Tag Archives: Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC

Susannah Sabnekar v. Four Peaks Vista Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H006-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-26
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the statutes cited by the petitioner regarding conveyance of common elements (A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217) do not apply to the leasing of common elements, which was the action taken by the Respondent HOA.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Susannah Sabnekar Counsel —
Respondent Four Peaks Vista Owners Association Counsel Maria McKee

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the statutes cited by the petitioner regarding conveyance of common elements (A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217) do not apply to the leasing of common elements, which was the action taken by the Respondent HOA.

Why this result: The statutes cited by the Petitioner apply to conveyances, but the disputed action was determined to be a lease, which is treated separately under Arizona's Condominium Act.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the Board violated statute by conveying a portion of common elements without a vote from all homeowners.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217 by approving a lease agreement granting the Declarant (Four Peaks) the right to use a portion of the clubhouse as a management office, arguing this action constituted a conveyance requiring an 80% homeowner vote. The ALJ ruled that the statutes apply only to conveyances, not leases, and found no violation.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • 33-1252
  • 33-1217
  • 33-1242
  • 33-1225

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Condominium Act, Lease vs Conveyance, Common Elements, Declarant Rights, Motion to Dismiss
Additional Citations:

  • 33-1252
  • 33-1217
  • 33-1242
  • 33-1225
  • 33-1226

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1097274.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:14:04 (52.7 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1099296.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:14:07 (50.8 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1099320.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:14:12 (48.2 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1106232.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:14:18 (118.8 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1097274.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:57 (52.7 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1099296.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:00 (50.8 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1099320.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:04 (48.2 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1106232.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:09 (118.8 KB)

This summary details the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the administrative law matter of *Susannah Sabnekar v. Four Peaks Vista Owners Association*, Case No. 24F-H006-REL.

Summary of Administrative Hearing

Key Facts and Background

The Petitioner, Susannah Sabnekar (a condominium unit owner and member of the Association), challenged the Respondent, Four Peaks Vista Owners Association. The dispute centered on a March 21, 2022, decision by the Association’s Board to approve a lease agreement. This Lease granted the Declarant (Four Peaks Investment Partners I LLC and II LLC) the right to maintain a leasing and property management office within a portion of the community’s clubhouse, which constitutes a common element. Petitioner alleged that four Rockwell employees serving on the board voted to approve this motion on July 13, 2023.

Main Legal Issue

The core dispute, heard by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson on October 6, 2023, was whether the Board violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217 by effectively "conveying" a portion of the common elements without securing the statutory vote from all homeowners.

Petitioner's Arguments

Petitioner Susannah Sabnekar, supported by witness Amy Watier, argued that the Board's action was a conveyance or encumbrance of a common element. Petitioner asserted that A.R.S. § 33-1252(A) requires that common elements may only be conveyed if 80% of the persons entitled to vote agree. Furthermore, A.R.S. § 33-1217(E) states that common elements are not subject to partition, and any purported conveyance or encumbrance made without the unit to which the interest is allocated is void.

Respondent's Arguments

The Association maintained that the material facts were not in dispute and that the Petitioner could not establish a statutory violation. The Respondent's primary legal position was that the Petitioner conflated "conveyance" with "leasing," which are separate legal concepts under the Arizona Condominium Act.

Key points raised by the Respondent included:

  1. Statutory Distinction: A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(9) expressly grants the Association the right to "Grant easements, leases, licenses and concessions through or over the common elements," without referencing the 80% vote requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1252.
  2. Definition of Conveyance: A conveyance, requiring compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1252, signifies a total transfer of fee title and must be evidenced and recorded in the same manner as a deed (A.R.S. § 33-1252(B)). A lease, which expires after a set period, does not meet the formal requirements of a conveyance.
  3. Declarant Rights: The Lease was permitted under A.R.S. § 33-1225, which allows a declarant to maintain sales or management offices on common elements unless prohibited by the declaration or law.

Final Decision and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Respondent's pre-hearing Motion to Dismiss, allowing the hearing to proceed. However, after considering the arguments and evidence, the ALJ issued a decision on October 26, 2023, concluding that A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217 do not apply to leases, but rather to conveyances.

Finding that no evidence of a conveyance of common elements was presented, the ALJ determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the merits of the petition.

The petition was ordered dismissed.

Questions

Question

Does leasing a common area count as 'conveying' it, requiring a supermajority vote?

Short Answer

No. Leasing and conveying are separate legal concepts in Arizona, and leasing does not trigger the voting requirements of a conveyance.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that Arizona law distinguishes between leasing real property and conveying it. While a conveyance (transfer of title) of common elements often requires an 80% vote under A.R.S. § 33-1252, granting a lease does not. The Association has the specific statutory right to grant leases over common elements without meeting the stricter requirements for a conveyance.

Alj Quote

Plainly, Arizona law distinguishes between leasing real property and conveying it. These are two separate legal concepts. … The Administrative Law Judge concludes that A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and A.R.S. 33-1217 do not apply to leases, but rather conveyances.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(9); A.R.S. § 33-1252

Topic Tags

  • common elements
  • leasing
  • voting requirements

Question

Can the HOA board authorize a lease of common elements without a vote of all homeowners?

Short Answer

Yes. The Board generally has the authority to grant leases, whereas conveying the property would require a homeowner vote.

Detailed Answer

The decision highlights that A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(9) expressly gives the Association the right to lease common elements. This section does not reference the voting requirements found in A.R.S. § 33-1252, which applies only when the Association conveys or encumbers the property (like a mortgage).

Alj Quote

Notably, subsection (A)(9) expressly provides the Association the right to enter into the Lease, without any mention of A.R.S. § 33-1252, while the right to 'convey' Common Elements is subject to the requirements imposed in A.R.S. § 33-1252.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(9)

Topic Tags

  • board authority
  • leasing
  • common elements

Question

Is a Declarant allowed to use common elements for management offices?

Short Answer

Yes, a Declarant may maintain offices on common elements unless the Declaration specifically prohibits it.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited A.R.S. § 33-1225, which explicitly permits a declarant to maintain sales and management offices on common elements unless the community's declaration says otherwise or another law prohibits it.

Alj Quote

A declarant may maintain sales offices, management offices and models in units or on common elements in the condominium unless: 1. The declaration provides otherwise. 2. Such use is prohibited by another provision of law or local ordinances.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1225

Topic Tags

  • declarant rights
  • common elements
  • offices

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a petition against their HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the statute. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and A.R.S. 33-1217 by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • burden of proof

Question

What qualifies as a 'conveyance' of HOA property?

Short Answer

A conveyance is generally interpreted as a total transfer of fee title, usually evidenced by a recorded deed.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that a conveyance involves a permanent transfer of interest, such as through a deed, and must be recorded. A lease, which is for a set period and does not transfer title, does not qualify as a conveyance.

Alj Quote

The Legislature… made clear its intent that a conveyance is a total transfer of fee title. … Furthermore, once any such 'conveyance' occurs, it must be evidenced by the execution and recording of the document in the same manner as a deed.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1252(A); A.R.S. § 33-1252(B)

Topic Tags

  • definitions
  • conveyance
  • property rights

Question

How are ambiguous restrictive covenants in CC&Rs interpreted?

Short Answer

If they are unambiguous, they are enforced according to the intent of the parties.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that restrictive covenants must be viewed as a whole and interpreted based on their underlying purpose. If the text is clear (unambiguous), it is enforced to uphold the parties' intent.

Alj Quote

In Arizona, if a restrictive covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. 'Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.'

Legal Basis

Case Law (Powell v. Washburn)

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • interpretation
  • legal standards

Case

Docket No
24F-H006-REL
Case Title
Susannah Sabnekar vs. Four Peaks Vista Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-10-26
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Does leasing a common area count as 'conveying' it, requiring a supermajority vote?

Short Answer

No. Leasing and conveying are separate legal concepts in Arizona, and leasing does not trigger the voting requirements of a conveyance.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that Arizona law distinguishes between leasing real property and conveying it. While a conveyance (transfer of title) of common elements often requires an 80% vote under A.R.S. § 33-1252, granting a lease does not. The Association has the specific statutory right to grant leases over common elements without meeting the stricter requirements for a conveyance.

Alj Quote

Plainly, Arizona law distinguishes between leasing real property and conveying it. These are two separate legal concepts. … The Administrative Law Judge concludes that A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and A.R.S. 33-1217 do not apply to leases, but rather conveyances.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(9); A.R.S. § 33-1252

Topic Tags

  • common elements
  • leasing
  • voting requirements

Question

Can the HOA board authorize a lease of common elements without a vote of all homeowners?

Short Answer

Yes. The Board generally has the authority to grant leases, whereas conveying the property would require a homeowner vote.

