failed attempts at resolution.
• August 2, 2016: The Association sends a “Friendly Reminder” to Ms. Ruffo to cease parking in space #40 and use her assigned space, #131.
• August 5, 2016: A “Notice of Violation” is sent for the same issue, serving as a second warning.
• March 14, 2017: A “Final Non-Compliance Notice” is issued, noting violations in both space #40 and #38. The notice informs Ms. Ruffo of her right to a hearing with the Board of Directors if requested within 14 days.
• March 30, 2017: The first fine of $50.00 is assessed after Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle is again observed in space #38.
• April 17, 2017: Ms. Ruffo responds in writing, claiming she has permission to use the spaces and requests the fine be waived.
• April 27, 2017: The Association’s Board reviews and denies the waiver request. Ms. Ruffo was invited to address the Board but did not attend.
• June 6, 2017: A $200.00 fine is assessed for two observed violations in space #40.
• June 26, 2017: Another $200.00 fine is assessed for violations in spaces #40 and #38.
• July 11, 2017: The Association warns that access to community amenities (pool, fitness room) will be denied if fines remain unpaid. This action is later taken.
• August 31, 2017: A Board meeting is scheduled for Ms. Ruffo and her attorney, Mark F. Williman, to attend. Neither party attends, and they fail to provide advance notice. The Association incurs a $200 legal fee for its attorney’s attendance.
• September 25, 2017: Fines totaling $1,400.00 are assessed for multiple observed violations.
• September 27, 2017: The Association attempts to tow Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle. The attempt is aborted after she refuses to exit the vehicle and calls the Pima County Sheriff’s Office.
• October 4, 2017: The Association’s attorney informs Ms. Ruffo that another hearing will not be scheduled until she reimburses the Association for the $200 legal fee from the missed August 31 meeting.
• October 2017 – January 2018: A series of additional fines are assessed for ongoing violations, and Ms. Ruffo sends multiple letters requesting a hearing and protesting the fines and the $200 reimbursement requirement.
• April 17, 2018: Ms. Ruffo files the formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• September 18, 2018: The evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Analysis of Arguments and Evidence
Petitioner’s Position (Michelle Ruffo)
Ms. Ruffo’s defense was multi-faceted, based on claims of permission, procedural errors by the Association, and alleged harassment.
• Claim of Permission: Ms. Ruffo testified that since 2005, she had been parking in spaces #38 and #40 with written permission. She claimed a 2006 agreement with the Morleys, then owners of unit #56, for space #40. She also submitted a 2018 email from Julie Ruiz, a tenant in unit #53, granting permission to use space #38.
• Allegations of Improper Notices: She argued the Association’s notices violated A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) because they did not always identify the person who observed the violation or provide photographic evidence.
• Allegations of Harassment and Retaliation: Through an attorney, Ms. Ruffo alleged she was being “unlawfully discriminated against and harassed in retaliation for her role related to allegations that HOA President Mitch Treese misappropriated HOA funds.” The ALJ noted that no evidence was submitted at the hearing to support this claim.
• Counter-Evidence: Ms. Ruffo submitted photographs dated from October 2016 to July 2017 showing other vehicles, including those of Associa maintenance and a landscaping contractor, parked in her assigned space #131.
• Dispute over Hearing Preconditions: She argued that the Association’s demand for a $200 reimbursement for its attorney’s fees as a condition for a new hearing was unlawful and not permitted under the CC&Rs.
Respondent’s Position (The Association)
The Association’s case rested on the explicit language of its governing documents and its adherence to established enforcement procedures.
• Primacy of the CC&Rs: The Association argued that its governing documents are unambiguous. Section 4.7 explicitly forbids owners from parking in any space other than the one assigned to their unit as a Limited Common Element.
• Formal Reallocation Process: Per Section 2.8.3, reallocating a Limited Common Element like a parking space requires a formal, written amendment executed by the unit owners involved and submitted to the Board for approval. Ms. Ruffo never followed this procedure.
• Rejection of Informal Agreements: The property manager testified that such private agreements are not legally binding or enforceable by the Association and create confusion, as evidenced by complaints from subsequent owners and tenants who were unable to use their assigned spaces.
• Adherence to Enforcement Policy: The Association followed its documented Violation Enforcement Policy, starting with a friendly reminder and escalating to formal notices and fines for continued non-compliance.
• Opportunity to Be Heard: Ms. Ruffo was provided opportunities to address the Board on April 27, 2017, and August 31, 2017. She failed to attend either meeting, and her failure to provide notice for the latter caused the Association to incur unnecessary legal fees.
• Witness Testimony: The former property manager, Ms. Chapman, testified that she had personally witnessed all the charged violations.
Governing Documents and Statutes
The case hinged on the interpretation of the Association’s CC&Rs and relevant Arizona state law.
Key CC&R Provisions
Section
Provision
Relevance
Motor Vehicles: “no Owner, Lessee or Occupant may park any . . . motor vehicle . . . in any Parking Spaces other than the Parking Space assigned to the Unit as a Limited Common Element.”
The central rule that the Petitioner was found to have repeatedly violated.
§ 2.8.3
Reallocation of Limited Common Elements: A reallocation requires a formal, recorded amendment executed by the owners and submitted to the Board.
The official procedure for changing parking space assignments, which the Petitioner did not follow for her informal agreements.
§ 13.1
Enforcement: Grants the Association the right to impose monetary penalties, suspend an owner’s right to use facilities, and tow vehicles in violation of the rules, after notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Provides the legal authority within the governing documents for the Association’s actions (fines, suspension of amenity access, attempted tow).
§ 1.36
“Parking Space” Definition: Defines a parking space as a portion of the Limited Common Elements.
Legally classifies the disputed parking spaces, making them subject to the rules governing Limited Common Elements.
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)
The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 33-1242(C), which requires an association, upon written request from an owner, to provide details of an alleged violation, including the observer’s name and the date. The ALJ determined this statute was inapplicable to the dispute. The judge’s reasoning was that the statute applies specifically to notices regarding the “condition of the property owned by the unit owner” (i.e., her physical condo unit #52), not her use of Limited Common Elements like parking spaces, which she does not own.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision was a conclusive denial of the petition, siding entirely with the Association.
Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied because Petitioner has not established that Respondent violated the CC&Rs or any statute in assessing fines against her for her repeated violations of CC&R § 4.7 by parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit #52.”
Key Legal Conclusions
• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving her claims by a preponderance of the evidence and failed to do so.
• Unambiguous Covenants: The CC&Rs regarding parking are unambiguous and must be enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. CC&R § 4.7 clearly requires owners to park in their assigned spaces.
• Invalidity of Informal Agreements: The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements illustrated “the evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” These undocumented side deals create instability and conflict when properties are sold or new tenants arrive, undermining the security and order of the community’s parking plan.
• Respondent’s Proper Conduct: The Association was found to have followed its own enforcement policy and provided the Petitioner with opportunities to be heard.
• Attorney’s Fee Condition: While the CC&Rs do not explicitly authorize charging an owner for attorney’s fees as a precondition for a hearing, the ALJ noted that A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(18) allows an association to “exercise any . . . powers necessary and proper for the governance and operation.” Furthermore, civil statutes often require a party to pay for fees they cause an opponent to incur unnecessarily.
• Futility of a Board Hearing: The ALJ concluded that, in light of the Petitioner’s arguments and her “continued violation of Respondent’s parking policy over nearly two years,” a hearing before the Association’s Board would not have changed her behavior or the outcome of the matter.
Financial Implications
The conflict resulted in significant financial penalties for the Petitioner. The fines were assessed on an escalating basis for continued violations.
• March 30, 2017: $50.00
• June 6, 2017: $200.00
• June 26, 2017: $200.00
• August 9, 2017: $200.00
• September 25, 2017: $1,400.00
• October 17, 2017: $100.00
• November 6, 2017: $100.00
As of the hearing on September 18, 2018, the total outstanding balance on Ms. Ruffo’s account, including interest and certified letter fees, was $2,544.00.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818044-REL
Study Guide: Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association
This guide is designed to review and assess understanding of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1818044-REL, Michelle Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided legal decision.
1. Who are the primary parties in this case, and what is the central dispute between them?
2. What was the Petitioner’s main justification for parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit?
3. According to the Association’s CC&Rs, what is the formal procedure required to reallocate a Limited Common Element, such as a parking space?
4. Describe the key enforcement actions the Condo Association took against the Petitioner in response to the ongoing parking violations.
5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge determine that Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1242(B) and (C) did not apply in this case?
6. Summarize the incident involving the tow truck on September 27, 2017.
7. What reason did the Association’s attorney provide for requiring the Petitioner to pay a $200 fee before another hearing would be scheduled?
8. What evidence did the Petitioner submit to demonstrate that her own assigned parking space, #131, was frequently occupied by others?
9. Identify the two property managers who provided telephonic testimony on behalf of the Respondent.
10. What was the final ruling in this case, and what was the judge’s primary reason for this decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michelle Ruffo, the Petitioner and owner of unit 52, and Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association, the Respondent. The central dispute is over fines imposed by the Association against Ms. Ruffo for her repeated violations of parking rules by parking in spaces not assigned to her unit.
2. The Petitioner justified her actions by claiming she had long-standing written permission from other unit owners or tenants to use their spaces. Specifically, she cited a 2006 agreement with the owners of unit #56 to use space #40 and more recent permission from a tenant in unit #53 to use space #38.
3. According to Section 2.8.3 of the CC&Rs, reallocating a Limited Common Element requires an amendment to the Declaration. This amendment must be executed by the owners involved, state how the element is being reallocated, and be submitted to the Board of Directors for approval before it can be recorded.
4. The Association’s enforcement actions escalated over time, beginning with a “Friendly Reminder” and moving to a “Notice of Violation” and a “Final Non-Compliance Notice.” Subsequently, the Association assessed escalating monetary fines, suspended the Petitioner’s access to amenities like the pool and fitness room, and attempted to have her vehicle towed.
5. The judge ruled the statute did not apply because it specifically pertains to written notices about the condition of the property owned by the unit owner. The dispute in this case was not about the condition of Ms. Ruffo’s unit (#52) but about her use of Limited Common Elements (parking spaces) that were not assigned to her.
6. On September 27, 2017, the Association attempted to tow the Petitioner’s vehicle from a space not assigned to her. The Petitioner was inside her vehicle and refused to leave, calling the Pima County Sheriff’s Office. The responding officer instructed the tow truck driver to remove the equipment and try again at another time.
7. The Association required the $200 fee to reimburse it for the attorney’s fees it incurred for a Board meeting scheduled on August 31, 2017. The Petitioner and her attorney at the time, Mr. Williman, failed to attend this meeting and did not provide notice of their absence until a few minutes before it was scheduled to begin.
8. The Petitioner submitted a series of dated photographs showing various other vehicles parked in her assigned space, #131. These vehicles included maintenance trucks bearing the Associa logo, a landscaping contractor’s truck and trailer, and several other private cars.
9. The two property managers who testified for the Respondent were Gabino Trejo, the current manager, and Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky (referred to as Ms. Chapman), the former manager.
10. The final ruling was a denial of Michelle Ruffo’s petition. The judge found that the Petitioner had not established that the Respondent violated any CC&Rs or statutes, concluding that the Association was justified in assessing fines for her repeated and clear violations of CC&R § 4.7, which requires owners to park in their assigned spaces.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer in a standard essay format.
1. Analyze the arguments and evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Discuss the specific CC&R sections, witness testimonies, and exhibits each side used to support their claims, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Respondent’s position more convincing.
2. The concept of “Limited Common Elements” is central to this case. Using the definitions provided in the CC&Rs (Sections 1.31, 1.36, and 2.8.1(e)), explain the legal significance of this designation in the dispute over parking spaces. How did the specific rules for reallocating these elements (CC&R § 2.8.3) undermine the Petitioner’s primary defense?
