**Case Summary: Winter v. Cortina Homeowners Association**
**Case No.** 13F-H1314004-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Final Action:** May 1, 2014

**Overview and Procedural History**
On August 21, 2013, Petitioner Alexander Winter filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety alleging that the Respondent, Cortina Homeowners Association (HOA), violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Petitioner claimed the HOA failed to provide requested records within the statutory ten-day timeframe.

This hearing followed a prior administrative action between the same parties (Docket No. 13F-H1314001-BFS), which had resulted in an order requiring the HOA to provide redacted documents.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The Petitioner sought various records, including delinquency reports, operating budgets (2007–2013), and specific contracts and invoices (Duford, JSJ Enterprises, C&G Communication, CleanCuts, and Renaissance Community Partners).

* **Petitioner’s Position:** Mr. Winter argued that the HOA failed to fulfill his requests within ten business days. He asserted that certain records, such as delinquency reports and vendor bids, "should exist" and challenged the HOA's claim that they did not possess them. He acknowledged that issues regarding CleanCuts and Renaissance Community Partners (RCP) were addressed in the prior hearing but claimed his current requests were distinct.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The HOA argued that it had complied with the order from the previous hearing by providing approximately 3,200 pages of documents. Regarding the new allegations, the HOA testified that the specific delinquency reports, older budgets (2007–2008), and certain vendor contracts (Duford, JSJ, C&G) simply did not exist or were not in their possession. They argued that the requests regarding CleanCuts and RCP were barred by the previous litigation.

**Main Legal Issues**
1. **Existence of Records:** Whether the Petitioner could prove the existence of documents the HOA claimed it did not possess.
2. **Collateral Estoppel:** Whether the claims regarding CleanCuts and RCP contracts were precluded because they were already adjudicated in the prior administrative hearing.

**Findings and Conclusions**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Respondent on all counts:

* **Burden of Proof regarding Existence of Records:** The ALJ found the evidence insufficient to prove that the requested delinquency reports, Duford contract, JSJ contract/bid, and C&G bid actually existed. The ALJ ruled that the HOA cannot be held responsible for producing documents it does not possess and noted there was no credible evidence that the HOA withheld existing documents.
* **Collateral Estoppel:** The ALJ determined that the requests concerning CleanCuts and RCP documents were specifically addressed in the prior order (Docket No. 13F-H1314001-BFS). The ALJ applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which precludes relitigating facts or issues previously