Detailed Answer

The decision highlights that A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(9) expressly gives the Association the right to lease common elements. This section does not reference the voting requirements found in A.R.S. § 33-1252, which applies only when the Association conveys or encumbers the property (like a mortgage).

Alj Quote

Notably, subsection (A)(9) expressly provides the Association the right to enter into the Lease, without any mention of A.R.S. § 33-1252, while the right to 'convey' Common Elements is subject to the requirements imposed in A.R.S. § 33-1252.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(9)

Topic Tags

  • board authority
  • leasing
  • common elements

Question

Is a Declarant allowed to use common elements for management offices?

Short Answer

Yes, a Declarant may maintain offices on common elements unless the Declaration specifically prohibits it.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited A.R.S. § 33-1225, which explicitly permits a declarant to maintain sales and management offices on common elements unless the community's declaration says otherwise or another law prohibits it.

Alj Quote

A declarant may maintain sales offices, management offices and models in units or on common elements in the condominium unless: 1. The declaration provides otherwise. 2. Such use is prohibited by another provision of law or local ordinances.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1225

Topic Tags

  • declarant rights
  • common elements
  • offices

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a petition against their HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the statute. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and A.R.S. 33-1217 by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • burden of proof

Question

What qualifies as a 'conveyance' of HOA property?

Short Answer

A conveyance is generally interpreted as a total transfer of fee title, usually evidenced by a recorded deed.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that a conveyance involves a permanent transfer of interest, such as through a deed, and must be recorded. A lease, which is for a set period and does not transfer title, does not qualify as a conveyance.

Alj Quote

The Legislature… made clear its intent that a conveyance is a total transfer of fee title. … Furthermore, once any such 'conveyance' occurs, it must be evidenced by the execution and recording of the document in the same manner as a deed.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1252(A); A.R.S. § 33-1252(B)

Topic Tags

  • definitions
  • conveyance
  • property rights

Question

How are ambiguous restrictive covenants in CC&Rs interpreted?

Short Answer

If they are unambiguous, they are enforced according to the intent of the parties.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that restrictive covenants must be viewed as a whole and interpreted based on their underlying purpose. If the text is clear (unambiguous), it is enforced to uphold the parties' intent.

Alj Quote

In Arizona, if a restrictive covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. 'Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.'

Legal Basis

Case Law (Powell v. Washburn)

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • interpretation
  • legal standards

Case

Docket No
24F-H006-REL
Case Title
Susannah Sabnekar vs. Four Peaks Vista Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-10-26
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Susannah Sabnekar (petitioner)
    Homeowner
  • Amy Watier (witness)
    Homeowner, current board member, and previous board member

Respondent Side

  • Maria McKee (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Council for Respondent
  • Chad P. Miesen (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Council for Respondent
  • Charlie Markle (HOA attorney)
    Council for the Association
  • Kathy Gower (property manager)
    Four Peaks Vista Owners Association
    Community manager
  • Shelley Kobat (board member)
    Four Peaks Vista Owners Association
    Associate board president

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission list
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission list
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission list
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission list

James Dutton vs. Cielo Noche Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918014-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-04-05
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, finding that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by failing to notice at least one meeting which was improperly held in closed session. The Tribunal noted that while some executive sessions regarding pending litigation were permissible, meetings regarding vendor changes (management and landscaping) required open session and notice. The filing fee was refunded, but no civil penalty was assessed as the conduct was not found to be intentional or in bad faith.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner James Dutton Counsel Steven W. Cheifetz
Respondent Cielo Noche Community Association Counsel Lydia Linsmeier; Nicholas Nogami

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, finding that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by failing to notice at least one meeting which was improperly held in closed session. The Tribunal noted that while some executive sessions regarding pending litigation were permissible, meetings regarding vendor changes (management and landscaping) required open session and notice. The filing fee was refunded, but no civil penalty was assessed as the conduct was not found to be intentional or in bad faith.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide notice of meetings and acting on results of secret meetings

Petitioner alleged the Association violated open meeting laws by failing to provide notice of meetings held between November 2017 and May 2018, specifically regarding the hiring of new management and landscaping companies in executive session without community input or proper notice.

Orders: The Tribunal found the Respondent held at least one closed meeting that should have been open/noticed. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner the filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 6
  • 7
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918014-REL Decision – 693361.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:16:30 (45.6 KB)

19F-H1918014-REL Decision – 699583.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:16:35 (194.0 KB)

19F-H1918014-REL Decision – 693361.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:15:40 (45.6 KB)

19F-H1918014-REL Decision – 699583.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:15:40 (194.0 KB)

Administrative Decision Briefing: Dutton vs. Cielo Noche Community Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the administrative proceedings and final decision in the case of James Dutton v. Cielo Noche Community Association (No. 19F-H1918014-REL). The dispute centered on allegations that the Association’s Board of Directors violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804 by holding "secret" meetings, failing to provide proper notice to members, and taking actions in executive sessions that should have occurred in open meetings.

Following hearings held on January 4 and March 7, 2019, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark determined that the Respondent violated the Arizona Open Meeting Law. While the Board’s actions were not found to be in bad faith or intentionally negligent, the Petitioner's request for relief was granted, and the Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Transparency and the Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804)

The central conflict of this matter was the tension between the Board’s perceived need for privacy during vendor transitions and the statutory requirement for transparency. Arizona law mandates that all meetings of a homeowners' association and its board be open to all members, with very narrow exceptions.

  • Violations Identified: The Tribunal found that the Board held at least one closed meeting that should have been open to the community. Specifically, the Board discussed and acted upon the hiring of a new management company (Tri-City) and a new landscaping vendor (Peak) in executive sessions.
  • Notice Failures: Testimony revealed a "miscommunication" between the community manager and the Board that led to a complete lack of notice for a meeting held on July 23, 2018.
  • The Scope of Executive Sessions: The Board argued that discussions regarding the management company were "employee performance" matters. However, the ALJ ruled that these topics did not meet the strict statutory criteria for closed sessions.
2. Governance and Management Transitions

The evidence highlighted a period of significant transition for the Cielo Noche subdivision, which consists of 164 homes in Queen Creek, Arizona.

  • Management Shift: The Association transitioned from Trestle Management Group to Tri-City Management Company. Petitioner James Dutton, a former Board President, argued that the community was denied input on this critical decision, which resulted in a 3% increase in management costs.
  • Vendor Influence: The Board also replaced the community landscaper via executive vote. This was a point of contention because the landscaping vendor receives approximately one-third of the community's annual budget.
  • Role of the Community Manager: Kari Moyer, the Tri-City manager, testified that she repeatedly had to "issue reminders" to the Board between June and November 2018 that they were not permitted to hold executive sessions for the reasons they were citing.
3. Legal and Procedural Missteps

The proceedings underscored the importance of legal counsel in maintaining HOA compliance.

  • Lack of Counsel: Testimony indicated that during the period when many of the contested decisions were made, the Association did not have its own legal counsel, relying instead on advice from the management company.
  • Emergency Meetings: The Petitioner provided evidence of "emergency meetings" held in September and November 2018 where the Board failed to read or approve minutes at subsequent open meetings, a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2).

Key Entities and Roles

Entity Role Key Contributions/Findings
James Dutton Petitioner Former Board President; filed the petition alleging secret meetings and lack of notice.
Cielo Noche Community Association Respondent The HOA governing a 164-home subdivision; found in violation of Open Meeting Law.
Jenna Clark ALJ Presided over the hearings; issued the final order in favor of the Petitioner.
Kari Moyer Witness Community Manager for Tri-City; admitted to notice failures and correcting the Board's improper use of executive sessions.
David Hibler Witness Association Treasurer; testified regarding the Board’s rationale for closed sessions during developer negotiations.

Important Quotes with Context

On Statutory Requirements

"It is the policy of this state… that all meetings of a planned community… be conducted openly and that notices and agendas be provided… any person or entity that is charged with the interpretation of these provisions… shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings."

— A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) (Cited in the Conclusions of Law to emphasize the legal preference for transparency).

On the Finding of Violation

"Based on a review of the credible and relevant evidence in the record the Tribunal holds that Respondent held at least one closed meeting which should have been held either partly or entirely in open session."

— Administrative Law Judge Decision, Page 12 (The core legal conclusion of the case).

On Notice Failures

"Ms. Moyer conceded that the Board’s July 18, 2018, meeting was not noticed. Ms. Moyer explained that there was a miscommunication between herself and the Board. Specifically, each party believed the other was going to post notice to the community, but neither did."

— Finding of Fact 46 (Contextualizing the lack of notice for a specific meeting).

On Management's Corrective Actions

"Ms. Moyer testified that… after the Board meeting held that day [May 30, 2018] she informed the Board that they were not permitted to hold executive sessions for the reason(s) they did, and that in the future such discussions needed to take place in open session."