3. Trace the timeline of communication and escalating enforcement actions taken by the Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association against Michelle Ruffo, beginning with the “Friendly Reminder” in August 2016. Evaluate whether the Association followed its own Violation Enforcement Policy and the powers granted to it in the CC&Rs throughout this process.
4. Discuss the role of legal representation and the various attorneys involved in this case (Nathan Tennyson, Mark F. Williman, Eric J. Thomae, Jonathan Olcott). How did their actions, communications, and, in one instance, inaction, impact the proceedings and the relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent?
5. The Petitioner argued that her right to due process was violated because the violation notices she received did not contain photographs or identify the person who observed the violation. Explain the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning for rejecting this argument, specifically referencing the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1242 and the distinction made between a violation concerning the “condition of the property owned” versus the use of common elements.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms and Entities
Term / Entity
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Diane Mihalsky presided over the hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The codified laws of the state of Arizona. Several statutes, including those under Title 33 (Property) and Title 32 (Professions and Occupations), were cited in the case.
Associa Property Management Services
The property management company employed by the Respondent to manage the condominium complex. Both Ms. Chapman and Mr. Trejo were employees of Associa.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set out the guidelines for a planned community or condominium. The CC&Rs define the rights and obligations of the homeowners’ association and its members.
Gabino Trejo
The current property manager for the Respondent at the time of the hearing.
Limited Common Elements
As defined in CC&R § 1.31, a portion of the Common Elements allocated for the exclusive use of one or more, but fewer than all, of the Units. Parking spaces are explicitly defined as Limited Common Elements.
Mark F. Williman, Esq.
An attorney and friend of the Petitioner who agreed to help her resolve issues with the Board. He failed to attend a scheduled Board meeting on her behalf on August 31, 2017.
Michelle Ruffo
The Petitioner in the case, owner of condominium unit 52, and member of the Respondent association.
Parking Space
As defined in CC&R § 1.36, a portion of the Limited Common Elements intended for parking a single motor vehicle and allocated to a specific Unit Owner for their exclusive use.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, Michelle Ruffo.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in this case, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association
The Respondent in the case; the condominium unit owners’ association for the development where the Petitioner resides.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or an action is brought. In this case, the Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association.
Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky (Ms. Chapman)
The former property manager for the Respondent (from 2012 to early 2018) who handled most of the interactions and sent most of the violation notices to the Petitioner.
Violation Enforcement Policy
The Respondent’s official policy that outlines the procedure for addressing violations, including sending a “Friendly Reminder” and a “Notice of Violation,” and provides for a hearing if requested within 14 days.
Blog Post – 18F-H1818044-REL
How a Parking Spot Deal Led to a Tow Truck Standoff and a $2,544 HOA Bill: 4 Lessons
Introduction: The Handshake Deal That Cost a Fortune
It’s a common scenario in community living: you make a friendly, informal agreement with a neighbor. Maybe you agree to switch parking spots for convenience or let them use your guest pass. These simple handshake deals seem harmless, but what happens when they collide with the ironclad rules of a homeowners’ association (HOA)?
The real-life case of Michelle Ruffo and her condo association serves as a stark cautionary tale. A long-standing, informal parking arrangement escalated into a bitter dispute that culminated in a tow truck standoff, loss of amenities, and a final bill for $2,544 in fines and fees. This case reveals several surprising and critical lessons for anyone living in a community governed by an association.
1. Your Neighbor’s Permission Can Be Legally Worthless
The core of the dispute was Ms. Ruffo’s belief that she had the right to park in spaces other than her own. Since 2006, she had an agreement with another owner to use space #40. Later, she began parking in space #38, believing she had permission from that unit’s tenant. From her perspective, she had done her due diligence. This is the core conflict in community living: the perceived authority of a neighbor’s handshake versus the legal authority of the governing documents.
The association, however, operated under its official Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Those documents told a different story.
• Section 4.7 explicitly required owners to park only in their assigned spaces.
• Section 2.8.3 detailed the only valid procedure for changing parking allocations. Because parking spaces are “Limited Common Elements,” any reallocation required a formal, written amendment executed by the unit owners involved, submitted to the Board for approval, and then officially recorded.
Crucially, the property manager testified that the owner of the unit assigned to space #38 had explicitly denied giving Ms. Ruffo permission and reported that his tenants were complaining. Because Ms. Ruffo never followed the formal procedure, her informal agreements were not recognized or enforceable. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision highlighted the critical importance of these rules:
Because Petitioner never submitted any written agreement with another owner regarding reallocation of parking spaces to Respondent’s Board for its tacit approval, as CC&R § 2.8.3 requires, subsequent tenants and owners have no notice of Petitioner’s alleged agreements with their predecessors regarding parking spaces. If everyone adopted Petitioner’s sense of entitlement as to parking spaces at the Reflections, no one would be able to park their car with any security or plan.
2. Ignoring Official Notices Leads to More Than Just Fines
This conflict didn’t begin with a massive fine. The property management company, Associa, followed a documented escalation process that provided Ms. Ruffo with multiple opportunities to comply. For any homeowner, this documented paper trail should have been a five-alarm fire, signaling a problem that required immediate and formal resolution.
The warnings began on August 2, 2016, with a “Friendly Reminder,” followed by a “Notice of Violation” and a “Final Non-Compliance Notice.” The first fine of just $50 wasn’t assessed until March 30, 2017. But as the violations continued, so did the consequences. After a July 11, 2017 letter, the association shut off Ms. Ruffo’s “electric-key access to the pool and fitness center for the community,” a tangible loss of amenities.
The financial penalties then began to skyrocket. Fines of $200 were assessed in June and August. Then, on September 25, 2017, the association dropped the hammer: a single letter assessing $1,400 for 14 separate observed violations. Just two days later, on September 27, the dispute reached its climax. The association attempted to tow Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle. She was inside the car and refused to leave, prompting her to call the Sheriff’s Office to intervene. The situation had moved from letters and fines to a physical standoff in the parking lot.
