Paul Gounder vs. Royal Riviera Condominium Association

Posted on October 18, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1716002-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-06-12
Administrative Law Judge	Suzanne Marwil
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Paul Gounder	Counsel	—
Respondent	Royal Riviera Condominium Association	Counsel	Mark Kristopher Sahl

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) by using two substantively different ballots during the 2016 board election,. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee,. The Administrative Law Judge concluded Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4),.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4), which specifies timing requirements for ballots; the ALJ noted that a meeting ballot did not need to contain a received-by date or be mailed seven days in advance if it had been substantively the same as the compliant absentee ballot,,,.

Key Issues & Findings

Ballot must provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.

The use of two substantively different ballots in the March 2016 election violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) because members who did not attend the meeting were unaware of an additional candidate (Eric Thompson) listed on the meeting ballot, thereby denying those members the opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action contained in the meeting ballot,. This finding does not require ballots to be identical, but substantive changes must be presented to all members,,.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition was granted, and Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00,. No other relief was available.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium, Board Election, Absentee Ballot, Statutory Violation, Filing Fee Reimbursement

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2)
A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4)
A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
Article VII CC&Rs

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 564851.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:59:29 (44.2 KB)

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 567887.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:59:37 (79.0 KB)

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 575055.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:59:43 (689.5 KB)

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 523915.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:59:47 (103.0 KB)

Briefing Document: Gounder v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the key events, arguments, and legal conclusions from the administrative case of Paul Gounder versus the Royal Riviera Condominium Association (Case No. 17F-H1716002-REL-RHG). The central issue revolved around the Association’s use of two substantively different ballots for its March 14, 2016, board member election.

The Petitioner, Paul Gounder, alleged that the use of a separate mail-in ballot and an in-person meeting ballot, which contained different candidate lists, violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2). Specifically, the ballot distributed at the meeting included the name of a seventh candidate, Eric Thompson, who was not listed on the mail-in ballot, thereby denying absentee voters the opportunity to vote for all candidates.

After an initial hearing resulted in a recommended dismissal, a rehearing was granted. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Suzanne Marwil ultimately concluded that the Association’s actions constituted a statutory violation. The Judge found that because members voting by mail were not informed of Mr. Thompson’s candidacy, they were denied their right to vote “for or against each proposed action.” The Respondent’s argument that the matter was moot due to a subsequent election was rejected.

The Department of Real Estate adopted the ALJ’s decision, issuing a Final Order on June 12, 2017. The Order granted the petition and required the Royal Riviera Condominium Association to reimburse Mr. Gounder’s $500.00 filing fee. The ruling establishes that while election ballots are not required to be identical, any substantive changes must be presented to all members to ensure an equal opportunity to vote.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview and Background

This matter was brought before the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Petitioner: Paul Gounder, a condominium owner and member of the Association.

• Respondent: Royal Riviera Condominium Association, a homeowners’ association for a development of approximately 32 condominiums.

• Initial Petition: Filed on or about June 23, 2016.

• Core Allegation: The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) and its own CC&Rs by using two substantively different ballots to elect Board members at its March 14, 2016, annual meeting.

II. Procedural History

1. Initial Hearing (October 17, 2016): A hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.

2. Recommended Dismissal (October 18, 2016): Judge Mihalsky recommended the petition be dismissed, concluding:

3. Rehearing Granted (February 17, 2017): The Petitioner requested a rehearing, which the Department of Real Estate granted. The Department’s order specifically requested a review of A.R.S. § 33-1250, with a focus on subsection (C)(4).

4. Rehearing (May 17, 2017): A rehearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil. At this hearing, the Respondent raised a procedural question regarding the correct statutory subsection for review, leading to a temporary order holding the record open until May 24, 2017, for clarification.

5. ALJ Decision (June 2, 2017): Judge Marwil issued a decision finding that the Respondent had committed a statutory violation.

6. Final Order (June 12, 2017): The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, accepted the ALJ’s decision and issued a Final Order making the decision binding.

III. The Core Dispute: The Two-Ballot System

The parties stipulated that two different ballots were used for the March 14, 2016, board election, which had seven open positions. The key differences are outlined below.

Feature

Mail Ballot (Absentee)

Meeting Ballot (In-Person)

“Mail Ballot”

“Ballot”

Candidates Listed

Six names

Seven names (added Eric Thompson)

Write-in Option

Included a blank line for a write-in candidate

No space provided for write-in candidates

Distribution

Distributed at least seven days before the meeting

Handed out to members attending the meeting

Return Deadline

Specified the date by which it had to be returned

Did not specify when it needed to be returned

IV. Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner’s Position (Paul Gounder)

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2): The addition of Eric Thompson’s name to the meeting ballot deprived members who voted by mail of their right “to vote for or against each proposed action,” as they had no opportunity to vote for Mr. Thompson.

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4): The meeting ballot violated this subsection because it was not mailed to all members at least seven days in advance of the meeting and did not provide a date by which it had to be received to be counted.

B. Respondent’s Position (Royal Riviera Condominium Association)

• No Violation: The statutes do not explicitly require the use of identical ballots for an election.

• Common Practice: It is a common practice for homeowners’ associations to use a different absentee ballot and meeting ballot.

• Mootness: The issue is moot because the Association had already held another election in 2017 and seated a new board, which included the Petitioner’s wife as a member.

V. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

In her June 2, 2017 decision, ALJ Suzanne Marwil made the following key legal conclusions:

The ALJ found that the Association’s use of two substantively different ballots did violate this statute.

• Reasoning: Members who did not attend the meeting in person were not notified of Mr. Thompson’s willingness to run for the board. As a result, “these members did not have the opportunity to vote for him and hence were denied their right to vote for or against each proposed action contained in the meeting ballot.”

• Clarification: The ruling explicitly states that this finding does not impose a requirement that all ballots must be identical; however, it establishes that “substantive changes to ballots must be presented to all members.”

The ALJ concluded that no violation of this subsection occurred.

• Reasoning: The Petitioner conceded that the absentee ballot itself complied with the statutory requirements (e.g., being mailed seven days in advance with a return-by date). The judge reasoned that a meeting ballot handed out in person would not need to contain this information if it were “substantively the same as the absentee ballot.” The legal problem arose not from a failure to mail the second ballot, but from the substantive difference between the two.

The ALJ determined that the matter was not rendered moot by the 2017 election and the seating of a new board. The Judge affirmed that the tribunal “can and does find that Respondent committed a statutory violation in the course of holding its 2016 election.”

VI. Final Order and Outcome

• ALJ Recommended Order (June 2, 2017):

◦ The Petitioner’s petition should be granted.

◦ The Respondent must reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.

◦ No other relief was available to the Petitioner.

• Department of Real Estate Final Order (June 12, 2017):

◦ The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted and adopted the ALJ’s decision.

◦ The Order is a final administrative action, effective immediately.

◦ The Royal Riviera Condominium Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.

◦ The parties were notified that the Order could be appealed via a complaint for judicial review.

Study Guide: Gounder v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case Paul Gounder v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association, Case No. 17F-H1716002-REL-RHG. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms based on the provided legal documents.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information in the case documents.

1. What was the central allegation made by the Petitioner, Paul Gounder, in his initial petition?

2. Describe the two different ballots used by the Royal Riviera Condominium Association for its March 14, 2016, board election.

3. What were the two primary legal arguments made by the Respondent, Royal Riviera Condominium Association, to defend its actions?

4. What was the initial outcome of the hearing held on October 17, 2016, before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky?

5. What was Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil’s final conclusion regarding the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2)?

6. How did Judge Marwil explain her finding that A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4), which deals with ballot delivery timelines, was not violated?

7. How did the Respondent argue that the case was moot, and why did Judge Marwil reject this argument?

8. According to the Final Order issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, what specific relief was granted to the Petitioner?

9. What is the standard of proof in this matter, and which party has the burden of proof?

10. What specific action did the Department of Real Estate request be reviewed when it granted the request for a rehearing?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner, Paul Gounder, alleged that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) and its own CC&Rs. The violation occurred by using two substantively different ballots for the election of Board members at the annual meeting on March 14, 2016.

2. The first ballot was an absentee “Mail Ballot” with six candidate names and a blank line for a write-in. The second ballot, handed out at the meeting, was titled “Ballot” and included the names of seven candidates (adding Eric Thompson) but had no space for a write-in candidate.

3. The Respondent argued that it committed no violation because the statutes do not explicitly require the use of identical ballots and that using different absentee and meeting ballots is common practice. It also maintained that the matter was moot because a new election had already occurred in 2017.

4. Following the initial hearing, Judge Diane Mihalsky recommended the dismissal of the Petition on October 18, 2016. She concluded that no statute or bylaw prevented the Respondent from adding the names of willing members to the ballot used at the annual election.

5. Judge Suzanne Marwil found that the use of two substantively different ballots did violate A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2). Because members voting by mail were not informed of Eric Thompson’s candidacy, they were denied their right to vote for or against each proposed action.

6. Judge Marwil concluded A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4) was not violated because the absentee ballot itself complied with the statute’s requirements for delivery timelines. She reasoned that a meeting ballot would not need to meet these requirements if it were substantively the same as the compliant absentee ballot; the problem arose only because the ballots were different.

7. The Respondent argued the case was moot because a new board had been seated in a 2017 election. Judge Marwil rejected this, stating that the fact a new board is seated does not prevent an Administrative Law Judge from finding that a statutory violation occurred in a past election.

8. The Final Order, issued by Commissioner Judy Lowe on June 12, 2017, granted the Petitioner’s petition. It ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.

9. The standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence,” as stated in A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), the Petitioner has the burden of proof in the matter.

10. In its February 17, 2017, Order Granting Request for Rehearing, the Department of Real Estate specifically requested a review of A.R.S. § 33-1250, and in particular, A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4).

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and makes legal findings and recommendations. In this case, Diane Mihalsky and Suzanne Marwil served as ALJs.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified collection of laws for the state of Arizona. This case centered on the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1250.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (the Department)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona. It granted the rehearing and accepted the final ALJ decision.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or condominium. The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated Article VII of its CC&Rs.

Final Order

The concluding and binding decision in an administrative case. In this matter, the Final Order was issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate on June 12, 2017, accepting the ALJ’s decision.

A legal term for a matter that is no longer in controversy or has become irrelevant. The Respondent unsuccessfully argued the case was moot because a subsequent election had been held.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency that conducts administrative hearings for other state agencies. The Department of Real Estate referred this case to the OAH for a hearing.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, the Petitioner was Paul Gounder.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It means the party with the burden of proof must convince the judge that there is a greater than 50% chance that their claim is true.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to review the decision made in the first hearing. The Petitioner requested and was granted a rehearing after the initial recommendation to dismiss his petition.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Royal Riviera Condominium Association.

Your HOA’s Election Rules Might Be Unfair. This Court Case Explains Why.

Introduction: The Devil in the Details

Living in a community governed by a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) often means navigating a complex web of rules, regulations, and procedures. While most are designed to maintain property values and community standards, the enforcement of these rules can sometimes feel arbitrary. But what happens when the very process for electing the board that enforces those rules is flawed?

A fascinating legal challenge demonstrates that even a single, seemingly minor discrepancy in an HOA election can have significant consequences. But the victory was anything but certain. In the case of Paul Gounder versus the Royal Riviera Condominium Association, the homeowner’s initial petition was actually recommended for dismissal by the first judge. It was only through persistence—requesting a rehearing—that the homeowner ultimately prevailed. This case serves as a powerful real-world example of why procedural fairness in community governance is not just important—it’s legally required—and reveals several surprising lessons for any homeowner who values a fair and transparent election process.

Takeaway 1: “Common Practice” Isn’t a Legal Defense

When challenged on its election procedures, the Royal Riviera Condominium Association’s defense was simple: it was merely following “common practice.” The board argued that many HOAs use a different absentee and in-person ballot, so they had done nothing wrong. However, the Administrative Law Judge disregarded this argument entirely, focusing instead on the explicit requirements of Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2). This decision provides a crucial lesson for all homeowners: an association’s internal habits or traditions do not override clear legal statutes. If a state law or the community’s own governing documents dictate a specific procedure, the HOA must follow it, regardless of what other associations might be doing. This empowers homeowners by showing that the law, not just internal tradition, is the ultimate authority governing their association’s actions.