— Finding of Fact 43 (Showing that the management company recognized and attempted to correct the Board's errors).

Actionable Insights for Association Governance

Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this matter, the following principles are established for HOA compliance under A.R.S. § 33-1804:

  • Strict Adherence to Executive Session Criteria: A board may only close a meeting for five specific reasons: legal advice, pending/contemplated litigation, personal/financial/medical information of members, employee job performance, or discussions regarding a member's appeal of a violation.
  • Vendor Contracts are Open Business: Discussing the performance of a third-party contractor (like a landscaping company) or the hiring of a new management firm generally does not qualify as an "employee job performance" exception and should be handled in open session.
  • Mandatory Notice Requirements: Boards must ensure that notice is posted for all meetings, including informal "workshops" where a quorum of the board meets to discuss association business, regardless of whether a vote is taken.
  • Emergency Meeting Protocol: If an emergency meeting is called to handle business that cannot wait 48 hours, the minutes must state the reason for the emergency and must be read and approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
  • Email Voting Limitations: While minor administrative tasks (like architectural requests) might be handled via email per certain bylaws, substantive business and voting should generally occur in a noticed, open forum to avoid "secret meeting" allegations.
  • Documentation of Legal Basis: Before entering a closed session, the board must identify the specific statutory paragraph that authorizes the closure.

Study Guide: Dutton v. Cielo Noche Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between James Dutton and the Cielo Noche Community Association. It explores the application of Arizona Open Meeting Laws, the powers of homeowners' association (HOA) boards, and the procedural requirements for administrative law proceedings.

Section 1: Case Overview and Legal Framework

Case Background

The case of James Dutton vs. Cielo Noche Community Association (No. 19F-H1918014-REL) centers on allegations that the Association's Board of Directors violated state statutes by failing to provide notice for meetings and conducting business in "secret" or executive sessions that should have been open to the membership.

Key Entities
Entity Description
James Dutton The Petitioner; a property owner in the Cielo Noche subdivision and former Board President.
Cielo Noche Community Association The Respondent; a homeowners' association for a 164-home development in Queen Creek, Arizona.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) The state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions from HOA members regarding violations of community documents or state statutes.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) The independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for the ADRE.
Jenna Clark The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the hearing and issued the decision.
Governing Documents and Statutes
  1. A.R.S. § 33-1804: The primary statute in question, which mandates that meetings of homeowners' associations and their boards be open to all members, with specific, narrow exceptions for closed (executive) sessions.
  2. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): The enforceable contract between the Association and property owners that empowers the Association to control property use.
  3. Association Bylaws: The internal rules governing Board conduct, including meeting frequency, quorum requirements, and the ability to act via unanimous written consent.

Section 2: Key Concepts and Legal Standards

The Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804)

The state policy dictates that all meetings must be conducted openly, with notices and agendas provided to members.

Authorized Reasons for Executive Sessions: Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), a board may only close a portion of a meeting to discuss:

  • Legal advice from an attorney for the board or association.
  • Pending or contemplated litigation.
  • Matters relating to the job performance of an individual employee of the association or a contractor's employee.
  • Personal, health, or financial information of an individual member or employee.
  • Discussions regarding a member's appeal of a violation (unless the member requests it be open).

Procedural Requirements for Closed Meetings:

  • Identification: The board must identify the specific statutory paragraph authorizing the closure before entering the executive session.
  • Emergency Meetings: May be called for business that cannot wait 48 hours. Minutes must state the reason for the emergency and be read/approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
  • Informal Meetings: Any quorum of the board meeting informally to discuss association business (workshops, etc.) must still comply with open meeting and notice provisions.
The Burden of Proof

In administrative proceedings of this nature, the Petitioner bears the burden of proving the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. This means the evidence must show that the contention is "more probably true than not."

Section 3: Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. What was the central issue the Petitioner paid to have adjudicated?
  • Answer: Whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by failing to provide notice of meetings and acting on the results of secret meetings.
  1. What was the Respondent’s justification for hiring Tri-City Management and Peak Landscaping in executive sessions?
  • Answer: The Association argued these discussions related to employee performance (for Trestle Management) and were part of privileged negotiations regarding construction defects with the developer (KHOV).
  1. According to the Bylaws, what constitutes a quorum for the Cielo Noche Board of Directors?
  • Answer: A majority of the number of Directors.
  1. How much was the filing fee the Petitioner had to pay to the Department?
  • Answer: $500.00.
  1. What was the ALJ’s finding regarding the Board’s conduct?
  • Answer: The ALJ found that the Board held at least one closed meeting that should have been open and failed to provide proper notice for at least one meeting (July 18/23, 2018), thus violating the Arizona Open Meeting Law.
  1. Why did the ALJ decline to assess a civil penalty against the Respondent?
  • Answer: The record did not reflect that the Association’s conduct was intentional, negligent, or in bad faith.
  1. What is required of the Board regarding the minutes of an emergency meeting?
  • Answer: The minutes must state the reason for the emergency and must be read and approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
  1. Who were the two primary witnesses called by the Respondent?
  • Answer: Kari Moyer (Tri-City Community Manager) and David Hibler (Association Treasurer).

Section 4: Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Tension Between Privacy and Transparency: Analyze the Board’s decision to hire a new management company and landscaping vendor in executive session. Discuss whether "employee performance" exceptions should extend to the selection and hiring of third-party corporate contractors, or if such actions fundamentally impact the community's budget and require open-session deliberation.
  2. Statutory Construction and Policy: A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) states that any person interpreting the statute "shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings." Evaluate the Board’s actions regarding the July 23, 2018 meeting notice. How does the "miscommunication" defense presented by the Association weigh against the state’s explicit policy of transparency?
  3. The Role of Legal Counsel and Management Advice: During the hearing, it was revealed that Trestle Management and later Kari Moyer provided advice regarding executive sessions. Discuss the extent to which a Board’s reliance on professional management or legal counsel mitigates their liability for statutory violations, specifically in the context of the ALJ’s decision to waive civil penalties.

Section 5: Glossary of Important Terms

  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over hearings and makes findings of fact and conclusions of law in cases involving state agencies.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804: The Arizona Revised Statute governing open meetings for planned communities.
  • CC&Rs: Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules of the community and the powers of the HOA.
  • Electronic Signature: As defined by A.R.S. § 44-7002(8), an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to a record and executed by an individual with the intent to sign.
  • Executive Session: A portion of a board meeting that is closed to the general membership to discuss sensitive or legally protected matters.
  • Petitioner: The party who initiates the legal action or petition (in this case, James Dutton).
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases; evidence that has the most convincing force and shows a claim is more likely true than not.
  • Quorum: The minimum number of board members who must be present (personally or via communication means) for the transaction of business to be legal.
  • Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, Cielo Noche Community Association).
  • Stipulated Order: A legal order where both parties agree to certain terms, such as extending a deadline for a decision.
  • Unanimous Written Consent: A provision in the Bylaws (Article VII, Section 5) allowing Directors to take action without a meeting if all Directors provide written consent.

Transparency Behind Closed Doors: Lessons from the Dutton vs. Cielo Noche HOA Decision

1. Introduction: The Conflict Over Community Governance

For homeowners in a planned community, the Board of Directors acts as a local government with significant power over property values and daily life. However, this power is not absolute. In Arizona, the law is designed to prevent "secret governance," yet the tension between Board efficiency and a member’s right to transparency remains a primary source of litigation.

The case of James Dutton vs. Cielo Noche Community Association (No. 19F-H1918014-REL) stands as a stark warning to Boards that treat executive sessions as a convenient shield for uncomfortable public business. When even a former Board President—an insider familiar with the gears of power—must petition the state to force transparency, it signals a systemic failure in accountability. The central question of this case remains vital for every Arizona homeowner: When exactly can an HOA Board legally shut its doors, and when does "privacy" become a statutory violation?

2. The Case Context: From President to Petitioner

The conflict within the Cielo Noche Community Association, a high-end development in Queen Creek, began following a leadership transition. James Dutton served as the Association’s Board President from August 2016 until his resignation in November 2017. Upon returning to the rank of a concerned member, Dutton discovered that the governance of the community had shifted toward a culture of closed-door decision-making.

On July 25, 2018, Dutton filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, triggering an adjudication by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was the Association’s adherence—or lack thereof—to A.R.S. § 33-1804, the Arizona Open Meeting Law. The Administrative Law Judge was tasked with determining whether the Board had systematically bypassed notice requirements and improperly used executive sessions to decide matters that, by law, belonged in the public eye.