3. Skipping a Hearing Can Get You a Bill for the HOA’s Lawyer
After retaining an attorney, Ms. Ruffo was scheduled to have her case heard by the Board on August 31, 2017. The association, anticipating a formal legal discussion, also had its own attorney present. In any formal dispute, failing to appear at your own requested hearing is a critical error. In this case, it not only cost Ruffo credibility but also came with an immediate invoice.
Minutes before the meeting, while the Board and its lawyer were waiting, Ruffo’s attorney sent a message that neither he nor his client would be attending. This last-minute cancellation had a direct financial consequence. The association’s attorney charged it $200 for the time spent on the aborted meeting. The Board then refused to schedule another hearing until Ms. Ruffo reimbursed the association for that $200 fee. This failure to engage was immediately followed by the association’s most severe actions: the $1,400 fine and the attempt to tow her vehicle.
4. “But They Do It Too!” Is Not a Winning Legal Defense
A common response to a violation notice is to point out that others are breaking the rules as well. Ms. Ruffo attempted this strategy, presenting photographic evidence that her own assigned space, #131, was frequently occupied by other vehicles, including maintenance vans bearing the property management company’s logo.
While the property manager testified that she had addressed the issue with the maintenance crew, the Judge ultimately found this argument unpersuasive. The ruling contained a crucial insight: The lesson isn’t just that this defense failed, but why it failed. The Judge noted that Ms. Ruffo “did not present any evidence… that she made any effort to report others parking in her assigned space when there was something that the property manager or Respondent could have done about it.” By failing to formally and properly report her own issue, she undermined her claim that the association was negligent, making it impossible to excuse her own persistent violations.
Conclusion: Read the Fine Print Before You Shake On It
This case serves as a powerful reminder of a fundamental truth of community living: in an HOA, the official, written governing documents are the ultimate authority. Informal “handshake deals,” no matter how reasonable they seem, can lead to serious consequences when they conflict with the rules. This dispute didn’t just involve letters; it led to escalating fines, the loss of amenities, a physical standoff with a tow truck, and ultimately a legal judgment.
This entire conflict, which cost thousands of dollars and countless hours, started with a parking spot—when was the last time you read your community’s rules?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michelle Ruffo(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf.
Carol Lundberg(witness) Resides in Unit 45; presented testimony by Petitioner.
Julie Ruiz(witness) Unit 53 Tenant Provided email confirming she gave Petitioner permission to park in Unit 53's space.
Mark F. Williman(attorney) Retained by Petitioner; failed to attend the August 31, 2017 Board meeting.
Eric J. Thomae(attorney) Retained by Petitioner sometime after October 24, 2017.
Respondent Side
Nathan Tennyson(HOA attorney) Brown Olcott, PLLC
Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky(property manager) Associa Property Management Services Former manager; referred to as Ms. Chapman in the decision.
Gabino Trejo(property manager) Associa Property Management Services Current manager.
John Pohlig(unit owner) Owner of unit assigned space #38; communicated he had not given Petitioner permission to park there.
Jonathan Olcott(HOA attorney)
Mitch Treese(HOA president) Alleged by Petitioner's attorney to have misappropriated HOA funds.
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol(administrative staff) Transmitted decision electronically.
Petitioner won the statutory claim regarding access to association documents (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)) and was refunded the $500 filing fee. Petitioner lost the claim regarding the failure to maintain exterior walls (CC&Rs) due to insufficient evidence.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the maintenance issue by a preponderance of the evidence (for case 18F-H1818025-REL).
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to repair and maintain exterior walls
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to repair damage (crack) to the exterior wall of his unit as required by the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence (black and white photographs did not clearly show the damage) to establish a violation.
Orders: Petitioner's petition in Case Number 18F-H1818025-REL is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
CC&Rs
5
17
Failure to provide requested association records
Petitioner requested meeting notices and minutes in December 2017. Respondent's former management company failed to respond in a timely fashion. Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the statute.
Orders: Petitioner deemed the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818027-REL. Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) in the future and pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00.
Administrative Hearing Brief: Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in two consolidated cases filed by homeowner Rex E. Duffett against the Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association (HOA). The ruling presents a split decision, with the petitioner prevailing on one claim while failing to provide sufficient evidence for the other.
The first petition, concerning the HOA’s alleged failure to repair exterior walls, was denied. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the submitted photographic evidence was unclear and did not sufficiently establish the existence or severity of the damage requiring immediate repair.
The second petition, concerning the HOA’s failure to provide association records upon request, was upheld. The judge found that the HOA, through its former management company, violated state law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)) by not responding to a formal document request within the mandated ten-business-day window.
As a result, Mr. Duffett was deemed the prevailing party in the records-request case. The HOA was ordered to pay his $500 filing fee and to ensure future compliance with the relevant statutes. The case highlights critical issues of evidence quality in homeowner disputes and demonstrates the legal liability an HOA retains for the failures of its management agents, particularly during periods of transition.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
Case Numbers
18F-H1818025-REL and 18F-H1818027-REL (Consolidated)
Petitioner
Rex E. Duffett
Respondent
Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association
Hearing Date
April 4, 2018
Decision Date
April 24, 2018
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
The hearing addressed two separate petitions filed by Rex E. Duffett with the Arizona Department of Real Estate:
1. Petition 1 (18F-H1818025-REL): Alleged the HOA violated community CC&Rs by failing to repair exterior walls of the petitioner’s unit.
2. Petition 2 (18F-H1818027-REL): Alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide requested documents.
Petition 1: Failure to Repair Exterior Walls (Denied)
Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence
• Core Claim: The petitioner alleged the HOA failed its duty, as defined by a March 1993 amendment to the CC&Rs, to maintain the exterior walls of his unit. The CC&Rs state, “The Suntech Patio Homeowners Association shall be responsible for the painting and maintenance of the following: A) Exterior walls of all units . . . .”
• Initial Request (July 14, 2017): Mr. Duffett faxed the HOA’s management company, The Management Trust, stating, “While inspecting the outside of my property I noticed a crack in the exterior wall. Please inspect, repair and paint the wall as soon as possible to prevent any damage which could result from rain water in the interior of the wall.”