Takeaway 2: A “Small” Change Can Invalidate an Election

The dispute in the March 14, 2016 election centered on two different ballots used for the same board election. The mail-in ballot, sent to members voting absentee, listed six names and included a blank line for a write-in candidate. The in-person ballot, distributed to members at the meeting, listed seven names—adding candidate Eric Thompson—and provided no space for write-ins. This difference was not seen as a minor error but as a “substantive” change that fundamentally altered the election. The judge reasoned that members who voted by mail “did not have the opportunity to vote for him and hence were denied their right to vote for or against each proposed action contained in the meeting ballot.”

The judge made a critical distinction about what constitutes a fair process, clarifying that the issue wasn’t about perfection, but equality of opportunity.

Finding this violation does not impose a requirement that ballots be identical; it simply states that substantive changes to ballots must be presented to all members.

This point is not about minor cosmetic differences like fonts or paper color. It’s about ensuring every single voting member has the exact same set of choices. Adding or removing a candidate on one version of a ballot creates two different elections, disenfranchising one group of voters. This ruling affirms that a fair election requires that all members have an equal opportunity to vote on all candidates and measures.

Takeaway 3: Accountability Matters, Even After the Fact

The association attempted to have the case dismissed by arguing that the issue was “moot.” Because a new election had already been held in 2017 and a new board was in place, the HOA claimed the flawed 2016 election no longer mattered. The Administrative Law Judge explicitly rejected this argument. The decision stated that “the fact that a new board is currently seated does not render the matter moot as the Administrative Law Judge can and does find that Respondent committed a statutory violation in the course of holding its 2016 election.” The final order granted the homeowner’s petition and required the Royal Riviera Condominium Association to reimburse his $500.00 filing fee. This is an impactful takeaway for any homeowner who feels it’s too late to act. It demonstrates that an HOA can be held legally accountable for past procedural violations, establishing an important precedent for the community and putting the board on notice for future conduct.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

The case of Gounder v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association is a powerful reminder that procedural fairness, strict adherence to legal statutes, and the vigilance of individual homeowners are essential checks on the power of an HOA board. The core lesson is clear: seemingly small details in an election process can have major legal consequences. Homeowners who take the time to understand the specific laws and bylaws governing their community can successfully challenge their associations. But this case also teaches a deeper lesson about perseverance. Faced with an initial recommendation for dismissal, the homeowner could have given up. Instead, he challenged the ruling and won on rehearing, proving that knowledge combined with conviction is a powerful force for ensuring the principles of fairness and equality are upheld.

Does your own community’s voting process ensure every member has an equal voice, and would it stand up to this kind of scrutiny?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Paul Gounder (petitioner)
Frederick C. Zehm (witness)
Royal Riviera Condominium Association member
Testified for Petitioner
Marlys Kleck (witness)
Royal Riviera Condominium Association member
Testified for Petitioner

Respondent Side

Mark Kristopher Sahl (HOA attorney)
Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen PLC
Dan Peterson (property manager)
Owner of Respondent's management company

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Presided over initial hearing
Suzanne Marwil (ALJ)
Presided over rehearing
Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Abby Hansen (ADRE staff/HOA Coordinator)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Also listed as AHansen
LDettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
jmarshall (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
ncano (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
M. Aguirre (staff)
Transmitted order

Other Participants

Eric Thompson (member/candidate)
Candidate added to meeting ballot
Al DeFalco (member/candidate)
Nominated from the floor

John Klemmer vs. Caribbean Gardens Association

Posted on August 19, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	16F-H1616006-BFS
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-08-19
Administrative Law Judge	Dorinda M. Lang
Outcome	The ALJ dismissed the petition in its entirety. While the HOA admitted responsibility for common areas, the Petitioner failed to establish that the water staining on the subfloor or the condition of the pipes constituted damage requiring repair or replacement. The ALJ relied on the Respondent's expert testimony that the subfloor was structurally sound.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John Klemmer	Counsel	—
Respondent	Caribbean Gardens Association	Counsel	Alexis Firehawk

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1212(1), 33-1212(2), 33-1247(B), 33-1251(C), 33-1221(1), 33-1253(A)(1), 33-1253(A)(2), 33-1253(H)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition in its entirety. While the HOA admitted responsibility for common areas, the Petitioner failed to establish that the water staining on the subfloor or the condition of the pipes constituted damage requiring repair or replacement. The ALJ relied on the Respondent's expert testimony that the subfloor was structurally sound.

Why this result: Insufficient evidence to prove that the staining constituted structural damage or that mold/bacteria levels required remediation; Respondent provided expert testimony that the area was structurally sound.

Key Issues & Findings

Maintenance and Repair of Common Elements

Petitioner alleged the HOA was responsible for repairing water damage/staining to the subfloor and pipes in the common area ceiling/floor space caused by flooding from the unit above. Petitioner sought replacement of stained wood and remediation.

Orders: Petition dismissed in its entirety.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1212(1)
A.R.S. § 33-1212(2)
A.R.S. § 33-1247(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1251(C)
A.R.S. § 33-1221(1)
A.R.S. § 33-1253(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 33-1253(A)(2)
A.R.S. § 33-1253(H)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

16F-H1616006-BFS Decision – 513174.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:57:29 (72.6 KB)

16F-H1616006-BFS Decision – 521856.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:57:34 (62.9 KB)

16F-H1616006-BFS Decision – 513174.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T06:02:57 (72.6 KB)

16F-H1616006-BFS Decision – 521856.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T06:02:57 (62.9 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Klemmer v. Caribbean Gardens Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative hearing and subsequent final decision in the matter of John Klemmer vs. Caribbean Gardens Association (No. 16F-H1616006-BFS). The dispute centered on whether the Caribbean Gardens Association (the Respondent) was legally obligated to repair or replace materials in a common area located between the Petitioner’s unit and the unit above.

The Petitioner alleged that water damage, staining, and potential contamination necessitated the replacement of subflooring and cleaning of a sewer pipe. While the Respondent acknowledged responsibility for the common area in question, they argued that no structural damage existed. Following a hearing on August 2, 2016, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Dorinda M. Lang determined that the Petitioner failed to meet the required burden of proof. The petition was dismissed in its entirety, and the decision was certified as final on October 6, 2016.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Responsibility for Common Areas

A central component of the case was the definition and responsibility of "common areas" within the association. The Petitioner cited several Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to argue that the Respondent was responsible for the space above his ceiling and below the upstairs unit’s flooring.

Undisputed Jurisdiction: The Respondent did not dispute its responsibility for the areas defined as common areas under the CC&Rs.
Legal Basis: The allegations involved violations of A.R.S. §§ 33-1212, 33-1247(B), 33-1251(C), 33-1221(1), and 33-1253, as well as specific articles of the association’s third amendment.

2. The Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Standards

The case turned significantly on the legal standard of "preponderance of the evidence." As the Petitioner, John Klemmer held the burden to prove that the damage was sufficient to mandate specific repairs.

Standard Applied: The ALJ defined preponderance of the evidence as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is "more probably true than not."
Failure to Establish Fact: Although the Petitioner provided photographs of staining and discoloration, the ALJ found this evidence insufficient to prove that the wood required replacement or that the sewer pipe was malfunctioning.

3. Structural vs. Cosmetic Damage

A primary conflict in the testimony was the distinction between aesthetic staining and structural integrity.

Expert Testimony: Michael Busby, a licensed contractor and witness for the Respondent, testified that the discoloration did not constitute structural damage. He noted that water staining near a toilet is "not uncommon" and that any potential structural issues could be resolved through bracing rather than replacement.
Lack of Specialized Testing: The Petitioner expressed concerns regarding mold and bacteria; however, because no formal testing was conducted or presented, the court could not find a requirement for remediation.

4. Administrative Oversight and Finalization

The case reflects a transition in state oversight and the strict timelines of administrative law.

Agency Transition: Effective July 1, 2016, jurisdiction over such matters shifted from the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Final Certification: Because the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not accept, reject, or modify the ALJ's decision by the September 26, 2016 deadline, the decision was automatically certified as final per A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D).

Important Quotes with Context

Quote	Context
"Petitioner failed to establish his factual allegation that the area was damaged to the extent that repairs were necessary."	The ALJ’s primary conclusion regarding why the case was dismissed despite the HOA’s admitted responsibility for the area.
"Proof by preponderance of the evidence 'is evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it…'"	The legal definition used by the court to evaluate the strength of the Petitioner's claims against the Respondent's defenses.
"[Michael Busby] testified that the water staining to that area (below a toilet) is not uncommon… [and] it was not structurally damaged."	Testimony from the Respondent's witness which successfully argued that the visible damage did not necessitate the extensive repairs requested.
"Petitioner offered no legal authority that Respondent is responsible for cleaning the area or any evidence that the pipe must be perfectly straight to function properly."	The court's response to the Petitioner's secondary complaints regarding the cleanliness and alignment of a sewer pipe.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners and Petitioners

Necessity of Professional Testing: When alleging health hazards such as mold or bacteria, visual evidence (photographs) is often insufficient. Homeowners should provide professional lab results or expert environmental reports to establish a need for remediation.
Establishing Structural Impact: To compel an association to perform replacements rather than simple repairs (like bracing), a petitioner must provide evidence from a structural expert or licensed contractor proving that the material's integrity is compromised.

For Homeowners Associations (HOAs)

Proactive Mitigation Offers: In this case, the Respondent offered to "brace" the area even though they denied structural damage. Making a reasonable offer of repair can demonstrate a good-faith effort to maintain common areas, which may be viewed favorably if the petitioner declines and insists on more expensive, unnecessary replacements.
Expert Witness Reliability: Utilizing licensed contractors who have personal history with the property (e.g., a former handyman) can provide persuasive testimony regarding the "commonality" of certain types of wear and tear, such as staining under plumbing fixtures.

Procedural Compliance

Monitoring Statutory Deadlines: Parties must be aware that administrative decisions become final if the governing agency does not act within a specific timeframe (in this case, approximately 35 days). Once certified, the window for requesting a rehearing or judicial review is limited and governed by A.R.S. § 41-1092.09.

Case Study and Legal Review: Klemmer v. Caribbean Gardens Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between John Klemmer (Petitioner) and the Caribbean Gardens Association (Respondent). It explores the legal standards, factual disputes, and administrative procedures involved in Arizona Department of Real Estate matters.

Key Concepts and Case Overview

1. Jurisdictional Transition

The matter was initially filed with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. However, as of July 1, 2016, that department ceased to exist, and jurisdiction over such matters was transferred to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) maintains jurisdiction to hear these petitions pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.02.

2. The Burden of Proof: Preponderance of the Evidence

In administrative hearings of this nature, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof. The standard used is "preponderance of the evidence," defined as:

A.A.C. R2-19-119: The standard of proof on all issues.
Legal Definition: Evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition. It must convince the trier of fact that the contention is "more probably true than not."

3. Defining Common Areas and Responsibility

The dispute centered on the definition of "common areas" within a homeowner association. Per the Respondent’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the third amendment thereto:

The area between a unit’s ceiling and the floor of the unit above is classified as a common area.
While the Respondent did not dispute its responsibility for common areas, the legal conflict arose over whether specific conditions (staining and discoloration) constituted "damage" requiring remediation.

4. Administrative Finality

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision that must be transmitted to the relevant state agency. Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08:

The agency has a specific timeframe (in this case, until September 26, 2016) to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ decision.
If the agency takes no action within this period, the ALJ decision is automatically certified as the final administrative decision.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. Who were the primary parties involved in case No. 16F-H1616006-BFS? Answer: The Petitioner was John Klemmer, and the Respondent was the Caribbean Gardens Association.

2. What specific physical conditions did the Petitioner cite as evidence of damage? Answer: The Petitioner provided photographs showing discoloration of the upper unit’s subfloor, staining on a sewer pipe, and a "crooked" sewer pipe.

3. Why did the Administrative Law Judge dismiss the petition despite the Respondent admitting responsibility for common areas? Answer: The Petitioner failed to establish that the area was damaged to the extent that repairs were legally necessary. He did not provide evidence that the staining required remediation or that the sewer pipe was malfunctioning.

4. What was the testimony of the Respondent's expert, Michael Busby, regarding the subfloor? Answer: Busby, a licensed contractor, testified that the discoloration was not structural damage. He noted that water staining below a toilet is common and suggested that even if damage were present, it would only require bracing rather than replacement.