3. Timeline of the "Secret" Decisions

The hearing revealed a troubling chronology of actions taken between November 2017 and July 2018. The Board frequently utilized executive sessions to conduct business that had direct, significant financial impacts on the community without the membership’s knowledge:

  • November 2017: Immediately following Dutton’s resignation, the Board used an executive session to vote on hiring a specific law firm, accept bids for a community reserve study, and deliberate on the retention of their management company.
  • April – May 2018: The Board negotiated and signed a contract with Tri-City Management, replacing Trestle Management. This decision not only changed the community’s primary administrative partner but also saddled the homeowners with a 3% increase in management fees—all without a public vote.
  • May 30, 2018: In a further closed-door session, the Board voted to replace the community’s landscaping vendor with a company called "Peak."
  • July 18, 2018: The Board held a meeting to vote on financial documents without providing any notice to the community. While the Association later claimed this was a "miscommunication," the manager conceded that no notice was posted.
  • Secret Administrative Tasks: Beyond major vendor changes, the Board used closed sessions to discuss mundane community business that strictly required open deliberation, including drainage issues, parking variances, gate lighting, and the community website.
4. The "Open Meeting" Standard: A.R.S. § 33-1804

Arizona law is not ambiguous regarding HOA transparency. The statutory construction of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) mandates that any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the homeowner’s right to observe:

"It is the policy of this state… that all meetings of a planned community… be conducted openly… any person or entity that is charged with the interpretation of these provisions… shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings."

The Board at Cielo Noche attempted to justify their secrecy through broad interpretations of the law. The following table contrasts those legal justifications with the reality found by the Tribunal:

Legal Justification (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)) The Association's Argument The Reality & Legal Finding
Legal Advice (A1): Private advice from an attorney regarding litigation. The Board argued that negotiations with the developer (KHOV) were privileged legal matters. The Board held several "legal" executive sessions in Nov 2017 before they had actually secured legal counsel in Dec 2017 or Jan 2018. Secrecy is only permitted for actual legal advice.
Personnel Matters (A4): Job performance of an individual employee. Management and landscaper changes were characterized as "employee performance" reviews. A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(4) applies only to individual employees. Management firms and landscaping companies are corporate contractors; their performance is community business, not a private personnel matter.
Proper Notice (D/E): 48-hour notice is mandatory for all Board meetings. The failure to notice the July 18 meeting was a "miscommunication" between the Board and Manager. Notice is a statutory mandate, not a courtesy. A "miscommunication" does not excuse an illegal meeting.
5. Key Testimonies: Management vs. Membership

The evidentiary record highlights a Board that disregarded professional warnings in favor of autonomy.

  • James Dutton (Petitioner): Dutton’s testimony emphasized the high stakes of these secret meetings. He noted that the landscaping vendor alone accounted for one-third of the community’s budget, and the management company controlled all financial records and resident correspondence. Excluding members from these decisions deprived them of oversight over the Association's most critical financial pillars.
  • Kari Moyer (Tri-City Manager): In perhaps the most damaging testimony for the Association, Moyer—a CAAM-certified manager—admitted she had to repeatedly warn the Board from May through November 2018 that they were holding executive sessions for reasons not permitted by law. Despite these professional warnings from a certified expert, the Board continued its practice of "secret" governance.
  • David Hibler (Board Treasurer): Hibler, an engineer by trade, conceded that the Board conducted early closed-door negotiations regarding developer settlements without legal counsel present, undermining the Association's claim that these sessions were protected by "legal advice" exceptions.
6. The Verdict: Accountability without Penalties

Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark ruled that the Cielo Noche Community Association had indeed violated the Arizona Open Meeting Law. The Tribunal found that the Board held at least one closed meeting that should have been open and failed to provide proper notice to the community.

The Order:

  • Petition Granted: The Tribunal formally concluded the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.
  • Mandatory Reimbursement: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), the Association was ordered to reimburse James Dutton for his $500 filing fee.
  • No Civil Penalty: While the Judge did not find "bad faith" sufficient to warrant additional civil penalties, the ruling serves as a permanent record of the Board’s failure to adhere to the strict requirements of Arizona law.
7. Conclusion: 4 Essential Takeaways for HOA Members

The Dutton decision provides a clear roadmap for ensuring Board accountability:

  1. The Default is Open: All meetings where a quorum of the Board meets to discuss Association business—including informal "workshops"—must be noticed and open. The five exceptions in A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) are to be narrowly construed.
  2. Corporate Vendors are Not "Employees": Boards cannot hide the hiring or firing of management companies or landscaping firms behind "personnel" exceptions. Those exceptions apply only to individual employees of the HOA or the contractor.
  3. Notice is a Strict Liability Requirement: There is no "oops" in the Open Meeting Law. If a Board fails to provide the required 48-hour notice, any action taken is a violation of the law, regardless of intent or "miscommunication."
  4. Emergency Meeting Transparency: Emergency meetings are for true emergencies only. The minutes must explicitly state the "reason necessitating the emergency" and must be read and approved at the very next regular meeting.
Closing Statement

The case of Cielo Noche serves as a reminder that transparency is not a gift granted by a Board; it is a right owned by the members. Homeowners must remain vigilant, and when Boards ignore the warnings of their own professional managers, the Arizona Department of Real Estate stands as a critical venue for restoring the rule of law.

The final decision in this matter was transmitted on April 5, 2019.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • James Dutton (petitioner)
    Cielo Noche subdivision
    Former Board President; property owner
  • Steven W. Cheifetz (attorney)
    Cheifetz Law, PLLC
    Counsel for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas C. Nogami (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen PLC
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Lydia Linsmeier (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen PLC
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Kari Moyer (witness)
    Tri-City Property Management Services
    Community Manager
  • David Hibler (witness)
    Cielo Noche Community Association
    Board Treasurer

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (clerk)
    Signed minute entries/transmission

Other Participants

  • Cindo Dutton (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Aaron Smith (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Bob Willis (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Thomas Pruit (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Kenny Shepherd (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Luke Clesceri (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Carol Clesceri (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Derek Zeigler (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Carole Cozzi (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Anthony Cozzi (observer)
    Attended hearing

William Travis vs. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1817017-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-02-02
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Petitioner's petition, raising three issues concerning the HOA's election nominating process, was dismissed entirely. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner William Travis Counsel —
Respondent The Val Vista Lakes Community Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article VIII
Bylaws Article VIII; Bylaws Article IV, Section 1
ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1812(A), (A)(1), and (A)(2)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition, raising three issues concerning the HOA's election nominating process, was dismissed entirely. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof on all issues. The ALJ found that the Nominating Committee acted within the authority granted by the Bylaws regarding deadlines and nominee selection discretion, and the relevant election statute (A.R.S. § 33-1812) was not applicable to the nomination process.

Key Issues & Findings

Nominating Committee disregarded a September 29, 2017 deadline by which parties were to submit applications to nominate themselves.

Petitioner alleged the Nominating Committee violated Article VIII by accepting applications after the September 29th administrative deadline, arguing the deadline was a 'term[], limitation[], or rule[] adopted by the Board of Directors'.

Orders: The claim was dismissed. The deadline was an administrative deadline set by management, not a rule adopted by the Board, and therefore the Committee did not violate Bylaws Article VIII by accepting applications late.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Bylaws Article VIII

The Nominating Committee exceeded its authority by asking candidates questions that had the effect of imposing qualification requirements for the Board’s Directors that exceed those set out in the Bylaws.

Petitioner alleged that the Committee imposing questions (such as whether an applicant had filed a lawsuit against the Association) created unauthorized qualifications for the Board, violating the Bylaws.

Orders: The claim was dismissed. Bylaws Article IV Section 3 grants the Nominating Committee discretion to determine the number of nominations, and it was not unreasonable for the Committee to question applicants while exercising this explicit discretion.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Bylaws Article VIII
  • Bylaws Article IV, Section 3

By failing to include on the election-ballot members who had submitted 'self-nominations,' the Committee violated election statutes.

Petitioner asserted that because members could not vote for the four applicants the Nominating Committee did not nominate, the Committee engaged in proxy voting, violating election requirements set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1812.

Orders: The claim was dismissed. Because Bylaws Article IV Section 3 requires nominations to be made by the Nominating Committee, nominations are not 'votes allocated to a unit' and ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1812 is not applicable.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1812(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1812(A)(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1812(A)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Nominating Committee, Bylaws Enforcement, Director Qualifications, Administrative Deadline, Statutory Interpretation, Self-Nomination
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1812

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1817017-REL Decision – 615818.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:08:39 (125.4 KB)

18F-H1817017-REL Decision – 615818.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:22:17 (125.4 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Travis v. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1817017-REL, concerning a petition filed by William Travis against The Val Vista Lakes Community Association. The core of the dispute revolves around the actions of the Association’s Nominating Committee during the process for the November 16, 2017 Board of Directors election.