• Follow-Up Request (August 21, 2017): In a certified letter, Mr. Duffett provided more detail, identifying a crack in the entryway wall allowing “rain water to seep into the interior wall,” a “bare concrete” area on the garage, and a previously cracked garage wall that had been repaired by a roofing company but not painted.
• Hearing Testimony: Mr. Duffett testified that a roofing company he hired to find a leak in his garage ceiling determined the source was not the roof but a crack in the exterior wall.
• Submitted Evidence: The petitioner submitted five black-and-white photographs of his home’s exterior across his two communications.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence
• Management Transition: Pride Community Management took over from The Management Trust on February 1, 2018. The new manager, Rebecca Stowers, and owner, Frank Peake, testified to a difficult transition where The Management Trust initially provided only one box of records, later discovering seven or eight more boxes in storage. Mr. Peake stated that Pride had not seen the petitioner’s communications regarding the damage until the hearing.
• Inspection: Ms. Stowers testified that she inspected the petitioner’s home on March 27, 2018. While she noted “a missing area of stucco on the front of the garage that needed to be repaired,” she “denied being able to identify a crack in the stucco anywhere else on the front of the house.”
• Community-Wide Repair Plan: Ms. Stowers stated that the HOA intended to repair the stucco and paint all exterior walls in the community during the 2018 calendar year at a projected cost of $46,000, to be funded potentially through a special assessment due to the HOA being underfunded.
Conclusion of Law and Ruling
• Burden of Proof: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the petitioner bore the burden of proving his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Evidence Failure: The ALJ found the submitted evidence insufficient. The decision states: “The black and white photographs submitted at hearing did not clearly show the crack Petitioner alleged existed on the exterior wall of his unit… The Administrative Law Judge was unable to identify the location or severity of the alleged crack, and therefore, cannot conclude that such a crack exists and/or that it is necessary to be repaired immediately.”
• Final Ruling: The petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The petition in Case Number 18F-H1818025-REL was denied.
Petition 2: Failure to Provide Association Records (Upheld)
Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence
• Core Claim: The petitioner alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which requires an association to fulfill a request for records within ten business days.
• The Request (December 22, 2017): Mr. Duffett faxed The Management Trust a request for specific documents, citing a statement made by the HOA in a separate case. He requested copies of:
◦ Meeting notices and minutes for all meetings where “rules and regulations were discussed” in August/September 2017.
◦ Meeting notices and minutes for meetings where the last HOA dues increase was discussed.
◦ A copy of the notice for the last association rate increase.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence
• Lack of Awareness: The HOA’s initial response on January 29, 2018, indicated it had only become aware of the request upon receiving notice of the petition. The current management company, Pride, testified they had not seen the original communication from the petitioner.
• Vagueness of Request: Frank Peake of Pride testified that the request for minutes of meetings “where the rules and regulations were discussed” was unclear “because rules and regulations are discussed in some form at virtually every meeting of the association.”
• Claim of Privilege: The initial response from The Management Trust on January 29, 2018, claimed that the requested minutes were for “closed executive meetings and were only available to Board members.”
Conclusion of Law and Ruling
• Statutory Violation: The ALJ concluded that the petitioner clearly made a request for documents and that the HOA, via its former management company, failed to act as required by law.
• Failure of Former Management: The decision explicitly faults the prior management company: “The Management Trust should have responded or requested additional clarification of what documents Petitioner was requesting as it was the management company during the ten day window Respondent had to respond pursuant to the statute.”
• Final Ruling: The petitioner successfully established by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Mr. Duffett was deemed the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818027-REL.
Final Order and Implications
The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders based on the conclusions of law:
Case Number
Subject
Ruling
18F-H1818025-REL
Exterior Wall Repairs
Petition Denied
18F-H1818027-REL
Document Request
Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party
Directives to the Respondent (Suntech Patio Homes HOA):
1. Future Compliance: The HOA must comply with the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) going forward.
2. Payment of Filing Fee: The HOA must pay the petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.
This order is considered binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818025-REL
Study Guide: Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes HOA
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the consolidated cases of Rex E. Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association, Case Numbers 18F-H1818025-REL and 18F-H1818027-REL. The decision, issued by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, addresses two separate petitions filed by a homeowner against his Homeowners Association (HOA), one concerning property maintenance and the other concerning access to association records.
——————————————————————————–
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the case decision.
1. Who were the primary parties in this administrative hearing, and what were their respective roles?
2. What were the two distinct allegations made by the Petitioner in the petitions that were consolidated for this hearing?
3. According to the community’s governing documents (CC&Rs), what specific responsibility did the HOA have regarding the exterior of residential units?
4. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge rule against the Petitioner in his claim for wall repairs (Case No. 18F-H1818025-REL)?
5. What specific Arizona statute did the Petitioner claim the HOA violated in his second petition regarding access to records (Case No. 18F-H1818027-REL)?
6. Describe the roles and performance of the two management companies, The Management Trust and Pride Community Management, as detailed in the hearing evidence.
7. What was the final outcome of the petition concerning the HOA’s failure to provide documents, and who was named the prevailing party?
8. What specific types of documents did the Petitioner request from the HOA in his fax dated December 22, 2017?
9. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and for which petition did he successfully meet it?
10. What financial penalty was imposed upon the Respondent as part of the final Order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner was Rex E. Duffett, a homeowner who filed the petitions. The Respondent was the Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association, the entity Mr. Duffett alleged had violated community rules and state law.
2. The first petition alleged that the HOA violated the CC&Rs by failing to respond to repeated requests for repairs to the exterior walls of his unit. The second petition alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide requested association documents.
3. A March 1993 amendment to the CC&Rs states that the Suntech Patio Homeowners Association “shall be responsible for the painting and maintenance of the… Exterior walls of all units.”
4. The judge ruled against the Petitioner because he failed to establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The black and white photographs submitted did not clearly show the alleged crack’s location or severity, so the judge could not conclude that a repair was immediately necessary.