5. What is the consequence if a party fails to take timely action after an administrative decision is certified? Answer: Rights for rehearing or judicial review (via the Superior Court) may be lost.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. Analysis of Evidentiary Standards

The ALJ's decision rested heavily on the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. Write an essay discussing why the Petitioner’s evidence (photographs of staining and concerns about mold/bacteria) failed to meet this threshold in the face of the Respondent’s expert testimony. In your analysis, address the distinction between aesthetic concerns (staining/dirt) and compensable structural damage under the law.

2. The Role of Expertise in Property Disputes

Examine the impact of Michael Busby’s testimony on the outcome of the case. How does the testimony of a licensed contractor influence the "trier of fact" compared to the testimony of a homeowner? Discuss how the Petitioner might have strengthened his case regarding the alleged presence of mold or the functionality of the sewer pipe.

3. Administrative Procedure and Finality

Explain the process by which an ALJ decision becomes a "Final Agency Action" within the Arizona administrative system. Use the timeline from the Caribbean Gardens Association case (from the August 2 hearing to the October 6 certification) to illustrate the roles of the ALJ, the Department of Real Estate, and the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition
A.R.S.	Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	A judge who serves as the trier of fact in hearings involving state agency actions.
CC&Rs	Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and responsibilities of a homeowners association and its members.
Common Area	Areas within a development or association that are not owned by an individual unit holder and are typically the responsibility of the association to maintain.
Petitioner	The party who files a petition or initiates a legal action (in this case, John Klemmer).
Preponderance of the Evidence	The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases; evidence that makes a fact more likely than not.
Respondent	The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, Caribbean Gardens Association).
Subfloor	The foundational wood or material located beneath the finished flooring of a unit.
Certification	The process by which an ALJ decision is officially recognized as the final decision of an agency.

When Stains Aren't Enough: Lessons from an HOA Common Area Dispute

1. Introduction: The Reality of Condo Living and Common Area Conflicts

Condominium living is defined by a shared environment where individual property rights intersect with collective maintenance obligations. One of the most common flashpoints in these communities occurs when a homeowner identifies a perceived defect in a common area and demands a specific, often high-cost, remediation from the Homeowners Association (HOA). These disputes frequently hinge on a single question: what legally constitutes "damage" that requires repair?

The case of John Klemmer vs. Caribbean Gardens Association serves as a textbook example of this tension. It illustrates that simply identifying a visual abnormality—such as a stain—is not enough to compel an Association to act. To prevail in such a dispute, a homeowner must meet a specific legal burden of proof, moving beyond subjective concerns to provide objective evidence of structural or functional failure.

2. The Dispute: A Ceiling, a Pipe, and a Disagreement

The conflict involved Petitioner John Klemmer and the Respondent, Caribbean Gardens Association. Mr. Klemmer alleged that the Association had violated its duties under the Arizona Revised Statutes (including A.R.S. §§ 33-1212, 33-1247, 33-1251, 33-1221, and 33-1253) and its own governing documents, specifically the CC&Rs (Third Amendment, Article 3, Section 3.8 and Article 7, Section 7.1) and the recorded plat specifications.

The dispute was triggered by a leak from the unit above Mr. Klemmer’s. Upon inspection of the space between his ceiling and the floor of the upstairs unit, the Petitioner observed:

Discoloration and water staining on the upper unit’s subfloor.
Staining and "dirt" on the common sewer pipe.
A sewer pipe that appeared "crooked" in its alignment.

While the Association conceded that the space in question was a "common area" under its maintenance jurisdiction, it refused the Petitioner's demand to fully replace the wood and plumbing.

3. The Legal Framework: Defining the "Preponderance of Evidence"

This matter was adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings. Notably, the case occurred during a jurisdictional transition; as of July 1, 2016, oversight of such HOA disputes shifted from the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Regardless of the agency, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. For a homeowner to win, they must provide:

Proof that convinces the judge that a claim is "more probably true than not."
Evidence that carries greater weight or is more convincing than the evidence offered by the Association in opposition.

In this instance, the Petitioner bore the entire burden of proving that the Association was legally obligated to perform the specific replacement he requested rather than the more conservative repairs the Association proposed.

4. Expert Testimony vs. Owner Concerns

The hearing highlighted a significant gap between a homeowner’s subjective fears and a professional’s technical assessment. While the Petitioner relied on visual evidence, the Respondent produced expert testimony from Michael Busby, a licensed contractor.

Petitioner’s Concerns	Respondent’s Expert Testimony (Michael Busby)
Aesthetic Staining: Argued that stained wood on the subfloor must be replaced to ensure safety.	Structural Integrity: Testified that discoloration did not amount to structural damage; the wood remained sound even after a subsequent "catastrophic" flood.
Contamination Fears: Expressed concerns regarding the presence of mold and bacteria.	Commonality & Data: Stated that water staining below a toilet is common and noted that the Petitioner provided no actual testing/data to support claims of mold.
Plumbing Alignment: Argued the sewer pipe was "dirty" and "crooked," suggesting poor maintenance.	Necessity of Repair: Asserted that if the floor required any support, "bracing" would be the appropriate fix, not a total replacement of the subfloor.

The conflict reached an impasse when the Petitioner refused the Association's offer to "brace" the subfloor, insisting that nothing short of a full replacement of the wood was acceptable.

5. The Decision: Why the Petition was Dismissed

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition in its entirety, finding that the Petitioner failed to bridge the gap between "visible staining" and "legal damage." The ruling was based on several key findings:

Stains are Not Structural Failures: The ALJ noted that photos of staining do not, on their own, support a finding that wood is compromised or requires replacement.
Subjective Fear vs. Objective Data: While the Petitioner was concerned about mold and bacteria, the court found he failed to provide any professional testing or lab data to establish that levels required remediation.
Functionality is the Standard: Regarding the "crooked" and "dirty" pipe, the ALJ pointed out that the Petitioner provided no legal authority or evidence suggesting a pipe must be "perfectly straight" or "clean" to function properly. Without proof of a leak or failure, the pipe met the maintenance standard.

6. Timeline of Finality: The Certification Process

Administrative decisions follow a specific procedural path to reach finality. In this case, the timeline was as follows:

August 19, 2016: The Administrative Law Judge issued the initial decision to dismiss the petition.
September 26, 2016: The statutory deadline for the Department to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s decision.
October 6, 2016: With no action taken by the Department to alter the ruling, the decision was officially certified as the final administrative action.

7. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Associations

This case provides a roadmap for how administrative courts view the balance of power between owners and HOAs:

Responsibility vs. Repair Necessity: Proving an HOA is responsible for a common area is only the first step. The Association maintains the discretion to choose the method of repair (e.g., bracing vs. replacement). The burden is on the homeowner to prove that the Association’s chosen method is a violation of the CC&Rs or statutes.
The Need for Expert Evidence: Visual assumptions are insufficient in a legal setting. If a homeowner alleges mold, bacteria, or structural instability, they must produce professional data, such as engineering reports or lab results, to meet the preponderance of evidence standard.
Functionality Over Aesthetics: Administrative courts prioritize the functional and structural integrity of common elements. Cosmetic concerns—such as stained wood or pipes that are not perfectly aligned—rarely meet the legal threshold for mandated replacement if the systems are still performing their intended functions.

8. Conclusion: Navigating Future Disputes

The Klemmer decision reinforces the principle that "perfect" is not the legal standard for HOA maintenance; "functional and sound" is. Before escalating a dispute to a formal petition, homeowners should evaluate whether they have the objective evidence necessary to overcome the Association’s discretionary authority.

Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(A) and § 41-1092.08(H), parties who disagree with a final administrative decision may have the right to request a rehearing or seek judicial review. This next step typically involves the Superior Court, provided the request is filed within strict statutory timeframes. For both boards and owners, the lesson is clear: in the eyes of the law, data and expert testimony will always outweigh visual aesthetic concerns.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John Klemmer (petitioner)
Caribbean Gardens Association (Owner)
Listed as John D. Klemmer in appearances
John A. Klemmer (witness)

Respondent Side

Alexis Firehawk (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Michael Busby (witness)
Caribbean Gardens Association
Licensed contractor and former handyman
Alex Gonzalez (witness)

Neutral Parties

Dorinda M. Lang (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Kathryn Bergamon (observer)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the decision
Louis Dettorre (agency staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
CC'd on certification
Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Mailed certification

John & Debborah Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA

Posted on July 6, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	16F-H1616013-BFS
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-08-22
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	The ALJ granted summary judgment in favor of the Petitioners because the Respondent admitted to violating A.R.S. § 33-1804 by appointing board members without a public meeting. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the filing fee, but civil penalties were declined because the violation was based on a mistake of law rather than intentional misconduct.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John & Debborah Sellers	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA	Counsel	Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted summary judgment in favor of the Petitioners because the Respondent admitted to violating A.R.S. § 33-1804 by appointing board members without a public meeting. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the filing fee, but civil penalties were declined because the violation was based on a mistake of law rather than intentional misconduct.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Open Meeting Law (Board Appointments)

Petitioners alleged the remaining board member appointed new directors to fill vacancies without a public meeting. Respondent admitted the violation but claimed exigent circumstances due to lack of quorum and expiring management contract.

Orders: Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioners' filing fee. No civil penalty imposed as the violation was not intentional or repeated.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804
Dennis J. Legere and Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA

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

16F-H1616013-BFS Decision – 505356.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:58:42 (77.4 KB)

16F-H1616013-BFS Decision – 513402.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:58:48 (60.0 KB)

16F-H1616013-BFS Decision – 505356.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:22 (77.4 KB)

16F-H1616013-BFS Decision – 513402.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:22 (60.0 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document details the administrative legal proceedings and final decision in the case of John & Debborah Sellers (Petitioners) vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA (Respondent), Case No. 16F-H1616013-BFS.

The dispute centered on the Respondent's violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804 regarding open meeting requirements. Following the resignation of three out of four board members in July 2015, the sole remaining board member continued to conduct HOA business and eventually appointed new members in January 2016 without holding public meetings.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted Summary Judgment to the Petitioners, ordering the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioners' filing fees. However, the ALJ declined to impose civil penalties, citing the HOA's lack of intentional or routine misconduct and the existence of exigent circumstances. This decision was certified as final by the Department of Real Estate on August 22, 2016, after the department failed to take action to modify or reject the recommendation.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Compliance and Public Meeting Requirements

The core of the legal violation involved A.R.S. § 33-1804, which mandates that meetings of a Homeowners Association board must be open to all members. The Respondent admitted to violating this statute by:

Allowing a single remaining board member to conduct business for several months.
Appointing interim board members in January 2016 without following the emergency meeting requirements set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)(2).

The Respondent acknowledged that "emergency" exceptions were not properly applied, and they agreed to comply with these requirements moving forward.

2. Discretionary Authority and Civil Penalties

A significant portion of the analysis focused on A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), which states that an ALJ may levy a civil penalty for violations. The use of the word "may" affords the Director discretion rather than a mandate. In determining whether to penalize the HOA, the ALJ compared this case to Dennis J. Legere and Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA:

The Legere Case: Involved a board that routinely and repeatedly took actions via email to avoid public meetings for its own convenience.
The Current Case: The ALJ found that The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA did not repeatedly or routinely violate the law. Instead, the violation was born from "exigent circumstances" and a mistake regarding legal requirements when the board was reduced to a single member.

3. Exigent Circumstances as a Mitigating Factor

The Respondent argued that their actions, while technically in violation of the law, were driven by necessity. The HOA "lacked the required number of Directors under its bylaws" and faced the expiration of its management contract. The ALJ accepted these as mitigating factors, concluding that the remaining board member did not intentionally violate the statute but acted based on a misunderstanding of the law during a crisis.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote	Context
"The remaining board member continued to conduct Respondent’s business and in January 2016, appointed board members to serve the remaining terms… in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804."	The fundamental factual basis for the Petitioners' motion for summary judgment.
"Respondent acknowledged that because the exceptions to the public meetings required by A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) do not include an emergency… the remaining board member’s actions violated the statute’s requirements."	The HOA's formal admission of the statutory violation.
"By use of the word, 'may,' the statute affords the Director… discretion to levy a civil penalty, even in cases where the Respondent homeowners’ association admits a statutory violation."	The legal reasoning used to justify why a fine was not mandatory despite the admitted guilt.
"Respondent did not repeatedly or routinely violate the law, but instead took action due to exigent circumstances based upon a mistake about the law’s requirements."	The ALJ’s distinction between this case and more severe, intentional violations found in other precedents.
"Because it is on notice of the law’s requirements, if Respondent again violates A.R.S. § 33-1804, a civil penalty should be imposed at that time."	A formal warning that the HOA's "mistake" defense will not be valid for future infractions.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners Association Boards

Adherence to Open Meeting Laws: Boards must strictly follow A.R.S. § 33-1804, even during internal crises. Vacancies do not suspend the requirement for public meetings or proper emergency meeting protocols under A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)(2).
Documentation of Exigency: If a board must act under pressure, it should still attempt to align with statutory requirements to avoid "notice of violation" which makes future penalties more likely.
Immediate Corrective Action: The Respondent’s agreement to reimburse filing fees and commit to future compliance likely helped avoid more severe civil penalties.