Mr. Travis raised three primary allegations: 1) the Committee violated Association Bylaws by accepting candidate applications after a stated September 29, 2017 deadline; 2) the Committee exceeded its authority by interviewing candidates, thereby imposing qualification requirements beyond those stipulated in the Bylaws; and 3) the failure to include all applicants on the ballot constituted a violation of Arizona state statutes related to proxy voting.

The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, dismissed Mr. Travis’s petition in its entirety. The decision found that Travis failed to prove the application deadline was a formal rule adopted by the Board, concluding it was an administrative deadline set by the management company. The Judge determined that the Committee’s actions, including interviewing applicants, were a reasonable exercise of the discretion explicitly granted to it by the Bylaws. Finally, the Judge ruled that the state statute cited by Travis applies to the casting of votes, not the internal nomination process, and was therefore inapplicable to the Committee’s actions. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association was deemed the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Number

18F-H1817017-REL

Petitioner

William Travis

Respondent

The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Hearing Date

January 26, 2018

Decision Date

February 2, 2018

Presiding Judge

Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge

Testifying Parties

William Travis (on his own behalf); Simone McGinnis (Association’s on-site manager)

Petitioner’s Allegations

William Travis’s petition, as amended, centered on three specific issues concerning the Nominating Committee’s conduct for the November 16, 2017 Board election:

1. Violation of Application Deadline: The Committee disregarded a September 29, 2017 deadline for candidate applications. Travis contended that this deadline was a “term, limitation, or rule adopted by the Board,” and by accepting applications after this date, the Committee violated Bylaws Article VIII.

2. Exceeding Authority and Imposing Qualifications: The Committee exceeded its authority by interviewing and questioning applicants. Travis argued that this process had the effect of creating new qualification requirements for Board Directors, beyond the sole requirement of Association membership outlined in Bylaws Article IV. He asserted the Committee had no authority to ask any questions.

3. Statutory Violation of Voting Rights: By failing to place all members who submitted “self-nominations” on the official election ballot, the Committee violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A). Travis claimed this action was tantamount to proxy voting because it prevented members from voting for or against certain candidates.

Key Factual Findings

Election and Nomination Timeline

• August 17, 2017: The Board of Directors appoints Cheryl Peterson-McCoy as the Nominating Committee Chairperson.

• September 12, 2017: The Association’s management company emails residents, announcing three open Board positions and an application deadline of September 29, 2017, at 5:00 p.m.

• By September 29, 2017: Four applications are received. At this point, the members of the Nominating Committee (other than the Chairperson) have not yet been selected.

• After September 29, 2017: The Association accepts four additional applications, including one from Mr. Travis. No revised notice is sent to the membership about an extended deadline.

• October 5, 2017: Mr. Travis, then a Board member, makes an email motion to extend the application deadline to October 16, which is denied.

• October 19, 2017: The Board formally approves six members for the Nominating Committee. Mr. Travis’s subsequent motion at this meeting to extend the deadline fails for lack of a second.

Nominating Committee Actions and Rationale

• The Committee considered all eight applications submitted, including the four received after the initial deadline.

• The Committee scheduled and conducted interviews with all eight applicants.

• During interviews, applicants were asked questions including whether they had ever filed a lawsuit against the Association, were considering filing a lawsuit, or had any compliance violations.

• The Committee ultimately nominated four candidates to be placed on the ballot for the election. Of these four, two had applied by the September 29 deadline and two had applied after.

Association’s Position and Testimony

• Simone McGinnis, the Association’s on-site manager, testified that the September 29 deadline was not imposed by the Board but was an administrative deadline set by the management company to allow time for the nomination and ballot-printing process.

• The Association’s position, articulated at the November 16, 2017 Board meeting, is that the only way to get on the ballot is to be nominated by the Nominating Committee, although write-in candidates are permitted during the election.

• The Board acknowledged that it had only strictly adhered to the Bylaw requirement of using a Nominating Committee for the past two years, after thirty years of non-adherence.

• The Board’s attorney stated that the Committee members have a duty to act reasonably and that any member who disagrees with the Committee’s discretionary choices should seek to amend the bylaws.

Analysis of Governing Documents and Statutes

The judge’s decision rested on the interpretation of specific articles within the Association’s Bylaws and relevant Arizona state law.

Document/Statute

Relevant Provision

Application in this Case

Bylaws Article IV, Section 3

“Nominations for election to the Board of Directors shall be made by a Nominating Committee… The Nominating Committee shall make as many nominations… as it shall in its discretion determine…”

This article grants the Committee explicit discretion to select nominees. It does not provide for “self-nomination” or require the Committee to nominate all applicants.

Bylaws Article VIII

“no committee may take action which exceeds its responsibilities. Each committee shall operate in accordance with any terms, limitations, or rules adopted by the Board.”

Mr. Travis argued the deadline was a “rule adopted by the Board.” The court found no evidence to support this, concluding it was an administrative deadline.

Bylaws Article IV, Section 1

States that Board Directors must be members of the Association. It lists no other qualifications.

Mr. Travis argued that questioning candidates imposed extra qualifications. The court found this was part of the Committee’s discretionary selection process, not the imposition of new formal requirements.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812

Prohibits proxy voting and requires that ballots set forth each proposed action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against it.

The court determined this statute applies to “votes allocated to a unit” (i.e., the member’s vote) and not the nomination process itself, which is governed by the Bylaws.

Conclusions of Law and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge made the following conclusions based on a preponderance of the evidence:

1. Deadline was Administrative: There was no substantial evidence showing the September 29, 2017 deadline was a formal rule adopted by the Board. Therefore, the Nominating Committee did not violate Bylaws Article VIII by accepting applications after this date.

2. Committee Acted Within its Discretion: The plain language of Bylaws Article IV, Section 3 requires nominations to be made by the Committee and grants it discretion. The concept of “self-nomination” is not supported by the Bylaws. It was not unreasonable for the Committee to question applicants as part of exercising its explicit discretion to select nominees.

3. State Voting Statute Not Applicable: The nomination process, as dictated by the Bylaws, is separate from the act of voting. Since ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812 governs “votes allocated to a unit,” it is not applicable to the Committee’s function of selecting nominees.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner William Travis’s petition is dismissed.

The decision is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is requested from the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.

Study Guide: Travis v. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided source context.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in case number 18F-H1817017-REL, and what were their roles?

2. What were the three central issues that petitioner William Travis raised regarding the Board election held on November 16, 2017?

3. What was the petitioner’s argument concerning the September 29, 2017, application deadline set by the Association?

4. According to the Association’s on-site manager, Simone McGinnis, what was the origin and purpose of the September 29th deadline?

5. How did the petitioner claim the Nominating Committee exceeded its authority by questioning candidates?

6. What was the Association’s defense for the Nominating Committee’s practice of interviewing and questioning applicants?

7. What is the sole qualification required to serve on the Board of Directors, according to the Val Vista Lakes Community Association Bylaws?

8. How did the petitioner link the Nominating Committee’s failure to place all applicants on the ballot to a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1812?

9. According to testimony during the November 16, 2017, Board meeting, how long had the Association been strictly adhering to the Bylaw requirement of using a Nominating Committee?

10. What was the final Order issued by Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, William Travis, who brought the complaint, and the Respondent, The Val Vista Lakes Community Association, which was defending its actions. Mr. Travis represented himself, while the Association was represented by attorneys Mark K. Sahl and Nicholas C. Nogami.

2. The three issues raised by Mr. Travis were: (1) the Nominating Committee improperly disregarded the September 29th application deadline; (2) the Committee exceeded its authority by asking questions that effectively added new qualification requirements for Board members; and (3) the Committee’s failure to include all “self-nominations” on the ballot constituted a violation of Arizona state statutes on proxy voting.

3. Mr. Travis argued that the September 29th deadline was a “term, limitation, or rule adopted by the Board of Directors” under Bylaws Article VIII. Therefore, by accepting applications after this date, the Nominating Committee violated the Association’s own rules.

4. Simone McGinnis testified that the Board did not impose the deadline. Instead, it was an administrative deadline set by the Association’s management company to allow sufficient time for the Nominating Committee to review applications and have ballots printed.

5. Mr. Travis argued that by asking applicants questions, the Nominating Committee was effectively imposing qualification requirements beyond the single one set out in the Bylaws (being a member of the Association). He asserted the committee had no authority to ask any questions at all as part of its process.

6. The Association contended that questioning applicants was a reasonable exercise of the Nominating Committee’s discretion. This discretion is granted by the Bylaws, which state the Committee shall make as many nominations as it determines is appropriate.

7. According to Bylaws Article IV, Section 1, the only qualification required for an individual to serve on the Board of Directors is that they must be a member of the Association. No other qualifications are specified in the Bylaws.