5. The Petitioner claimed the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). This statute requires an association to make records reasonably available for examination and to provide copies of requested records within ten business days.
6. The Management Trust was the HOA’s management company when the incidents occurred and failed to properly respond to the Petitioner’s requests. Pride Community Management took over on February 1, 2018, and testified that the transition was difficult due to the sparse documentation initially provided by The Management Trust.
7. The judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, deeming him the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818027-REL. The judge ordered the HOA to comply with the applicable statute in the future.
8. The Petitioner requested copies of meeting notices and minutes for meetings where rules and regulations were discussed and where the last HOA dues increase was discussed. He also requested a copy of the notice of the last rate increase and any associated signed written consents.
9. The legal standard was “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with the most convincing force. The Petitioner failed to meet this standard for the wall repair petition but successfully met it for the document request petition.
10. The Respondent (HOA) was ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00. The payment was to be made directly to the Petitioner within thirty days of the Order.
——————————————————————————–
Suggested Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a response using only the information and evidence presented in the provided decision.
1. Analyze the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. How did the quality of evidence submitted by the Petitioner lead to two different outcomes for his two petitions?
2. Discuss the role and responsibilities of a homeowners association’s management company, using the actions of The Management Trust and the subsequent challenges faced by Pride Community Management as primary examples. How did the transition between these two companies impact the case?
3. Evaluate the Respondent’s arguments and actions in both petitions. In the wall repair case, what was their stated plan, and why was it ultimately not considered by the judge? In the document request case, what was their defense, and why did it fail?
4. Based on the text of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), explain the specific obligations of an HOA regarding member requests for records. Detail how the Suntech Patio Homes HOA, through its management, failed to meet these obligations, leading to the ruling against them.
5. Examine the communication breakdown between the Petitioner and the Respondent. Citing specific examples from the “Findings of Fact” and “Hearing Evidence” sections, explain how miscommunication and lack of timely response exacerbated the conflict.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and issues a legally binding decision. In this case, the ALJ was Tammy L. Eigenheer.
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
An Arizona Revised Statute that legally requires homeowners associations to make financial and other records available for member examination and to provide copies upon request within ten business days.
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that grants jurisdiction to the Arizona Department of Real Estate to hear disputes between homeowners and their associations.
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing legal documents that establish the rules, obligations, and restrictions for a planned community and its homeowners association.
Consolidated for Hearing
A procedural step where two or more separate legal cases involving the same parties are combined into a single hearing for efficiency.
Department
Within the context of this case, refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency where the Petitioner initially filed his petitions.
The final, legally binding ruling issued by the Administrative Law Judge at the conclusion of the hearing.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, homeowner Rex E. Duffett.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is met when the evidence presented has “the most convincing force” and is more likely true than not.
Prevailing Party
The party who is found to have won the legal dispute. The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in the document request case.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association.
Blog Post – 18F-H1818025-REL
A Homeowner Sued His HOA Over a Cracked Wall. He Lost Because of Bad Photocopies.
Introduction: The David vs. Goliath Battle Against Your HOA
For many homeowners, a dispute with their Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like an uphill battle. It’s a common story of frustration, complex rules, and feeling unheard. The legal case of Rex E. Duffett versus the Suntech Patio Homes HOA is a perfect example, but with a twist. This isn’t just a story about winning or losing; it’s a fascinating cautionary tale filled with surprising lessons for any homeowner navigating a conflict with their association. This breakdown of the real-life administrative court decision reveals the unexpected details that can make or break a case.
——————————————————————————–
1. Takeaway #1: The Quality of Your Proof Matters More Than the Truth
The dispute began when Rex Duffett filed a petition alleging his HOA had failed to repair a crack in his exterior wall that he claimed was causing a water leak. According to the association’s own CC&Rs, maintaining exterior walls was the HOA’s responsibility. To document the problem, he diligently sent faxes and certified mail to the management company, including photographs of the damage.
Despite his efforts, the Administrative Law Judge denied his petition for repairs.
The reason was as surprising as it was simple: the evidence he submitted was not clear enough. The black and white copies of the photographs he provided at the hearing “did not clearly show any damage.” The judge’s finding was blunt and highlights a critical point for any legal dispute:
The Administrative Law Judge was unable to identify the location or severity of the alleged crack, and therefore, cannot conclude that such a crack exists and/or that it is necessary to be repaired immediately.
The lesson here is critical. In a legal dispute, having proof is not enough; the proof must be clear, convincing, and well-presented. Mr. Duffett’s primary case failed not because he was necessarily wrong, but because his evidence failed to persuade the judge. In an administrative hearing, a handful of high-resolution color photographs, or even a short video, would have provided irrefutable evidence and could have changed the entire outcome of his primary petition.
2. Takeaway #2: Your HOA is on the Hook for Its Management Company’s Failures
Mr. Duffett also filed a second petition against the HOA for failing to provide records he requested, such as meeting minutes. Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)), an association must fulfill such a request within ten business days. The HOA failed to do so.
The root of the problem was the HOA’s previous management company, “The Management Trust.” This company not only failed to respond to the homeowner’s request but also failed to notify the new management company about it. The relationship between the HOA and this vendor was so poor that the HOA had previously tried to terminate the contract, but the management company “refused to acknowledge the termination and held Respondent to the full two year contract.” The transition was chaotic; the old company initially provided only one box of information before later discovering “seven or eight more boxes” in storage.
Even though the management company was clearly at fault, the Judge ruled that the HOA violated the law. This provides a powerful insight for both boards and homeowners: an HOA cannot blame its vendors. Legally, the association is the responsible party. Hiring an incompetent or unresponsive management company creates significant legal and financial liability for the association and, by extension, every homeowner. This is not an abstract risk; in this case, the management company’s failure to forward a simple request directly led to a legal violation that cost the association—and thus, its members—the $500 filing fee ordered by the judge.