For Homeowners (Petitioners)

Summary Judgment Strategy: Petitioners can successfully move for summary judgment when an HOA admits to the facts of a statutory violation, even if the HOA claims the violation was unintentional.
Recovery of Costs: While civil penalties are discretionary and paid to the state, homeowners can successfully petition for the reimbursement of their filing fees when a violation is confirmed.
Precedent as a Tool: Using previous cases (like Legere) is essential in administrative hearings to argue for or against the severity of sanctions.

Final Administrative Status

The Department of Real Estate had until August 10, 2016, to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ's decision. As no action was taken by that deadline, the decision was officially certified as final on August 22, 2016. This certification triggers the five-day window for the effective date of the order and begins the timeline for any potential requests for rehearing or judicial review in Superior Court.

Study Guide: Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA (Case No. 16F-H1616013-BFS)

This study guide provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative law case involving John and Debborah Sellers and The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA. It examines the legal requirements for homeowners association (HOA) board actions, the interpretation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.), and the discretionary power of administrative law judges in levying penalties.

I. Case Overview and Core Themes

The Dispute

The case originated when John and Debborah Sellers (Petitioners) filed a petition against The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA (Respondent). The Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated state law following the resignation of three out of four board members in July 2015. The remaining board member continued to conduct HOA business and appointed new members in January 2016 without adhering to public meeting requirements.

Central Legal Issues

Public Meeting Requirements: Whether a lone board member can conduct business and appoint new members without a public meeting under A.R.S. § 33-1804.
Emergency Exceptions: Whether "exigent circumstances" (such as an expiring management contract and lack of a quorum) justify bypassing statutory requirements for public meetings.
Discretionary Penalties: The criteria used by the Department of Real Estate and Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to determine if civil penalties are warranted under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A).

II. Statutory Framework and Legal Precedent

The following table outlines the primary statutes and legal precedents cited in the case:

Reference	Summary of Application
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)	Requires that HOA meetings be open to all members of the association.
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)(2)	Sets specific requirements for "emergency" meetings that bypass standard notice/publicity; the Respondent failed to meet these requirements.
A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A)	Grants the ALJ authority to order compliance and "may" levy a civil penalty (not to exceed $500 in specific housing contexts).
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08	Governs the timeline for the Department of Real Estate to accept, reject, or modify an ALJ decision.
Legere v. Pinnacle Peak Shadows	Legal precedent where a board routinely used email for decisions; used in this case to contrast "intentional" vs. "mistaken" violations.

III. Summary of Findings and Decision

The Violation

The Respondent admitted to violating A.R.S. § 33-1804. While they argued the remaining board member acted out of necessity (the next meeting was not until February 2016 and the management contract was expiring), the ALJ ruled that the statutory exceptions to public meetings do not include a general "emergency" unless specific procedures are followed.

The Remedy

Summary Judgment: Granted to the Petitioners because the violation was acknowledged.
Reimbursement: The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners' filing fee.
Civil Penalties: The ALJ declined to impose a civil penalty. The decision noted that the violation was a "mistake about the law’s requirements" rather than a "routine or repeated" intentional violation like that seen in the Legere case.

Finality of the Decision

The ALJ decision was transmitted on July 6, 2016. Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08, the Department of Real Estate had until August 10, 2016, to act. Because no action was taken by the Department, the ALJ decision was certified as final on August 22, 2016.

IV. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. Why did the Petitioners move for summary judgment against the HOA? Answer: Because the HOA's sole remaining board member conducted business and appointed new members in January 2016 without following the public meeting requirements set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1804.

2. What reason did the Respondent give for the board member's unilateral actions? Answer: The HOA argued it lacked the required number of directors under its bylaws and its management contract was set to expire before the next regularly scheduled meeting in February 2016.

3. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), is an ALJ required to levy a civil penalty if a violation is found? Answer: No. The statute uses the word "may," affording the Director discretion to levy or withhold a penalty based on the circumstances of the violation.

**4. How did the ALJ distinguish this case from the Legere precedent?** Answer: In Legere, the board routinely used email for decisions to serve its own convenience. In this case, the ALJ found the HOA acted due to exigent circumstances and a mistake of law, rather than a routine or intentional effort to bypass the law.

5. What happens if the Department of Real Estate fails to accept, reject, or modify an ALJ decision within the statutory timeframe? Answer: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D), the ALJ decision is certified as the final administrative decision.

V. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

Exigent Circumstances vs. Statutory Compliance: Analyze the tension between a board's fiduciary duty to maintain operations (e.g., renewing management contracts) and the strict requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804. Should the law allow for more flexibility when a board loses its quorum?
The Role of Intent in Administrative Sanctions: Discuss why the ALJ determined that a "mistake about the law's requirements" did not warrant a civil penalty. Compare the deterrent effect of a warning versus a financial penalty in the context of HOA governance.
The Certification Process: Explain the procedural journey of an ALJ decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings to final certification by the Department of Real Estate. Why is the timeline for "accepting, rejecting, or modifying" significant for the parties involved?

VI. Glossary of Important Terms

A.R.S. § 33-1804: The Arizona statute governing open meetings for planned communities.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over hearings and moves for decisions in administrative law cases.
Certification of Decision: The process by which an ALJ’s recommendation becomes a final, binding agency action.
Civil Penalty: A financial sanction levied by a government agency for a violation of laws or regulations.
Exigent Circumstances: Situations requiring immediate action or urgency, often used as a defense for bypassing standard procedures.
Motion for Summary Judgment: A legal request to the judge to rule in favor of one party without a full trial, based on the fact that the essential facts are not in dispute.
Petitioners: The parties (John & Debborah Sellers) who initiated the legal action.
Respondent: The party (The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA) against whom the action was brought.
Sanctions: Penalties or other means of enforcement used to provide incentives for obedience with the law.

When One Board Member Acts Alone: Lessons from Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek

1. Introduction: A Board in Crisis

It is a nightmare scenario for community governance: a sudden wave of resignations leaves the Board of Directors without a quorum, effectively creating a "ghost board." In these moments of perceived crisis, the remaining leadership often feels a desperate pressure to act unilaterally to keep the association functional. However, as community association leaders must understand, administrative exigency does not grant a license to bypass Arizona’s open meeting laws.

The case of John & Debborah Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA (No. 16F-H1616013-BFS) serves as a definitive lesson in this balance. This dispute was adjudicated through the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), which serves as the statutory forum for resolving HOA disputes in Arizona. The central question: Can a single remaining board member legally conduct business and appoint new directors in private?

2. The Conflict: One Member, Multiple Appointments

The conflict began following a leadership vacuum in July 2015, when three out of the four sitting board members resigned. For several months, the community was governed by a sole director. In January 2016, this remaining director took unilateral action to appoint new members to fill the vacancies.

The Association defended these actions by citing a state of emergency. They argued that because the board lacked the minimum number of directors required by its bylaws and the association’s management contract was nearing expiration, immediate action was necessary. As a legal analyst, it is critical to note a fundamental principle here: statutory requirements, such as the Open Meeting Act, override internal bylaws and contractual pressures.

Fact Check: The Association claimed urgency to justify appointments in January 2016, yet a regularly scheduled board meeting was already on the calendar for February 22, 2016. This proves that a legal, public forum for these appointments was less than 30 days away, undermining the "emergency" defense.

3. The Legal Violation: Navigating A.R.S. § 33-1804

Arizona law is unequivocal regarding the transparency of board actions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), all meetings of the association and the board of directors must be open to all members. The Association eventually admitted during legal proceedings that their actions failed to comply with these requirements.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the HOA’s actions illegal based on the following statutory failures:

Failure to Meet Emergency Standards: For a meeting to qualify as an "emergency" under A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)(2), the board must provide notice to members "by any means the board deems appropriate" and must "state the emergency" clearly within the meeting minutes. The Respondent failed to provide such notice or documentation.
Lack of Broad Exceptions: The ALJ noted that A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) does not contain a blanket exception for "emergencies." To bypass the standard notice requirements of the Open Meeting Act, a board must strictly follow the procedural safeguards found in subsection (D).
Defining Urgency vs. Convenience: An "emergency" is a legal term of art requiring immediate necessity to protect the community; it is not a subjective tool used for administrative convenience or to bypass the membership.

4. The Ruling: Accountability vs. Intent

In her decision, ALJ Diane Mihalsky granted Summary Judgment to the Petitioners. However, the ruling made a distinct separation between a board's "mistake of law" and "routine bad faith." While the Association was ordered to reimburse the Sellers for their $500 filing fee, the Judge declined to levy additional civil penalties at that time.

The following table compares the Sellers case with the precedent set in Legere vs. Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA:

Feature	Legere Case (No. 14F-H1414001)	Sellers Case (No. 16F-H1616013)
Nature of Intent	Routine and repeated violations for board convenience (conducted via email).	Single-instance violation due to exigent circumstances and a mistake of law.
Legal Consequence	Civil penalties were levied against the board.	No civil penalty at this time; reimbursement of $500 filing fee only.

The Judge reasoned that because the director acted out of a mistaken understanding during a crisis rather than a routine practice of ignoring the law, a civil penalty under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A) was not yet warranted.

5. Finality and the Path Forward

The timeline of this case highlights the transition of oversight within Arizona’s regulatory agencies. The ALJ's decision was initially transmitted on July 6, 2016, to the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety. However, during the finalization process, these functions were consolidated under the Department of Real Estate.

By August 10, 2016, the Department of Real Estate had taken no action to reject or modify the ALJ’s decision. Consequently, on August 22, 2016, the decision was certified as the final administrative action of the Department.

In a stern warning to the Association, Judge Mihalsky noted that the HOA is now legally "on notice." The decision explicitly states that if the Association violates A.R.S. § 33-1804 again, "a civil penalty should be imposed at that time," as they can no longer claim ignorance of the statute.

6. Key Takeaways for HOA Boards and Homeowners

As an educator in community association law, I advise all boards to distill this case into three primary lessons:

Process Over Expediency: Internal pressures—such as expiring management contracts or bylaw requirements for a minimum number of directors—never justify a violation of state law. Public transparency is the non-negotiable priority.
The "Emergency" High Bar: To bypass standard meeting notices, the situation must be a genuine emergency, and the board must document the emergency in the minutes and provide whatever notice is possible under A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)(2).
The Finality of Being "On Notice": Boards often receive leniency for a first-time "mistake of law." However, once an OAH ruling is issued, that leniency vanishes. Future violations by this Association will almost certainly result in aggressive civil penalties.

Homeowners have the statutory right to witness the business of their association. This case reinforces that even in a crisis, the board works for the members, and that work must be done in the light of day.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John Sellers (petitioner)
Debborah Sellers (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Joshua M. Bolen (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Attorney for The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the decision
Debra Blake (Interim Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Recipient of electronic transmission
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Department of Real Estate
Recipient of final certification
Louis Dettorre (Agency Staff)
Department of Real Estate
Attn line for Commissioner Lowe
F. Del Sol (Administrative Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed transmission for ALJ
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Administrative Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed transmission for Director Hanchett

Province Community Association vs. Caroll Gaines

Posted on June 6, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	16F-H1616007-BFS
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-06-06
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner (HOA). The Judge found that the Respondent violated the age-restriction CC&Rs by allowing her minor great-grandchildren to occupy the unit (defined as bodily presence for a considerable time, here 80-85 hours/week). The reasonable accommodation previously granted was validly revoked by the HOA after it was discovered the caregiver (granddaughter) was working/schooling outside the home. Respondent was ordered to comply with the CC&Rs and reimburse the filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Province Community Association	Counsel	Mark K. Sahl, Esq.
Respondent	Caroll Gaines	Counsel	Robert J. Metli, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article 3, Section 3.1(b)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner (HOA). The Judge found that the Respondent violated the age-restriction CC&Rs by allowing her minor great-grandchildren to occupy the unit (defined as bodily presence for a considerable time, here 80-85 hours/week). The reasonable accommodation previously granted was validly revoked by the HOA after it was discovered the caregiver (granddaughter) was working/schooling outside the home. Respondent was ordered to comply with the CC&Rs and reimburse the filing fee.