8. Mr. Travis asserted that because members were not allowed to vote for or against the four applicants who were not nominated, the Committee effectively engaged in proxy voting. He argued this violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1812, which requires that ballots provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.

9. During the meeting, the Board acknowledged that it had only been following the Bylaw requirement to use a Nominating Committee for the last two years. Prior to that, for approximately thirty years, strict adherence to this Bylaw had not been observed.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Petitioner William Travis’s petition be dismissed. The Judge also deemed the Respondent, The Val Vista Lakes Community Association, to be the prevailing party in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt using only the information and arguments presented in the source document.

1. Analyze the conflicting interpretations of the Nominating Committee’s role and authority as presented by William Travis and the Association. How did the Administrative Law Judge use the plain language of Bylaws Article IV, Section 3 to resolve this dispute?

2. Discuss the significance of the September 29, 2017 deadline. Evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by both parties regarding its legitimacy and binding nature, and explain the Judge’s reasoning for concluding it was an administrative deadline.

3. Explain William Travis’s legal argument that the Nominating Committee’s selection process constituted a form of proxy voting in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1812. Detail the Judge’s conclusion on this matter and the legal reasoning used to determine the statute’s applicability.

4. Examine the concept of “discretion” as it applies to the Nominating Committee’s actions. Based on the hearing testimony, including the Board attorney’s explanation, what are the implied powers and limitations of this discretion?

5. The Judge determined that Mr. Travis failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Identify the key claims made by Mr. Travis and detail why the evidence he presented (or failed to present) was insufficient to prove his case on each of the three issues.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official (Thomas Shedden in this case) who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and makes legal findings and decisions.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the petitioner was William Travis.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this matter, the respondent was The Val Vista Lakes Community Association.

Bylaws

The formal rules and regulations governing the internal management of an organization, such as a homeowners’ association. They are considered a contract between the association and its members.

An acronym for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are rules governing the use of real estate within a planned community. Mr. Travis initially alleged a violation of CC&R Article V, Section 3.

Nominating Committee

A committee, established by the Bylaws, responsible for nominating candidates for election to the Board of Directors. It consists of a Chairperson from the Board and two or more other persons.

Self-Nomination

The act of a member putting their own name forward for consideration for a Board position. The petitioner acknowledged that the Bylaws do not explicitly provide for self-nomination.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a trial to produce evidence that proves the claims they have made against the other party. In this case, the burden of proof was on Mr. Travis.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It means the evidence presented is more convincing and has superior evidentiary weight than the evidence offered in opposition, inclining an impartial mind to one side over the other.

Proxy Voting

A form of voting where a member authorizes another person to vote on their behalf. ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1812 prohibits this practice for community associations after the period of declarant control.

Prevailing Party

The party that wins the lawsuit. In this case, the Respondent Association was deemed the prevailing party upon the dismissal of the petition.

Your HOA Bylaws Might Not Mean What You Think: 3 Surprising Lessons from a Legal Showdown

Introduction: The Devil in the Details

Anyone who has ever sat through a contentious HOA annual meeting or received a violation notice for an overgrown flowerbed knows the feeling. You live in a community governed by rules, and you assume those rules operate on a shared understanding of common sense. But what happens when that common sense collides with the cold, hard text of your community’s governing documents?

A recent administrative law case in Arizona, Travis vs. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association, provides a fascinating and instructive look under the hood of HOA governance. The dispute reveals how the precise, technical wording of community bylaws can lead to surprising and counter-intuitive outcomes for residents. This case isn’t just about one community; it’s a masterclass for any homeowner. Here are the three most impactful lessons from the legal showdown.

1. A Deadline Isn’t Always a Deadline

The first major complaint from the petitioner, Mr. Travis, seemed straightforward. For an election with three open seats on the Board of Directors, the HOA’s Nominating Committee had accepted applications after a publicly announced deadline of 5:00 p.m. on September 29, 2017. Four applications arrived on time, but four more—including one from Mr. Travis himself—were accepted after the cutoff. In a delicious twist of irony, Mr. Travis was a sitting Board member who had twice attempted to have the Board formally extend the deadline, but both motions failed. A missed deadline is a missed deadline, right?

Not in this case. The judge dismissed the complaint entirely, drawing a critical distinction: the September 29th deadline was not a formal “term, limitation, or rule adopted by the Board.”

Testimony from the Association’s manager, Simone McGinnis, revealed the deadline’s true nature. It was merely an administrative deadline set by the management company for purely logistical reasons, such as allowing the Nominating Committee enough time to review applications and get the ballots printed.

The Lesson: In legal and governance contexts, the source of a rule is as important as the rule itself. An administrative guideline set by a third-party manager for convenience does not carry the same binding legal weight as a formal rule passed by the Board of Directors according to the procedures outlined in the bylaws.

2. “Nomination” Is a Process of Selection, Not Just Collection

Mr. Travis’s second argument centered on the Nominating Committee’s actions. The committee interviewed all eight applicants and asked them questions, including whether they had ever sued the Association or had any compliance violations. Mr. Travis contended that the committee had exceeded its authority. In fact, he argued that because four members had applied by the original deadline for the three open seats, the committee’s job was already done—it shouldn’t have even been formed, let alone vetted anyone. His position was that its role was simply to collect names, not to filter them.

This argument also failed. The judge found the committee acted squarely within its rights as defined by the Association’s Bylaws. Article IV, Section 3 explicitly grants the Nominating Committee the discretion to “make as many nominations for election to the Board of Directors as it shall in its discretion determine.” The judge concluded that questioning applicants was a reasonable part of exercising this discretion to select candidates.

Adding a fascinating historical twist, the Board admitted during a meeting that for thirty years prior, the Association had not strictly followed its own Bylaw requiring the use of a Nominating Committee, only beginning to do so in the last two years. A long-ignored rule had suddenly become the central mechanism for determining board candidacy.

While the committee must act reasonably—it couldn’t disqualify a candidate for having red hair, the Board’s attorney noted—it absolutely has the power to be selective. The core issue decided by the court was not how the committee used its discretion, but whether the Bylaws granted it discretion in the first place. The answer was a clear yes.

The Lesson: The term “Nominating Committee” can be misleading. Depending on your bylaws, it may not be a passive paper-pusher that forwards all names to the ballot. It can be an active gatekeeper empowered to interview, question, and ultimately select which members get a chance to be elected.

3. The ‘Right’ to Run for Your HOA Board Might Be a Myth

The final issue gets to the heart of homeowner assumptions. Mr. Travis argued for a right to “self-nominate”—his term for a system where any member could place themselves directly on the ballot. He claimed that by failing to include all applicants, the Association was engaging in a form of illegal proxy voting under Arizona state law.

The judge’s refutation of this idea was decisive. Mr. Travis himself acknowledged that the Bylaws contained no provision allowing a member to “self-nominate.” The court found that the only path to the ballot specified in the governing documents was via nomination by the Nominating Committee.

This created a critical procedural prerequisite. Because the Bylaws require nomination by the committee before a member can become a candidate, the state law governing voting (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812) was legally inapplicable. The judge ruled that the act of nomination is not a “vote allocated to a unit.” In other words, if you don’t clear the prerequisite of being nominated, your right to be voted upon by the membership doesn’t even come into play.

The Lesson: This is a powerful and potentially shocking takeaway for many homeowners. Unless your community’s governing documents explicitly guarantee it, you may not have an inherent “right” to run for your HOA board simply by being a member in good standing. The power to decide who appears on the ballot can be exclusively vested in a small, appointed committee.

Conclusion: Read Your Bylaws. Really.

The case of Mr. Travis vs. Val Vista Lakes is a stark reminder that an HOA’s governing documents are a binding contract. In the courtroom of community governance, common-sense assumptions are legally irrelevant; only the written word matters. An administrative deadline may be toothless, a nominating committee may be a powerful gatekeeper, and the right to run for office may not be a right at all.

It all comes down to what is written in the documents. So, when was the last time you read your community’s governing documents from start to finish? The power structures they define might be very different from what you imagine.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William Travis (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
  • Nicholas C. Nogami (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
  • Simone McGinnis (property manager)
    Testified as a witness
  • Cheryl Peterson-McCoy (board member)
    Nominating Committee Chairperson

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Brown, William M. vs. Terravita Country Club Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112007-BFS
Agency Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-05-08
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) because, although it provided the policy, it did not do so within the mandatory ten business days. The late delivery was attributed to an unintentional computer error. Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $550.00 filing fee, but no civil penalties were assessed against the Respondent.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner William M. Brown Counsel —
Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc. Counsel Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) because, although it provided the policy, it did not do so within the mandatory ten business days. The late delivery was attributed to an unintentional computer error. Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $550.00 filing fee, but no civil penalties were assessed against the Respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records (Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy) within ten business days

Petitioner requested a copy of the Respondent's Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy. Respondent failed to provide the policy within the statutory ten business day period, allegedly due to a computer error where the email became stuck in an outbox.