3. Takeaway #3: A “Win” Can Be More Complicated Than It Looks
When you look at the final outcome, Mr. Duffett’s case presents a nuanced picture of what a “win” really means in an HOA dispute. The judge issued a split decision:
• Petition for Repairs: Denied. The homeowner lost.
• Petition for Documents: The homeowner was deemed the “prevailing party.” He won.
As the prevailing party in the second petition, the homeowner received a clear victory. The judge ordered the HOA to comply with the document access law in the future and, crucially, to pay the homeowner back his $500 filing fee.
This highlights a common reality in legal disputes: a homeowner can secure a clear procedural victory (enforcing the right to documents and recovering fees) while simultaneously failing to achieve their core substantive goal (getting the wall repaired). The outcome shows that legal victories can be partial and may not address the real-world problem that initiated the dispute in the first place.
4. Takeaway #4: Vague Requests and Messy Records Create Chaos
This case is a masterclass in how poor communication from both sides can create a perfect storm of dysfunction.
First, the homeowner’s request for documents was “somewhat vague.” The new management company testified it was “unclear because rules and regulations are discussed in some form at virtually every meeting.” While the HOA still violated the law by failing to respond at all, this highlights a crucial lesson for homeowners: be as specific and clear as possible in all written communication to avoid ambiguity.
This vague request then ran headlong into the second problem: the HOA’s institutional chaos. The new Community Manager testified that the only relevant document they possessed was the minutes from a single meeting, and that “seven or eight more boxes” of records were missing after a disastrous transition between management companies. The homeowner’s ambiguous request met an organization that likely couldn’t have responded effectively even if it wanted to.
For both sides, meticulous documentation is a shield. For homeowners, a clear, specific, and undeniable paper trail strengthens their position. For HOA boards, organized records are essential for smooth operations, seamless transitions between management companies, and, most importantly, avoiding legal liability.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The Devil is in the Details
The case of Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes HOA is a powerful reminder that in legal disputes, the outcome often hinges on the small stuff. Small details—the quality of a photocopy, the precise wording of a request, the competence of a vendor, the location of a box of files—can have massive consequences. They can mean the difference between winning and losing, between getting a problem solved and walking away with only a partial victory.
This case shows how easily things can go wrong. The next time you’re in a dispute, what’s the one small detail you might be overlooking that could change everything?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Rex E. Duffett(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Nathan Tennyson(attorney) BROWN/OLCOTT, PLLC
Rebecca Stowers(property manager) Pride Community Management Community Manager
Frank Peake(property manager) Pride Community Management Owner of Pride
Shawn Mason(property manager) The Management Trust Former management company staff
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
LDettorre(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
ncano(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Petitioner won the statutory claim regarding access to association documents (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)) and was refunded the $500 filing fee. Petitioner lost the claim regarding the failure to maintain exterior walls (CC&Rs) due to insufficient evidence.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the maintenance issue by a preponderance of the evidence (for case 18F-H1818025-REL).
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to repair and maintain exterior walls
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to repair damage (crack) to the exterior wall of his unit as required by the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence (black and white photographs did not clearly show the damage) to establish a violation.
Orders: Petitioner's petition in Case Number 18F-H1818025-REL is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
CC&Rs
5
17
Failure to provide requested association records
Petitioner requested meeting notices and minutes in December 2017. Respondent's former management company failed to respond in a timely fashion. Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the statute.
Orders: Petitioner deemed the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818027-REL. Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) in the future and pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00.
Administrative Hearing Brief: Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in two consolidated cases filed by homeowner Rex E. Duffett against the Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association (HOA). The ruling presents a split decision, with the petitioner prevailing on one claim while failing to provide sufficient evidence for the other.
The first petition, concerning the HOA’s alleged failure to repair exterior walls, was denied. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the submitted photographic evidence was unclear and did not sufficiently establish the existence or severity of the damage requiring immediate repair.
The second petition, concerning the HOA’s failure to provide association records upon request, was upheld. The judge found that the HOA, through its former management company, violated state law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)) by not responding to a formal document request within the mandated ten-business-day window.
As a result, Mr. Duffett was deemed the prevailing party in the records-request case. The HOA was ordered to pay his $500 filing fee and to ensure future compliance with the relevant statutes. The case highlights critical issues of evidence quality in homeowner disputes and demonstrates the legal liability an HOA retains for the failures of its management agents, particularly during periods of transition.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
Case Numbers
18F-H1818025-REL and 18F-H1818027-REL (Consolidated)
Petitioner
Rex E. Duffett
Respondent
Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association
Hearing Date
April 4, 2018
Decision Date
April 24, 2018
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
The hearing addressed two separate petitions filed by Rex E. Duffett with the Arizona Department of Real Estate:
1. Petition 1 (18F-H1818025-REL): Alleged the HOA violated community CC&Rs by failing to repair exterior walls of the petitioner’s unit.
2. Petition 2 (18F-H1818027-REL): Alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide requested documents.
Petition 1: Failure to Repair Exterior Walls (Denied)
Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence
• Core Claim: The petitioner alleged the HOA failed its duty, as defined by a March 1993 amendment to the CC&Rs, to maintain the exterior walls of his unit. The CC&Rs state, “The Suntech Patio Homeowners Association shall be responsible for the painting and maintenance of the following: A) Exterior walls of all units . . . .”
• Initial Request (July 14, 2017): Mr. Duffett faxed the HOA’s management company, The Management Trust, stating, “While inspecting the outside of my property I noticed a crack in the exterior wall. Please inspect, repair and paint the wall as soon as possible to prevent any damage which could result from rain water in the interior of the wall.”
• Follow-Up Request (August 21, 2017): In a certified letter, Mr. Duffett provided more detail, identifying a crack in the entryway wall allowing “rain water to seep into the interior wall,” a “bare concrete” area on the garage, and a previously cracked garage wall that had been repaired by a roofing company but not painted.
• Hearing Testimony: Mr. Duffett testified that a roofing company he hired to find a leak in his garage ceiling determined the source was not the roof but a crack in the exterior wall.