Why this result: Respondent failed to prove that the minors were not 'occupying' the home under the definitions of the CC&Rs, and failed to prove the necessity of the accommodation after the HOA revoked it based on new information regarding the caregiver's employment.

Key Issues & Findings

Age Restricted Housing / Occupancy by minors

The HOA alleged the homeowner violated age restrictions by having her great-grandchildren and granddaughter live in the home. The homeowner claimed an accommodation for care, which the HOA later revoked upon finding the granddaughter worked outside the home during the day.

Orders: Respondent shall comply with Article 3, Section 3.1(b) of the CC&Rs and pay Petitioner the filing fee.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Article 3, Section 3.1(b)
Section 2.48

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

16F-H1616007-BFS Decision – 500334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:57:47 (138.2 KB)

16F-H1616007-BFS Decision – 507052.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:57:51 (61.2 KB)

16F-H1616007-BFS Decision – 500334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:56 (138.2 KB)

16F-H1616007-BFS Decision – 507052.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:56 (61.2 KB)

Legal Briefing: Province Community Association vs. Caroll Gaines (No. 16F-H1616007-BFS)

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law proceedings and final decision in the matter of Province Community Association (Petitioner) vs. Caroll Gaines (Respondent). The case centers on a dispute regarding the enforcement of age-restricted housing covenants in Province, a 55+ planned community in Maricopa, Arizona.

The core conflict arose when the Petitioner alleged that Respondent Caroll Gaines violated the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by allowing her minor great-grandchildren to effectively occupy her residence. While the Respondent argued that the children did not stay overnight and were only present for childcare purposes while her granddaughter acted as her caregiver, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Petitioner. The decision established that "occupancy" and "residing" extend beyond overnight stays to include significant, consistent daytime presence (80–85 hours per week). The decision was certified as final on July 14, 2016.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Integrity of Age-Restricted Housing

Province is marketed as a "55+ age-restricted community" where homeowners invest with the expectation of a specific living environment. The Petitioner argued, and the ALJ agreed, that failing to enforce age restrictions could jeopardize the community’s legal status under the federal Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) and devalue homeowners' investments. Testimony from neighbors highlighted that residents chose the community specifically because of these restrictions.

2. Definition of "Occupancy" vs. "Overnight Stay"

A pivotal legal theme in this case is the distinction between staying overnight and "occupancy."

CC&R Provision: Article 3, Section 3.1(b) allows persons under 19 to stay overnight for up to 90 days per year but prohibits them from "occupying" a unit.
Definition of "Occupy": The CC&Rs define "occupancy" as actually residing in the unit for at least 90 days in a calendar year.
Judicial Interpretation: The Respondent argued that because the children did not sleep at the residence, they were not "occupying" it. However, the ALJ ruled that "residing" means to dwell for a "considerable time." The ALJ determined that being present for 80 to 85 hours per week constitutes residency, regardless of where the children slept.

3. Reasonable Accommodation and Revocation

The Respondent, who is wheelchair-bound and requires 24-hour care, sought a "reasonable accommodation" to allow her granddaughter and great-grandchildren to live with her.

Initial Approval: The Association initially granted the request in September 2015 based on the understanding that the granddaughter was providing 24-hour care.
Revocation: The Association revoked the accommodation in October 2015 after discovering via social media (NextDoor.com) that the granddaughter was working and attending school outside the home, and therefore not providing the 24-hour care as described. The ALJ found that the accommodation was "convenient" rather than "necessary," leading to the enforcement of the standard CC&Rs.

Important Quotes with Context

On the Impact of Exceptions

"If an overnight stay for more than ninety days were required for occupancy, all the homeowners in Province could provide childcare services to their grandchildren or others seven days a week from before sunrise until well after sunset. Province would no longer be an age-restricted community because the exception would have swallowed the rule."

Context: The ALJ’s rationale for why daytime presence must be factored into the definition of "residing" to protect the community’s fundamental character.

On the Definition of Residency

"Reside means 'to dwell permanently or for a considerable time.' Eighty or 85 hours per week is a considerable time."

Context: This statement forms the basis of the legal conclusion that the Respondent was in violation of the CC&Rs even if the children did not stay overnight.

Regarding the Revocation of Accommodation

"The Association has determined that the accommodation requested is not necessary to accommodate your disability… there has been no assertion and/or showing by you that arrangements other than your granddaughter and her children moving in with you cannot be made to provide that care without violating the age restriction provisions."

Context: Excerpt from the Petitioner's October 1, 2015, letter revoking the accommodation, highlighting the burden of proof required for a disability accommodation that violates core community rules.

Evidence Summary

The following table summarizes the key evidence presented during the hearing on June 1, 2016:

Witness/Evidence Source	Key Testimony/Data Point
Rebecca Clark (Neighbor)	Reported children were "there all the time," riding bicycles in the cul-de-sac; noted the family's car was in the driveway most nights.
Rosie Kuzmic (Advisory Committee)	Confirmed multiple complaints from neighbors regarding children and the potential threat to the community's age-restricted status.
Respondent/Family Testimony	Admitted children were at the home 5 days a week (6:00 AM – 7:30 PM) and on weekends, totaling ~80 hours per week.
NextDoor.com Post	Post by the granddaughter revealed she was working/in school, contradicting the initial "24-hour care" justification for accommodation.
Petitioner's Exhibits	Documentation of CC&Rs and the recorded 2010 amendment defining "Occupancy."

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs)

Clarity in Definitions: HOAs should ensure that definitions of "occupancy" and "residency" are explicit and account for substantial daytime presence, not just overnight stays.
Verification of Accommodations: When granting reasonable accommodations for caregivers, associations should require specific verification of necessity and monitor for changes in circumstances that might render the accommodation invalid.
Consistent Enforcement: The ruling suggests that proactive enforcement is necessary to prevent "the exception from swallowing the rule," particularly in communities where age-restricted status is a primary value proposition.

For Residents and Caregivers

Residency Limits: Residents should be aware that "occupancy" can be legally defined by the total number of hours spent at a property, even if that presence does not include sleeping overnight.
Burden of Proof for Disability: Requests for accommodation must demonstrate that the specific arrangement is necessary for the disability, rather than merely convenient for the family members involved.
Transparency: Discrepancies between formal requests and public statements (such as social media posts) can be used as grounds for revoking previously granted housing exceptions.

Final Decision and Order

The Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:

Compliance: Respondent must comply with Article 3, Section 3.1(b) of the CC&Rs (effectively meaning the children cannot be present for a "considerable time" that constitutes residency).
Costs: Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee.
Finality: The decision was certified as final by the Interim Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings on July 14, 2016, following the agency's failure to take action to modify or reject the ALJ's recommendation.

Case Study: Province Community Association v. Caroll Gaines

This study guide provides an analysis of the administrative hearing regarding age-restricted housing regulations within the Province Community Association. It explores the legal complexities of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), the implementation of the Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA), and the definitions of residency versus occupancy in a planned community.

Key Concepts and Case Overview

1. The Nature of Age-Restricted Communities

Province is a planned community in Maricopa, Arizona, specifically marketed to retired persons aged 55 and older. It is governed by a homeowners’ association (Petitioner) and operates under the federal Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 (HOPA). These communities are permitted to restrict residency based on age to maintain their specialized status.

2. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The legal framework of the community is defined by its CC&Rs. In this case, the central dispute involves:

Article 3, Section 3.1(b): States the property is an age-restricted community. It allows persons under 19 to stay overnight for up to 90 days per year but explicitly forbids them from "occupying" any unit.
Section 2.48 (Amended): Defines "Occupy," "Occupies," or "Occupancy" as actually residing in a unit for at least 90 days in a calendar year.

3. Reasonable Accommodation vs. Community Standards

The Respondent, Caroll Gaines, requested an accommodation for her granddaughter and great-grandchildren to live with her to provide 24-hour care due to her disabilities (high blood pressure, hemochromatosis, Meniere’s syndrome, and mobility issues).

Granting and Revocation: The Association initially granted the request but revoked it after finding that the granddaughter was working and attending school outside the home, suggesting that 24-hour care was not being provided as originally asserted.
Legal Conflict: The Association argued that the accommodation was a "convenience" rather than a "necessity" and that alternative care arrangements could be made without violating age restrictions.

4. Legal Definition of "Residing"

A pivotal element of the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision was the interpretation of what it means to "reside." The Respondent argued that because the children did not stay overnight after the revocation, they were not "occupying" the home. However, the ALJ determined:

"Reside" means to dwell permanently or for a "considerable time."
Spending 80 to 85 hours per week at a location constitutes a considerable time.
"Residence" refers to bodily presence as an inhabitant, regardless of where one's "domicile" (legal home) is located.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. Who bears the burden of proof in this administrative hearing?

Answer: The Petitioner (Province Community Association) bears the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The Respondent bears the burden of establishing affirmative defenses.

2. What federal act allows Province to operate as an age-restricted community?

Answer: The Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 (HOPA).

3. How do the CC&Rs define "Occupancy"?

Answer: Under Section 2.48, occupancy is defined as actually residing in the unit for at least 90 days in the applicable calendar year.

4. What was the primary reason the Association revoked the Respondent's reasonable accommodation?

Answer: The Association discovered through social media (NextDoor.com) and discussions that the granddaughter was working and going to school outside the home, contradicting the claim that she was providing 24-hour care.

5. How many overnight stays are permitted for persons under 19 per year according to the CC&Rs?

Answer: Up to 90 days per year.

6. What was the ALJ’s ruling regarding the children’s presence in the home during the day?

Answer: The ALJ ruled that spending 80–85 hours per week in the home constituted "residing" and therefore violated the CC&Rs, even if the children did not stay overnight.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

The "Exception Swallowing the Rule": Analyze the ALJ’s argument that if daytime-only residency (85 hours a week) were permitted in an age-restricted community, "the exception would have swallowed the rule." Discuss the potential long-term impacts on the community's legal status if the Association had lost this case.
Necessity vs. Convenience in Accommodations: Evaluate the criteria used by the Association to revoke the reasonable accommodation. At what point does a caregiver's schedule turn a "necessary" living arrangement into a "convenient" one under the law?
Judicial Interpretation of Language: The ALJ used dictionary definitions and legal dictionaries to define "reside" and "occupy." Discuss the importance of linguistic precision in drafting community bylaws and how ambiguous terms can lead to protracted legal disputes.

Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	A judge who orients over administrative hearings and issues decisions based on testimony and evidence regarding agency regulations.
CC&Rs	Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules for a planned community.
Domicile	A person's permanent legal home, requiring both bodily presence and an intention to make the place one's home.
HOPA	Housing for Older Persons Act; federal legislation providing exemptions for senior housing to allow age-based discrimination.
Occupancy	Actually residing in a unit for a specific duration (in this case, 90 days) within a calendar year.
Preponderance of the Evidence	The evidentiary standard where proof is "more probably true than not," or the "greater weight" of the evidence.
Reside	To dwell permanently or for a considerable time; defined by bodily presence as an inhabitant.
Respondent	The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, the homeowner Caroll Gaines.
Petitioner	The party filing the petition for a hearing; in this case, the Province Community Association.

Beyond Sleepovers: Understanding "Occupancy" in Age-Restricted Communities

1. Introduction: The Maricopa Dispute

In the manicured cul-de-sacs of Province, a planned community in Maricopa, Arizona, the marketing slogan "retire like you mean it" isn't just a lifestyle pitch—it is a contractual promise. Developed by Meritage Homes Corporation, Province is the only 55+ age-restricted community in the city. However, a significant ruling by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings in the case of Province Community Association vs. Caroll Gaines (No. 16F-H1616007-BFS) has redefined what it means to "reside" in such a community.

The dispute centered on whether a homeowner, Caroll Gaines, violated the association's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by allowing her minor great-grandchildren to be present in her home for nearly every waking hour. While the homeowner argued that no violation occurred because the children did not stay overnight, the Association contended that their consistent, long-term presence constituted prohibited occupancy. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Diane Mihalsky was tasked with determining where "visiting" ends and "occupying" begins.