Orders: Respondent shall pay Petitioner his filing fee of $550.00. No civil penalty imposed as Respondent attempted to comply.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

11F-H125885-BFS Decision – 292130.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:39:17 (81.4 KB)

11F-H125885-BFS Decision – 295358.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:39:22 (60.5 KB)

11F-H125885-BFS Decision – 292130.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:36 (81.4 KB)

11F-H125885-BFS Decision – 295358.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:36 (60.5 KB)

Case Briefing: William M. Brown vs. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law proceedings and final decision in the matter of William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc. (No. 11F-H1112007-BFS). The case centered on a records request made by Petitioner William M. Brown for the Respondent’s Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Lewis D. Kowal, determined that Terravita Country Club, Inc. violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide the requested records within the mandatory ten-business-day window. While the Respondent cited technical "computer errors" and a lack of clarity regarding the request, the ALJ held the Respondent accountable for the delay. Ultimately, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $550 filing fee, though no additional civil penalties were imposed due to evidence of the Respondent’s attempt to comply with the law. The decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety on June 14, 2012.

Statutory Framework

The legal foundation for this case is A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which governs the availability of records for planned communities. The statute mandates the following:

  • Access to Records: All financial and other records of an association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member or their designated representative.
  • Cost: Associations may not charge for making materials available for review. However, they may charge a fee of no more than fifteen cents per page for copies.
  • Fulfillment Timeline: The association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.

Key Themes and Analysis

1. The Mandatory Nature of Statutory Deadlines

The primary issue in this case was the failure to meet the ten-business-day requirement. Despite the Respondent receiving the request on October 21, 2011, the actual policy was not successfully delivered until November 7, 2011.

  • Analysis: The ALJ found that even though the Respondent attempted to send the email on November 4 (the final day of the statutory period), the failure of that email to leave the outbox meant the association remained in violation. This emphasizes that the burden of delivery rests with the association, and technical failures do not absolve them of statutory timelines.
2. Clarity of Records Requests

The Respondent’s staff, specifically the Custodian of Records (Cici Rausch), testified that they did not initially understand the Petitioner’s request for the "Not-For-Profit Individual and Organization Insurance Policy."

  • Analysis: The ALJ noted that the record was unclear as to why the staff did not understand the request, especially since the Petitioner provided specific details, including a policy number in subsequent communications. The ruling suggests that associations must act diligently to clarify and fulfill requests rather than allowing confusion to delay the statutory clock.
3. Mitigation of Sanctions

The Respondent argued that the delay was due to an unintentional computer error and that the Petitioner should have contacted them to confirm receipt.

  • Analysis: While the ALJ rejected the argument that the Petitioner was responsible for following up, he did use the "unintentional" nature of the error to determine the severity of the penalty. Because the Respondent thought they had complied on November 4, the ALJ declined to impose additional civil sanctions, ordering only the reimbursement of the filing fee.
4. Credibility and Post-Hearing Allegations

Following the hearing, the Petitioner alleged that the Custodian of Records, Cici Rausch, committed perjury regarding her legal name and her involvement in other civil litigation (specifically a divorce proceeding).

  • Analysis: The ALJ dismissed these claims, finding that Ms. Rausch’s use of the name "Cici" was supported by documentary evidence and that her belief that a family court divorce was not "civil litigation" was a reasonable misunderstanding. This aspect of the case highlights the high bar required to prove perjury in administrative hearings.

Significant Case Timeline

Date Event
Oct 21, 2011 (10:09 AM) Petitioner emails initial request for insurance policy records.
Oct 21, 2011 (4:22 PM) Respondent sends a Certificate of Insurance, which is not the full policy.
Oct 21, 2011 (4:48 PM) Petitioner repeats request, providing a specific policy number (PHSD646331).
Oct 28, 2011 General Manager Tom Forbes emails the Policy to the Custodian of Records.
Nov 4, 2011 Statutory deadline for the initial Oct 21 request.
Nov 4, 2011 (Evening) Custodian attempts to email Policy; email becomes "stuck" in the outbox.
Nov 7, 2011 Custodian realizes the error and re-sends the Policy.
Apr 9, 2012 Administrative hearing held.
May 8, 2012 ALJ issues decision finding a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
June 14, 2012 Decision certified as the final administrative decision.

Important Quotes with Context

"The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records."

— A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), cited as the governing law.

"The Administrative Law Judge concludes that while Respondent provided Petitioner with a copy of the Policy, that did not occur within ten business days of his request and, therefore, Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)."

— Conclusion of Law, Paragraph 3. This establishes the core finding of the case.

"Respondent’s argument that Petitioner should be estopped from pursuing the instant matter because Petitioner did not contact Respondent fails."

— Conclusion of Law, Paragraph 4. This clarifies that the burden of compliance is on the association, not the member making the request.

"The evidence of record established that Respondent attempted to comply with the law, which the Administrative Law Judge has taken into consideration in determining whether any civil penalty should be imposed."

— Conclusion of Law, Paragraph 5. This explains why the Respondent was only ordered to pay the filing fee rather than further sanctions.

Actionable Insights

  • Establish Clear Protocols for Records Requests: Organizations should ensure that the Custodian of Records is trained to identify and clarify legal requests immediately. Any ambiguity in a request should be resolved through prompt communication to avoid missing statutory deadlines.
  • Verify Delivery of Electronic Documents: Reliance on the "send" button is insufficient for legal compliance. Organizations should implement a verification process—such as requesting a read receipt or checking the "Sent" folder—to ensure that records have actually left the outbox.
  • Calculate Statutory Deadlines Immediately: Upon receipt of a records request, the ten-business-day window should be calculated and marked on a calendar to prevent last-minute technical failures from causing a legal violation.
  • Documentation of Technical Issues: If a delay occurs due to technical reasons, maintaining a clear paper trail (such as timestamps and IT logs) may help mitigate civil penalties, even if a violation is technically found.
  • Cost of Non-Compliance: Even in cases of "unintentional" error, the prevailing party is entitled to the reimbursement of filing fees (in this case, $550). This serves as a financial incentive for associations to prioritize timely records disclosure.

Study Guide: Administrative Law Case Study – Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between William M. Brown and Terravita Country Club, Inc. (No. 11F-H1112007-BFS). It examines the application of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) regarding records requests in planned communities, the burden of proof in administrative hearings, and the finality of Administrative Law Judge decisions.

Key Concepts and Legal Standards

Statutory Requirement: A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

This statute governs the availability of records for homeowners' associations in planned communities. Its core provisions include:

  • Access: Financial and other records must be made "reasonably available" for examination by any member or their designated representative.
  • Timelines: The association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.
  • Fees: Associations may not charge for the review of materials but may charge up to fifteen cents per page for physical copies.
Burden of Proof: Preponderance of the Evidence

In these proceedings, the Petitioner (the person bringing the claim) bears the burden of proof.

  • Legal Definition: According to Black’s Law Dictionary, as cited in the case, "preponderance of the evidence" means evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition.
  • Application: It must be shown that the fact sought to be proved is "more probable than not."
Administrative Finality

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision that can be accepted, rejected, or modified by the relevant state department (in this case, the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety). If the department takes no action within a specific timeframe (e.g., approximately 30 days), the ALJ’s decision is certified as the final administrative decision.

Case Summary: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

The Dispute

Petitioner William M. Brown, a resident of the Terravita Country Club community, requested a copy of the Respondent's Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy. While the Respondent eventually provided the document, the Petitioner alleged they failed to do so within the ten-business-day window required by A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Timeline of Events
Date Event
Oct 21, 2011 (10:09 AM) Petitioner emails his first request for the insurance policy.
Oct 21, 2011 (4:22 PM) Respondent provides a "Certificate of Insurance," which is not the full policy.
Oct 21, 2011 (4:48 PM) Petitioner sends a second request specifying the policy number (PHSD646331).
Oct 28, 2011 The General Manager emails the Policy to the Custodian of Records (Ms. Rausch).
Nov 4, 2011 (4:55 PM) Petitioner sends a third request as the records have still not been received.
Nov 4, 2011 Ms. Rausch attempts to email the Policy, but the email becomes "stuck" in her outbox due to a computer error.
Nov 7, 2011 Ms. Rausch discovers the error and re-sends the Policy. Petitioner receives it.
The Ruling

The ALJ concluded that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) because the document was not delivered within ten business days of the initial request.