• Submitted Evidence: The petitioner submitted five black-and-white photographs of his home’s exterior across his two communications.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence
• Management Transition: Pride Community Management took over from The Management Trust on February 1, 2018. The new manager, Rebecca Stowers, and owner, Frank Peake, testified to a difficult transition where The Management Trust initially provided only one box of records, later discovering seven or eight more boxes in storage. Mr. Peake stated that Pride had not seen the petitioner’s communications regarding the damage until the hearing.
• Inspection: Ms. Stowers testified that she inspected the petitioner’s home on March 27, 2018. While she noted “a missing area of stucco on the front of the garage that needed to be repaired,” she “denied being able to identify a crack in the stucco anywhere else on the front of the house.”
• Community-Wide Repair Plan: Ms. Stowers stated that the HOA intended to repair the stucco and paint all exterior walls in the community during the 2018 calendar year at a projected cost of $46,000, to be funded potentially through a special assessment due to the HOA being underfunded.
Conclusion of Law and Ruling
• Burden of Proof: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the petitioner bore the burden of proving his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Evidence Failure: The ALJ found the submitted evidence insufficient. The decision states: “The black and white photographs submitted at hearing did not clearly show the crack Petitioner alleged existed on the exterior wall of his unit… The Administrative Law Judge was unable to identify the location or severity of the alleged crack, and therefore, cannot conclude that such a crack exists and/or that it is necessary to be repaired immediately.”
• Final Ruling: The petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The petition in Case Number 18F-H1818025-REL was denied.
Petition 2: Failure to Provide Association Records (Upheld)
Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence
• Core Claim: The petitioner alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which requires an association to fulfill a request for records within ten business days.
• The Request (December 22, 2017): Mr. Duffett faxed The Management Trust a request for specific documents, citing a statement made by the HOA in a separate case. He requested copies of:
◦ Meeting notices and minutes for all meetings where “rules and regulations were discussed” in August/September 2017.
◦ Meeting notices and minutes for meetings where the last HOA dues increase was discussed.
◦ A copy of the notice for the last association rate increase.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence
• Lack of Awareness: The HOA’s initial response on January 29, 2018, indicated it had only become aware of the request upon receiving notice of the petition. The current management company, Pride, testified they had not seen the original communication from the petitioner.
• Vagueness of Request: Frank Peake of Pride testified that the request for minutes of meetings “where the rules and regulations were discussed” was unclear “because rules and regulations are discussed in some form at virtually every meeting of the association.”
• Claim of Privilege: The initial response from The Management Trust on January 29, 2018, claimed that the requested minutes were for “closed executive meetings and were only available to Board members.”
Conclusion of Law and Ruling
• Statutory Violation: The ALJ concluded that the petitioner clearly made a request for documents and that the HOA, via its former management company, failed to act as required by law.
• Failure of Former Management: The decision explicitly faults the prior management company: “The Management Trust should have responded or requested additional clarification of what documents Petitioner was requesting as it was the management company during the ten day window Respondent had to respond pursuant to the statute.”
• Final Ruling: The petitioner successfully established by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Mr. Duffett was deemed the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818027-REL.
Final Order and Implications
The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders based on the conclusions of law:
Case Number
Subject
Ruling
18F-H1818025-REL
Exterior Wall Repairs
Petition Denied
18F-H1818027-REL
Document Request
Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party
Directives to the Respondent (Suntech Patio Homes HOA):
1. Future Compliance: The HOA must comply with the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) going forward.
2. Payment of Filing Fee: The HOA must pay the petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.
This order is considered binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted.
The ALJ denied the maintenance claim because the Petitioner failed to prove the existence of the damage with unclear evidence. The ALJ granted the records request claim because the HOA failed to respond to the Petitioner's request within the required 10 days. The HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00.
Why this result: Insufficient evidence to substantiate the maintenance claim.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to repair and paint exterior walls
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to respond to repeated requests to repair cracks and paint the exterior walls of his unit.
Orders: Denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_lost
Cited:
4
17
18
Failure to provide records
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide requested meeting notices and minutes within the statutory 10-day timeframe following a request made on December 22, 2017.
Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) in the future.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
19
20
21
Decision Documents
18F-H1818027-REL Decision – 630610.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:14:18 (114.0 KB)
**Case Overview**
The following is a summary of the administrative hearing for consolidated cases *Rex E. Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association* (Nos. 18F-H1818025-REL and 18F-H1818027-REL). The hearing took place on April 4, 2018, before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer,. While the hearing addressed two petitions, the following summary focuses primarily on Case No. 18F-H1818027-REL as requested.
**Case No. 18F-H1818027-REL (Records Request)**
* **Key Facts and Main Issue:**
The Petitioner filed a complaint alleging the Respondent failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) regarding a request for documents made on December 22, 2017. The Petitioner had faxed a request to the Respondent’s management company seeking meeting notices and minutes related to discussions of rules, regulations, and dues increases,. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), an association must make financial and other records reasonably available for examination within ten business days of a request.
* **Hearing Arguments:**
The Respondent was represented by new management (Pride Community Management), which had taken over from the previous company (The Management Trust) on February 1, 2018. The Respondent argued that the previous management company left sparse records and failed to communicate the request,. Additionally, the Respondent argued that the Petitioner's request regarding meetings where "rules and regulations were discussed" was unclear because such topics are discussed at virtually every meeting.
* **Legal Findings:**
The Administrative Law Judge determined that while the Petitioner’s request was "somewhat vague," it was clearly a request for documents. The Judge ruled that the Respondent’s former management company failed to respond or request clarification within the ten-day statutory window. Consequently, the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
* **Outcome:**
The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in this matter.
**Consolidated Case Context (Case No. 18F-H1818025-REL)**
In the accompanying consolidated case, the Petitioner alleged the Respondent failed to repair cracks in the exterior walls of his unit. The Judge denied this petition, finding that the black-and-white photographs submitted by the Petitioner were insufficient to prove the existence or severity of the alleged damage by a preponderance of the evidence,.
**Final Decision and Order**
Based on the findings in Case No. 18F-H1818027-REL, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Rex E. Duffett(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