2. The Rules of the Road: CC&Rs and Age Restrictions

The legal integrity of an age-restricted community relies on strict adherence to the federal Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA). To maintain this status, Province operates under specific CC&Rs that limit the presence of younger individuals.

The heart of the legal conflict lies in Article 3, Section 3.1(b):

Age Restricted Housing. PROVINCE is intended to provide housing primarily for persons 55 years of age or older, pursuant to HOPA . . . .¹ The Property shall be operated as an age restricted community in compliance with any and all applicable Arizona and federal laws. Subject to the foregoing, persons under 19 years of age may stay overnight in a Unit for up to 90 days during the year, but shall not Occupy any Unit. ¹ The federal Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995. See 24 C.F.R. Part 100.

To navigate these rules, the Association distinguishes between two categories of presence for those under 19:

Staying Overnight: Explicitly permitted for a maximum of 90 days per calendar year.
Occupying: Strictly prohibited for individuals under the age of 19.

3. The Definition of "Occupancy" vs. "Visiting"

The pivotal issue before ALJ Mihalsky was the interpretation of "Occupy." A July 28, 2010, amendment to Section 2.48 of the CC&Rs clarified "Occupy" as "actually residing in the Unit for at least 90 days in the applicable calendar year."

The Respondent, Ms. Gaines, maintained that "residing" required sleeping at the property. However, testimony from the homeowner’s daughter and granddaughter revealed a staggering volume of presence: the children were at the home for 60 to 65 hours during the work week and another 14 to 15 hours on weekends.

ALJ Mihalsky determined that the children were present for a total of 80 to 85 hours per week. In her decision, the ALJ defined "reside" as "to dwell permanently or for a considerable time" or having a "bodily presence as an inhabitant."

Crucially, the ALJ applied the "exception swallowing the rule" logic: if overnight stays were the only metric for occupancy, every homeowner in Province could provide full-time childcare services for minors seven days a week, from sunrise to well after sunset. Under such a narrow interpretation, Province would effectively cease to be an age-restricted community, as the intent of the CC&Rs would be nullified by daytime inhabitants.

4. The Role of Reasonable Accommodation

The case was complicated by a request for "Reasonable Accommodation." Ms. Gaines, who is wheelchair-bound and requires 24-hour care, requested in August 2015 that her granddaughter, Alisha Jennings, and the great-grandchildren be allowed to move in so Ms. Jennings could act as a caregiver. The Association initially granted this request.

However, the Association revoked the accommodation on October 1, 2015, following an investigation sparked by a post on NextDoor.com. The post revealed that Ms. Jennings was actually working and attending school outside the home during the day, meaning she was not providing the 24-hour care that formed the basis of the request.

ALJ Mihalsky upheld the revocation, noting that the arrangement was one of "convenience" rather than "necessity." The ruling emphasized that there was no evidence suggesting that other care arrangements—ones that would not require the children to reside in the home—could not have been made to meet Ms. Gaines’ medical needs.

5. Neighbor Testimony and Community Impact

Testimony from neighbors provided a window into the stakes for the broader community. Becky Clark, a resident living cater-cornered to Ms. Gaines, provided compelling testimony regarding the daily presence of the children.

Notably, Ms. Clark herself has six children and 15 grandchildren, yet she testified that she chose to move to Province specifically for its age-restricted status. She argued that she would not have purchased her home had she known children would be residing across the street. This detail underscored the Association’s position: the enforcement of age restrictions is not a matter of personal animosity toward children, but a matter of protecting the specific contractual lifestyle and investment the residents purchased.

Advisory Committee member Rosie Kuzmic echoed these concerns, stating that failure to enforce the CC&Rs would jeopardize Province’s legal status under HOPA and negatively impact homeowner investments.

6. Final Decision and Takeaways

On June 6, 2016, ALJ Mihalsky issued an order requiring the Respondent to comply with Article 3, Section 3.1(b) of the CC&Rs. Furthermore, Ms. Gaines was ordered to pay the Association’s filing fees. The decision was certified as a final agency action on July 14, 2016.

Key Takeaways for Homeowners:

Overnight stays are not the only metric for occupancy. Legal residency can be established by a "bodily presence" over a "considerable time," regardless of where a person sleeps.
"Residing" is defined by the total volume of hours. The court found that 80–85 hours per week constitutes occupancy.
HOAs must strictly enforce age restrictions to protect HOPA status. Inconsistent enforcement creates "exceptions that swallow the rule," threatening the community’s legal standing as a senior-only development.
Reasonable accommodations are subject to ongoing verification. If the underlying facts of an accommodation change—such as a caregiver working outside the home—the HOA has the authority to revoke the status if the arrangement is deemed a convenience rather than a medical necessity.

7. Compelling Conclusion

The Province vs. Gaines case serves as a definitive reminder that "retiring like you mean it" requires a strict adherence to the governing documents. While family and caregiving are vital aspects of life, they must be balanced against the contractual obligations of an age-restricted community. As this ruling demonstrates, the definition of "occupancy" is not confined to a pillow and a bed; it is measured by the footprint of one's daily life within the community. For homeowners, understanding the fine print regarding childcare and long-term visits is essential to protecting both their lifestyle and their legal standing.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Mark K. Sahl (Petitioner Attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Rebecca Clark (Witness)
Province Community Association (Member)
Neighbor; resides at 19697 N. Heron Court
Rosemary Kuzmic (Witness)
Province Community Association
Member of Advisory Committee (shadow board)
Dayle Cruz (Witness)
Post commander for Petitioner's security guards
Pamela Hilliard (Witness)
Province Community Association
Former Community Manager/Supervisor

Respondent Side

Caroll Gaines (Respondent)
Province Community Association (Member)
Homeowner; presented testimony
Robert J. Metli (Respondent Attorney)
Munger Chadwick, PLC
Barbara Gaines (Witness)
Respondent's daughter
Alisha Jennings (Witness)
Respondent's granddaughter

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Debra Blake (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Interim Director
Greg Hanchett (Agency Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Interim Director; signed Certification of Decision
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Department of Real Estate
Received copy of decision
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Administrative Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Mailed/processed certification

Walter Ward Griffith Jr. v. Alisanos Community Association

Posted on April 15, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1516011-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-04-08
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner. Although the Petitioner installed the tree ring without explicit written approval in 2009, the Respondent conducted routine inspections and had constructive notice of the improvement at that time but failed to object until 2014. Due to the delay and constructive notice, Respondent failed to meet its burden of proof to show a violation.
Filing Fees Refunded	$750.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Walter Ward Griffith, Jr.	Counsel	—
Respondent	Alisanos Community Association	Counsel	Mark Sahl, Esq. and Greg Stein, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 7.7

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner. Although the Petitioner installed the tree ring without explicit written approval in 2009, the Respondent conducted routine inspections and had constructive notice of the improvement at that time but failed to object until 2014. Due to the delay and constructive notice, Respondent failed to meet its burden of proof to show a violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Exterior Alteration (Concrete Tree Ring)

Respondent alleged Petitioner violated CC&R Section 7.7 by installing a concrete ring around a jacaranda tree without Architectural Review Committee approval. Petitioner argued the ring was approved with the tree or that Respondent had constructive notice.

Orders: Respondent must repay to Petitioner his filing fee of $750.00.

Filing fee: $750.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

15F-H1516011-BFS Decision – 491042.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:56:22 (92.5 KB)

15F-H1516011-BFS Decision – 499790.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:56:26 (60.3 KB)

15F-H1516011-BFS Decision – 491042.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:40 (92.5 KB)

15F-H1516011-BFS Decision – 499790.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:40 (60.3 KB)

Legal Briefing: Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. vs. Alisanos Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative law proceedings and final decision in the matter of Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. vs. Alisanos Community Association (No. 15F-H1516011-BFS). The dispute centered on whether a concrete ring surrounding a jacaranda tree in the Petitioner’s yard constituted a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

While the Respondent (the Association) alleged that the Petitioner had altered the exterior appearance of his property without prior approval from the Architectural Review Committee, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Petitioner. The decision was based on the Association’s failure to act in a timely manner despite having constructive notice of the improvement for several years. Consequently, the Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party, and the Association was ordered to refund his $750.00 filing fee. The decision was certified as the final agency action on June 3, 2016.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. The Scope of Architectural Approval

The primary conflict involved Section 7.7 of the CC&Rs, which prohibits any work that alters the exterior appearance of a property without the approval of the Architectural Review Committee.

The 2008 Approval: In December 2008, the Association approved the Petitioner's request to plant a jacaranda tree.
Ambiguity in Documentation: The Petitioner argued that "squiggly lines" on his submitted sketch represented the concrete tree ring, implying that the ring was approved along with the tree.
Symbol Interpretation: The ALJ noted that while Petitioner was not required to use professional landscaping symbols, squiggly lines are typically interpreted as trees or bushes. The Petitioner himself admitted that other similar lines on the same plan represented bushes.

2. Constructive vs. Actual Notice

A pivotal theme in the case was the timeline between the installation of the ring and the Association’s enforcement action.

Installation Timeline: The Petitioner installed the concrete ring in early 2009, a process that took five to six months.
Inspection History: The Association conducted "routine inspections" as early as April 2009. Although these inspections resulted in letters regarding artificial grass, they did not mention the tree ring.
The "Visibility" Defense: The Association argued the ring only became noticeable in 2012 or 2013 due to ground settling or tree roots lifting the concrete. However, the ALJ found that because the Association reserved the right to inspect and had conducted routine checks during the installation period, they had "constructive notice" (the legal standard that they should have known) of the ring as of 2009.

3. Burden of Proof and Legal Standards

The proceedings were governed by the standard of "preponderance of the evidence," meaning the evidence must have the most convincing force.

Responsibility: The Respondent bore the burden of proving the violation occurred. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving his affirmative defense (that the ring was approved).
Failure to Meet Burden: The ALJ concluded that because the Association waited until 2014 to formally notify the Petitioner of the alleged violation—despite having notice in 2009—it failed to meet its burden of showing a current, actionable violation of Section 7.7.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote	Source Context	Significance
"The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent had constructive notice of the tree ring in 2009."	Conclusions of Law, Para. 4	This finding was the turning point of the case, neutralizing the Association's argument that the ring was unapproved.
"Petitioner testified that that squiggly line was intended to show the tree ring… Petitioner also testified however that the other squiggly lines represent bushes or trees, not concrete rings."	Findings of Fact, Para. 6	Highlights the inconsistency in the Petitioner’s defense regarding his architectural plans.
"It is reasonable to conclude that Respondent had actual notice as well, but that conclusion is not necessary to the resolution of this matter."	Footnote 3	Suggests the ALJ believed the Association likely knew of the ring's existence even earlier than they admitted.
"Respondent has not met its burden to show that Petitioner is in violation of CC&R section 7.7."	Conclusions of Law, Para. 5	The final legal determination resulting in the dismissal of the Association's claim.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs)

Timeliness of Enforcement: Associations must act promptly when a potential violation is discovered. Delaying enforcement for several years—especially when routine inspections have been performed—can lead to a loss of the right to enforce the CC&R provision due to constructive notice.
Detailed Inspection Records: Records of routine inspections should be comprehensive. If an inspector views a property and fails to note an obvious alteration, the Association may be legally deemed to have accepted that alteration.
Clarity in Approval Letters: When approving landscaping or exterior changes, the approval notice should explicitly list what is approved and what is excluded to avoid future disputes over ambiguous sketches or "squiggly lines."

For Property Owners

Documentation Retention: The Petitioner’s ability to produce the 2008 approval letter and the 2009 inspection correspondence was vital in establishing the timeline of the Association's awareness.
Clarity in Applications: To avoid legal disputes, homeowners should use clear labels or standard symbols in architectural requests rather than ambiguous markings that could be misinterpreted as vegetation rather than hardscaping.

Final Decision Status

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision, issued on April 8, 2016, was transmitted to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. Because the Department took no action to accept, reject, or modify the decision by the May 23, 2016 deadline, the decision was certified as final on June 3, 2016. The Association was legally bound to repay the $750.00 filing fee to the Petitioner.

Griffith v. Alisanos Community Association: Legal Case Study Guide

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. v. Alisanos Community Association (No. 15F-H1516011-BFS). It examines the dispute over property alterations, the application of community Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the legal standards for administrative hearings in Arizona.