  • Sanctions: No civil penalties were imposed because the Respondent demonstrated an attempt to comply, and the delay was attributed to an unintentional computer error.
  • Remedy: As the prevailing party, the Petitioner was awarded his $550.00 filing fee, to be paid by the Respondent.
  • Credibility Issues: The Petitioner alleged the Respondent's witness (Ms. Rausch) committed perjury regarding her name and involvement in other civil litigation. The ALJ dismissed these claims, finding her explanations (regarding her use of the name "Cici" and her understanding of family court vs. civil litigation) to be reasonable.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. According to A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), how many business days does an association have to provide copies of requested records?
  2. What was the specific document requested by William M. Brown that led to this litigation?
  3. What was the "computer error" that occurred on November 4, 2011?
  4. Why did the Administrative Law Judge decline to impose civil penalties against Terravita Country Club, Inc.?
  5. What was the total filing fee that the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Petitioner?
  6. Who bears the burden of proof in this administrative proceeding?
  7. What was the Respondent's unsuccessful argument regarding why the Petitioner should be "estopped" (prevented) from pursuing the matter?

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Role of Intent in Statutory Violations: Analyze the ALJ’s decision to find a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) while simultaneously refusing to issue sanctions. Does the lack of intent to violate the law excuse the violation itself, or only the punishment? Use the "stuck" email incident as the basis for your argument.
  2. Statutory Compliance vs. Certificate of Insurance: In this case, the Respondent initially provided a "Certificate of Insurance" instead of the requested "Policy." Discuss the legal and practical differences between these two documents in the context of a member's right to examine association records.
  3. The Impact of Witness Credibility: The Petitioner challenged the credibility of the Custodian of Records based on her name and her involvement in family court. Evaluate the ALJ's reasoning in maintaining the witness's credibility. How does an ALJ distinguish between intentional perjury and a "reasonable explanation" for inconsistent testimony?

Glossary of Important Terms

  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A judge who over-sees hearings and makes decisions in disputes involving government agency rules or specific state statutes.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): The Arizona Revised Statute governing the right of members in a planned community to inspect and copy association records.
  • Certificate of Insurance: A document providing proof of insurance coverage but not containing the full terms, conditions, or endorsements of the actual insurance policy.
  • Custodian of Records: The individual designated by an organization to maintain and manage its official documents and respond to records requests.
  • Estoppel: A legal principle that prevents someone from arguing something or asserting a right that contradicts what they previously said or agreed to by law.
  • Petitioner: The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition; in this case, William M. Brown.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof used in most civil and administrative cases, requiring that a fact is more likely than not to be true.
  • Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, Terravita Country Club, Inc.
  • Sanctions: Penalties or other means of enforcement used to provide incentives for obedience with the law or with rules and regulations.

The 10-Day Clock: Lessons in Transparency from Brown v. Terravita Country Club

1. Introduction: The Power of Record Requests

For homeowners in Arizona planned communities, the right to inspect association records is not a courtesy—it is a statutory mandate. This transparency is the bedrock of a healthy relationship between a Board of Directors and the residents they serve. When an HOA fails to provide requested documents, it isn't just a breach of trust; it is a legal violation that carries financial consequences.

The case of William M. Brown vs. Terravita Country Club, Inc. provides a masterclass in the pitfalls of administrative delay. This dispute demonstrates that in the eyes of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), "intent to comply" and "technical difficulties" do not stop the clock. For homeowners, this case is a reminder of their rights; for Boards, it is a cautionary tale: the 10-day deadline is absolute, and the burden of compliance rests entirely on the association.

2. The Legal Foundation: Understanding A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Arizona law is remarkably clear regarding the accessibility of records. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), all financial and other records must be made "reasonably available" to members or their designated representatives.

As a consumer advocate, I always emphasize that homeowners should understand the specific parameters of this law. To remain in compliance, an association must follow these three strict standards:

  • The Examination Timeline: The association has exactly 10 business days to fulfill a request to examine records. (Note: "Business days" exclude weekends and legal holidays).
  • The Delivery Timeline: If a homeowner requests physical or electronic copies, the association has 10 business days to provide them.
  • The Cost Ceiling: The association cannot overcharge for transparency. They are limited to a maximum fee of fifteen cents ($0.15) per page.
3. Anatomy of a Delay: A Timeline of the Dispute

The conflict in Brown v. Terravita Country Club began with a simple request for an insurance policy but devolved into a legal battle due to internal mismanagement and missed deadlines.

  • October 21, 2011 (10:09 a.m.): Mr. Brown emails the Custodian of Records, Cici Rausch, requesting the Directors and Officers (D&O) Liability Insurance Policy.
  • October 21, 2011 (4:22 p.m.): Ms. Rausch responds with a Certificate of Insurance. This is a common error—a Certificate is merely a summary, not the actual policy contract the homeowner is legally entitled to see.
  • October 21, 2011 (4:48 p.m.): Mr. Brown immediately clarifies his request, providing the exact document title and Policy Number PHSD646331.
  • October 24, 2011: Ms. Rausch acknowledges the request but states she must follow up with the Controller.
  • October 28, 2011: The General Manager emails the requested policy to Ms. Rausch at 5:18 p.m. Crucially, the internal process stalled here; Ms. Rausch could not recall when she even opened this email, and the document sat for a full week without being forwarded to the homeowner.
  • November 4, 2011: The 10th business day. This was the legal deadline for delivery. Mr. Brown sends a third request. Ms. Rausch attempts to email the policy at the end of the day, but the email becomes "stuck" in her outbox.
  • November 7, 2011: On the 11th business day, the association finally discovers the error and successfully delivers the policy.
4. The "Stuck Email" Defense: Why Technical Glitches Aren't Legal Excuses

The association’s primary defense was a "computer error." They argued that because the staff member pressed "send" on the deadline date (November 4), the failure to deliver was unintentional.

The ALJ was unpersuaded for two critical reasons. First, the 10-day window is a hard deadline; by the time the email was actually delivered on November 7, the law had already been violated. Second, the ALJ rejected the association's "estoppel" argument—the claim that Mr. Brown should have called to check on his records. Because Ms. Rausch’s email on the afternoon of November 4 indicated she was leaving for the weekend, the Judge ruled that the homeowner had no duty to "chase" the association. The burden of ensuring a record is delivered remains 100% on the HOA.

The case also featured side allegations regarding whether the custodian committed "perjury" by using the nickname "Cici" instead of "Celia" or by failing to categorize a divorce as "civil litigation." The ALJ dismissed these as distractions, noting that using a common nickname and misunderstanding legal terminology did not undermine the witness's credibility or change the fact of the timeline violation.

5. The Verdict: Costs and Consequences

The ALJ ruled that Terravita Country Club violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). This case highlights an important distinction between a "violation" and "sanctions."

While the Judge acknowledged the association's "attempted compliance" (the effort to send the email on November 4), this intent did not excuse the violation. It only served to mitigate the penalty, meaning the Judge chose not to impose additional civil fines. However, a violation is still a loss for the association.

The financial sting for the community was immediate:

  • Reimbursement Ordered: The association was ordered to pay Mr. Brown $550.00 to reimburse his filing fee.

From an advocate's perspective, this $550 represents a completely preventable waste of community resources caused by a week of internal administrative silence between October 28 and November 4.

6. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

This ruling provides three essential lessons for navigating record requests in Arizona:

Precision Matters

If you are a homeowner, do not just ask for "insurance info." Follow Mr. Brown’s lead: identify the specific document and, if possible, the policy number. By being exact, you eliminate the association's ability to claim they didn't understand the request.

The Clock is Absolute

The 10-business-day deadline expires at the end of the tenth day. Associations should treat the eighth or ninth day as their internal deadline to account for technical glitches. To protect the community, Boards should require staff to use "Read Receipts" or "Delivery Confirmations" for all statutory disclosures to avoid the "stuck in the outbox" trap.

Filing Fees are at Risk

Even if a Board has "good intentions," a late response is a losing response in court. When an association loses a records dispute, they are typically on the hook for the petitioner's filing fees. Boards must realize that administrative negligence is a direct hit to the association's budget.

7. Compelling Conclusion

The decision in Brown v. Terravita Country Club serves as a vital reminder that transparency in a planned community is governed by the calendar, not by convenience. Statutory timelines are the safeguards that prevent associations from "slow-walking" information to their members. By prioritizing clear communication and respecting the 10-day clock, HOAs can avoid unnecessary legal fees and build a culture of accountability that serves the entire community.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William M. Brown (Petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Joshua M. Bolen (Attorney)
    Carpenter Hazelwood, Delgado, & Bolen, PLC
    Representing Terravita Country Club, Inc.
  • Cici Rausch (Custodian of Records)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.
    Also identified as Celia Anne Rausch; testified at hearing
  • Tom Forbes (General Manager)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.
  • Raquel Shull (Controller)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Beth Soliere (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of transmitted copy