Key Case Concepts

1. The Core Dispute: CC&R Section 7.7

The central legal issue involved whether the Petitioner, Walter Ward Griffith, Jr., violated Section 7.7 of the Alisanos Community Association CC&Rs. This section stipulates that no work altering the exterior appearance of a property may be performed without the express approval of the Association’s Architectural Review Committee.

2. Burden of Proof and Legal Standards

In this administrative proceeding, the following standards applied:

Respondent's Burden: The Alisanos Community Association bore the burden of proving that the Petitioner committed the alleged violation.
Petitioner's Burden: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving any "affirmative defense" (a fact that defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the opponent's claim).
Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof required was a "preponderance of the evidence," defined as evidence that carries the most convincing force and superior weight, rather than the absolute number of witnesses.

3. Constructive Notice

A pivotal concept in the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision was "constructive notice." This legal principle suggests that a party is treated as having knowledge of a fact if they could have discovered it through reasonable care or inspection, even if they claim no actual knowledge.

4. Administrative Finality

The case demonstrates the process of an ALJ decision becoming final. Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety had a specific window to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s decision. When no action was taken by the deadline (May 23, 2016), the decision was certified as final.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

Q1: What specific physical feature of the property was the subject of the Alisanos Community Association’s violation claim?

Answer: A concrete ring surrounding a jacaranda tree in the Petitioner’s yard.

Q2: What did the Petitioner argue the "squiggly lines" on his 2008 landscaping sketch represented?

Answer: The Petitioner argued the squiggly line in the general location of the jacaranda tree was intended to represent the tree ring, implying the Association had approved the ring when it approved the tree.

Q3: Why did the ALJ reject the video evidence from the March 8, 2015, Board meeting provided by the Petitioner?

Answer: The video did not support the Petitioner's claim that the Board acknowledged the tree ring was approved; instead, it showed the Board member was discussing artificial grass.

Q4: On what grounds did the Association claim they did not notice the tree ring until 2012 or 2013?

Answer: The Association argued the ring was not evident until the ground settled or tree roots lifted the ring, making it more visible.

Q5: What was the primary reason the ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner?

Answer: The ALJ determined the Association had "constructive notice" of the tree ring as early as 2009 due to routine inspections and the Petitioner’s testimony, yet they failed to provide written notice of a violation until 2014.

Q6: What financial remedy was awarded to the Petitioner?

Answer: The Respondent was ordered to repay the Petitioner’s filing fee of $750.00.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The Interpretation of Architectural Plans

Analyze the conflict between the Petitioner’s use of "squiggly lines" to denote a concrete ring and the Association’s claim that such symbols typically represent vegetation. Should homeowners be held to professional landscaping standards when submitting plans to an Architectural Review Committee, or does the burden lie with the Committee to seek clarification on ambiguous symbols before granting approval? Use the facts of the case to support your argument.

2. Constructive Notice and Homeowner Association Oversight

The ALJ ruled that the Association had constructive notice of the tree ring in 2009, making their 2014 violation notice untimely. Discuss the implications of this ruling for Community Associations. Does this standard place an unreasonable burden on volunteer boards to catch every minor CC&R violation during routine inspections, or is it a necessary protection for homeowners against delayed enforcement?

3. The Mechanics of the Preponderance of the Evidence

Using the definition provided in the ALJ's Conclusions of Law, evaluate the evidence presented by the Respondent regarding the visibility of the tree ring versus the evidence of the 2009 "routine inspection." Explain how the "greater weight of evidence" shifted toward the Petitioner despite the Association’s claim that the ring was hidden by the soil.

Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	A judge who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies (in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings).
Affirmative Defense	A defense in which the defendant (or petitioner in this context) introduces evidence which, if found to be credible, will negate civil liability even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts.
CC&Rs	Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the rules of a neighborhood homeowner association that determine what can and cannot be done with a property.
Certification of Decision	The process by which an ALJ decision is officially designated as the final administrative decision of an agency.
Constructive Notice	The legal fiction that signifies a person or entity should have known a fact because it was discoverable through reasonable effort.
Preponderance of the Evidence	The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning that the proposition is more likely to be true than not true.
Respondent	The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, the Alisanos Community Association).
Section 7.7	The specific clause in the Alisanos CC&Rs requiring approval for any work that alters the exterior appearance of a property.
Superior Court	The court where a party may seek judicial review of an administrative decision after the administrative remedies have been exhausted.
Transmitted	The formal delivery of the ALJ's decision to the relevant government department for review.

The Case of the Concrete Ring: Why HOA Timelines Matter More Than "Squiggly Lines"

1. Introduction: The $750 Lesson in HOA Governance

In the complex landscape of Homeowners Association (HOA) governance, many boards operate under the mistaken belief that their enforcement power is indefinite. However, the case of Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. v. Alisanos Community Association serves as a powerful reminder that administrative negligence and delayed action can strip an association of its authority. This dispute, centered on a homeowner’s unapproved masonry, is a landmark victory for homeowner rights against arbitrary and sluggish enforcement.

"When an Association ignores a visible modification for five years, they don't just lose the argument—they lose the right to enforce."

2. The Dispute: Squiggly Lines and Architectural Approval

The conflict began with a 2008 landscape plan. While the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) formally approved a jacaranda tree, a concrete ring subsequently built around it became the catalyst for litigation years later. Mr. Griffith argued his original plan included "squiggly lines" representing the ring. While the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately sided with the homeowner on the timeline, the "squiggly line" defense itself was a legal reach that homeowners should avoid.

Petitioner's Interpretation	Industry Standard/ALJ View
Squiggly lines were intended to represent the concrete tree ring as part of the approved 2008 plan.	Squiggly lines are industry-standard symbols for vegetation, such as trees or bushes.
The ring was "implicitly" approved because the overall sketch was signed off by the ARC.	The Petitioner admitted his other squiggly lines represented bushes, undermining his masonry argument.

While the ALJ found that the ring was not technically approved in 2008, this interpretative "loss" for the homeowner was rendered moot by the Association’s failure to act within a reasonable legal window.

3. A Timeline of the Transformation (2008–2015)

The history of this case reveals a staggering level of administrative neglect by the Alisanos Community Association. As a Legal Analyst, I find the following timeline a textbook example of how not to manage community standards:

December 16, 2008: The HOA approves the planting of a jacaranda tree but remains silent on any masonry structures.
Early 2009: Mr. Griffith spends five to six months digging and pouring the concrete ring—a highly visible, labor-intensive process.
April 1, 2009: The HOA conducts a "routine inspection." They notice unfinished artificial grass but fail to mention the obvious masonry work happening around the tree.
2012–2013: Board member Brian Moore later testifies that it was only during this period that the area began to look "odd" and the ring became noticeable.
January 7, 2014: The HOA issues its first written concern. Demonstrating administrative incompetence, the letter confused and conflated the ring with a different, unrelated tree removal issue.
October 21, 2015: More than six years after construction, the HOA issues a formal violation notice under CC&R Section 7.7.

4. The Turning Point: "Constructive Notice" vs. Ground Settling

To excuse their six-year delay, the Association attempted a "latent defect" defense. They argued the ring was invisible for years, only surfacing when the ground settled or tree roots lifted the concrete. Judge Thomas Shedden rejected this, pointing to the Association’s own governing documents.

Under the CC&Rs, the Board reserved the express right to inspect completed improvements. This right creates a legal obligation: if an Association has the contractual opportunity to see a modification, the law assumes they have seen it.

Key Legal Concept: Constructive Notice Constructive notice is a legal inference that a party knows a fact because they could have discovered it through reasonable diligence. Because the Association performed "routine inspections" in 2009 and held the "right to inspect" under the CC&Rs, they were legally charged with knowledge of the ring the moment it was built. If a violation is "open and obvious," the clock for enforcement begins immediately.

5. The Verdict: Victory for the Homeowner

In administrative law, the "burden of proof" is the pivot on which cases turn. Per Conclusion of Law Paragraph 1, the Association bore the burden of proving a violation occurred by a preponderance of the evidence—meaning the evidence must show it is "more likely than not" that their claims are valid.

Because the Association had constructive notice in 2009 but waited until 2014 to act, the ALJ ruled they had failed to meet their burden. The Final Agency Action ordered the following:

Prevailing Party: Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. was declared the prevailing party.
Financial Restitution: The Association was ordered to repay Mr. Griffith his $750.00 filing fee within thirty days of the final Order (issued April 2016).

6. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Associations

The Importance of Clear Landscaping Symbols

Homeowners should never rely on "squiggly lines" to represent permanent structures. While Mr. Griffith won his case on the timeline, his own testimony—admitting that other squiggles meant plants—nearly cost him the "approval" argument. Explicit labels are the only way to ensure an affirmative defense holds up in court.

The Danger of Delayed Enforcement

For Associations, the enforcement "clock" starts when a violation is visible, not when the Board finally decides to care about it. Delaying action for years transforms a clear-cut violation into an unenforceable "grandfathered" modification through the doctrine of constructive notice.

The Weight of "Routine Inspections"

Routine inspections are a double-edged sword. While they help catch violations, they also set the legal timestamp for when the Association should have known about a modification. An inspection that fails to note an obvious concrete ring is not just a missed detail—it is a legal waiver of the Association's right to enforce the CC&Rs.

7. Final Summary and Conclusion

The Griffith v. Alisanos case is a victory for community rights, proving that homeowners are protected from arbitrary, retroactive enforcement. While CC&Rs are binding contracts, they do not grant Boards the right to sleep on their duties for half a decade and then demand costly removals. Clear communication, diligent inspections, and prompt action are the only paths to sustainable community management. When Boards fail to be diligent, the law will favor the homeowner.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Mark Sahl (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen PLC
Appeared for Respondent
Greg Stein (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen PLC
Appeared for Respondent
Brian Moore (board member)
Alisanos Community Association
Testified at hearing
Greg Kotsakis (committee member)
Alisanos Community Association
Architectural Review Committee member
Augustus Shaw (board member)
Alisanos Community Association
Mentioned in video recording regarding board meeting

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Debra Blake (Interim Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of decision transmission
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Certification of Decision
Joni Cage (staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Care of recipient for Debra Blake
Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed mailing certification

Morris, Deana vs. Sundance Residential HOA

Posted on June 23, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1515001-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-06-23
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	The ALJ ordered that the petition be dismissed and the Respondent be deemed the prevailing party. The HOA was found to have properly approved the architectural changes, and the billing dispute was resolved prior to the hearing.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Deanna Morris	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sundance Residential HOA	Counsel	Mark Sahl

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article VII, Sections 7.01, 7.03, 7.04; Article 1, Sections 1.64, 1.65; Article II, Section 2.08; Article X, Section 10.16
N/A

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ordered that the petition be dismissed and the Respondent be deemed the prevailing party. The HOA was found to have properly approved the architectural changes, and the billing dispute was resolved prior to the hearing.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sundance violated its governing documents regarding the architectural approval, and the billing issue was moot.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs regarding neighbor's gazebo and balcony

Petitioner alleged that the HOA improperly approved a neighbor's walkout balcony and gazebo, claiming the structures blocked views, violated privacy, and were not compliant with the CC&Rs or design guidelines.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Improper invoice charge

Petitioner alleged the HOA added an unexplained invoice for $1,076.00 to her quarterly bill.

Orders: Petition dismissed (Issue resolved: HOA removed the charge as an administrative error before hearing).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: resolved_prior_to_hearing

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

15F-H1515001-BFS Decision – 446035.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:51:42 (111.5 KB)

15F-H1515001-BFS Decision – 464029.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:51:47 (49.6 KB)

15F-H1515001-BFS Decision – 446035.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:20 (111.5 KB)

15F-H1515001-BFS Decision – 464029.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:20 (49.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Deanna Morris vs. Sundance Residential HOA (Case No. 15F-H1515001-BFS)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law proceedings between Deanna Morris (Petitioner) and the Sundance Residential HOA (Respondent). The dispute centered on the Petitioner's allegations that the Respondent violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by approving a neighbor's architectural additions—specifically a gazebo and a walkout balcony—and by incorrectly billing the Petitioner for attorney’s fees.

Following a hearing on June 10, 2015, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas issued a decision on June 23, 2015, dismissing the petition. The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the HOA had violated its governing documents. Although a rehearing was initially considered, an order dated October 29, 2015, vacated the rehearing after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety rescinded the request, effectively concluding the matter at the administrative level.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Architectural Control and Committee Authority

The primary conflict involved the Sundance Architectural Committee's approval of a construction project for Martha Duran, the Petitioner’s neighbor. The Petitioner argued that the Committee failed to follow its own rules and that the resulting structures were not "in harmony" with the neighborhood.

Rule Applicability: A point of contention was which set of rules applied. The Petitioner asserted the Committee should have used the rules effective April 1, 2014, rather than the 2011 rules. However, the Architectural Change Request was submitted in November 2013 and approved in December 2013, predating the 2014 rules.
Approval Process: Evidence showed the Committee exercised its authority selectively; while they approved the gazebo and balcony, they denied Ms. Duran’s request for a second-story addition.
Municipal Compliance: The construction was not only approved by the HOA but also permitted and inspected by the City of Buckeye, fulfilling the requirements of Article VII, Section 7.04 of the CC&Rs.

2. Homeowner Rights vs. Community Standards

The Petitioner alleged that the new structures infringed upon her personal property rights, specifically citing:

Loss of Views: The Petitioner claimed the walkout balcony and gazebo blocked her view of the sunset, which was a primary reason for her home purchase.
Privacy and Value: The Petitioner argued the HOA failed to protect her property's privacy and overall value.
Neighbor Veto Power: The proceedings clarified that under the Sundance CC&Rs, individual homeowners do not possess a "veto power" over construction projects on neighboring properties that have been approved by the HOA and meet community standards.

3. Administrative and Financial Discrepancies

The dispute also touched on the HOA's administrative handling of homeowner accounts and document requests:

Billing Errors: The Petitioner was initially billed $1,076.00 for attorney’s fees. The Community Manager testified this was an "administrative error," and the charge was removed after the petition was filed.
Document Requests: The Petitioner’s claim regarding a lack of transparency was weakened by her acknowledgment that her request for documents from the HOA was not made in writing.

4. Construction Timelines and Specifications

The Petitioner alleged the neighbor's structures were not built within the approved time frames and deviated from the approved plans.

Design Guidelines: The 2011 guidelines require construction to start within 90 days and be completed within six months of approval.
Findings: The ALJ found credible testimony from the neighbor and a Committee member that construction started within the allowed period and that the "as-built" structures complied with the approved plans and specifications.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote	Source/Context	Significance
"All plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Architectural Committee for harmony and compatibility of external design and location in relation to… views from neighboring living units."	Article VII, Section 7.01 of the CC&Rs	Established the HOA's duty to consider neighboring views, which was the basis of the Petitioner's complaint.
"Neighbors do not have a veto power for construction projects that have been approved by Sundance."	Willard Brunner, Architectural Committee Member	Clarified the limit of an individual homeowner's influence over their neighbor's property improvements.
"The inclusion of the attorney’s fees in the invoice that Respondent issued to Petitioner was an administrative error."	Tom Campanella, Community Manager	Served as the HOA's admission of a financial mistake, though it was corrected before the final judgment.
"Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sundance violated its governing documents (CC&Rs) in this matter."	ALJ M. Douglas, Conclusions of Law	The legal turning point that resulted in the dismissal of the petition.

Actionable Insights

Based on the findings and the legal outcome of this case, the following insights are derived for homeowners and associations:

Adherence to Written Protocols: Homeowners seeking documents or making formal complaints should ensure all communication is in writing. The Petitioner's failure to provide a written document request was noted in the findings of fact.
Exhaustion of Internal Remedies: Before seeking administrative hearings, homeowners must utilize internal HOA complaint processes. The ALJ noted that the Petitioner had not filed a formal complaint regarding "bright lights" with the HOA, despite testifying about them at the hearing.
Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings: The "preponderance of the evidence" standard requires the complaining party to prove that their claim is "more likely true than not." Subjective complaints about "harmony" or "views" are difficult to prove when the HOA can demonstrate a consistent application of committee reviews and municipal inspections.
Clarification of CC&R Finality: As per Article VII, Section 7.07, decisions of the Board regarding architectural control are final. This emphasizes the importance for homeowners to participate in the initial architectural review and appeal process rather than relying on post-construction litigation.
Timeline Documentation: Both HOAs and homeowners should keep meticulous records of construction start and end dates. In this case, the neighbor's ability to testify that they started and finished within the periods allowed by the 2011 Design Guidelines was critical to the defense.

Administrative Law Study Guide: Morris v. Sundance Residential HOA

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Deanna Morris and the Sundance Residential Homeowners Association (HOA). It covers the legal framework, factual findings, and procedural outcomes of the case.

1. Case Overview

Case Number: 15F-H1515001-BFS
Petitioner: Deanna Morris
Respondent: Sundance Residential HOA
Presiding Official: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas
Hearing Date: June 10, 2015
Location: Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

2. Core Legal Concepts and Standards

Statutory Authority

Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety is authorized to receive petitions from homeowners or associations regarding violations of planned community documents or regulating statutes. These matters are heard before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof in an administrative hearing lies with the party asserting the claim (the Petitioner). The required standard is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the Petitioner must persuade the judge that the allegations are "more likely true than not."

Governing Documents

The dispute centered on the interpretation and enforcement of the following:

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): Specifically Article VII (Architectural Control), Article I, Article II, and Article X.
2011 Design Guidelines: Rules regarding construction timelines and architectural approval.

3. Key Findings of Fact

The Dispute

On January 5, 2015, Deanna Morris filed a petition alleging that Sundance Residential HOA violated its CC&Rs by:

Approving a neighbor’s (Ms. Duran) gazebo and walkout balcony that allegedly did not comply with design standards or harmony requirements.
Allowing construction to proceed outside of approved time frames.
Issuing an unexplained invoice for $1,076.00 to the Petitioner’s account.

The HOA and Neighbor Response

Architectural Approval: Ms. Duran submitted an Architectural Change Request in November 2013. The Committee approved the balcony and gazebo in December 2013 but denied a request for a second-story addition.
Municipal Compliance: The City of Buckeye issued building permits for the structures and conducted inspections upon completion.
Administrative Error: The HOA acknowledged that the $1,076.00 invoice (for attorney's fees) was an administrative error and removed it from Ms. Morris's account on May 13, 2015.

Evidence and Testimony

Witness	Key Testimony Points
Deanna Morris	Asserted the structures blocked her view of the sunset, lacked harmony, and violated 2014 rules.
Rod Fleishman	Co-owner of the residence; testified the structures blocked a portion of the scenic view.
Martha Duran	Neighbor; testified she received all necessary HOA and City approvals before and during construction.
Willard Brunner	Architectural Committee member; testified that the structures met community standards and that neighbors do not have "veto power."
Tom Campanella	Community Manager; confirmed the approval followed CC&Rs and the invoice was an error.

4. Legal Provisions Referenced

CC&R Section 7.01: Requires the Architectural Committee to review plans for "harmony and compatibility of external design" in relation to surrounding structures and views.
CC&R Section 7.04: Establishes that HOA approval is in addition to, not in lieu of, municipal permits.
CC&R Section 7.07: States that Board decisions on architectural control are final and not subject to alternate dispute resolution.
2011 Design Guidelines:
Approval Expiration: Construction must start within 90 days of approval.
Construction Period: Projects must be completed within six months of approval unless otherwise specified.

5. Decision and Subsequent Actions

The Recommended Order (June 23, 2015)

ALJ M. Douglas ruled that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated its governing documents. Key factors included:

The Committee followed proper procedures in reviewing and approving the plans.
The completed structures were inspected and found to comply with approved specifications.
The Respondent (Sundance HOA) was deemed the prevailing party, and the petition was dismissed.

Subsequent Procedural History (October 2015)

Following the initial decision, a rehearing was briefly considered. However, on October 29, 2015, the Department rescinded the Order Granting Rehearing Request. The hearing scheduled for November 2, 2015, was vacated, and the matter was remanded to the Department for further action.

6. Short-Answer Practice Questions

What was the primary reason Deanna Morris challenged the construction of her neighbor's balcony and gazebo?
Which specific standard of proof is required in an Arizona administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes?
What did the Architectural Committee deny in Ms. Duran's original Architectural Change Request?
According to the 2011 Design Guidelines, within how many days must construction begin once an application is approved?
How did the HOA address the $1,076.00 charge on Ms. Morris's bill?
Does an HOA approval exempt a homeowner from obtaining municipal building permits according to Section 7.04?

7. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

The Tension Between Harmony and Property Rights: Analyze how CC&R Section 7.01 attempts to balance the "harmony and compatibility" of a neighborhood with an individual owner's right to improve their property. Use the testimony of Ms. Morris regarding her "blocked view" versus the Committee's approval to support your argument.
The Role of Procedural Regularity: Evaluate the importance of the Architectural Committee’s testimony in this case. How did the documentation of the approval process and the subsequent inspections by the City of Buckeye influence the ALJ’s determination that the HOA had not violated its governing documents?
The "Veto Power" Concept: Discuss the legal and practical implications of Willard Brunner’s statement that "neighbors do not have a veto power for construction projects." How does this concept affect the stability of community design standards?

8. Glossary of Important Terms

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01: The Arizona Revised Statute that grants the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety the authority to hear HOA-related disputes.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A professional presiding officer who hears evidence and issues recommendations in administrative legal proceedings.
Architectural Committee: A body within an HOA responsible for reviewing and approving or denying proposed changes to properties to ensure they meet community standards.
CC&Rs: Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and limitations for property owners within a planned community.
Harmony and Compatibility: A subjective architectural standard used to ensure new constructions or modifications fit the aesthetic and structural character of the existing neighborhood.
Petitioner: The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition (in this case, Deanna Morris).
Preponderance of the Evidence: The legal standard of proof where a claim is proven if it is shown to be more likely than not to be true.
Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, Sundance Residential HOA).
Vacated: To cancel or render void a scheduled legal proceeding or order.

When Views Clash with CC&Rs: Lessons from a Sundance Residential HOA Dispute

In the quiet community of Buckeye, Arizona, a standard architectural improvement became the center of a protracted legal battle that serves as a cautionary tale for homeowners and associations alike. The dispute in Morris v. Sundance Residential HOA pitted resident Deanna Morris against her homeowners’ association (HOA) over the approval of a neighbor’s backyard additions—a gazebo and a walkout balcony.

The conflict centered on Ms. Morris’s assertion that the Sundance Architectural Committee (the "Committee") failed to uphold community standards, resulting in structures that allegedly obstructed her views and invaded her privacy. This analysis explores the 2015 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision, examining how the "harmony" of a community is legally weighed against the subjective expectations of its individual members.

The Petitioner’s Case: Allegations of Oversight

Ms. Morris filed a multi-issue petition alleging that Sundance Residential HOA violated several provisions of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), specifically citing Articles 1 (Sections 1.64, 1.65), II (Section 2.08), VII (Sections 7.01, 7.03, 7.04), and X (Section 10.16). Supported by the testimony of co-owner Rod Fleishman, who corroborated the loss of a "scenic view," Ms. Morris presented a case built on the following grievances:

Improper Regulatory Framework: Ms. Morris argued the Committee erroneously applied the 2011 Design Guidelines to the project. She contended that the 2014 rules—which became effective April 1, 2014—should have governed the build, despite the neighbor’s application being submitted on November 18, 2013.
Deviation and Delays: The Petitioner alleged the structures deviated from the approved plans and were not completed within the mandatory construction timelines (90 days to start, six months to complete).
Loss of Aesthetic Amenity: The core of the complaint was the loss of "unobstructed views of the sunset," which Ms. Morris claimed was a primary factor in her home purchase. She asserted the structures negatively impacted her property value and privacy.
"Park-Like" Lighting: Ms. Morris highlighted the installation of twelve unapproved lights under the balcony and one in the gazebo, testifying that the resulting illumination made the yard look "like a park" at night.
Financial Reactive Management: A mysterious $1,076.00 invoice for attorney fees appeared on Ms. Morris’s account. Notably, the HOA only removed this charge on May 13, 2015—well after the petition was filed—citing it as an "administrative error."

The HOA and Neighbor Response: Following the Process

The Respondent, Sundance Residential HOA, and the neighbor, Martha Duran—who notably purchased her residence before Ms. Morris—maintained that the approval followed all established protocols. They argued that the architectural process functioned exactly as intended to balance neighbor interests.

Evidence of Compliance

Issue	HOA/Neighbor Defense
Committee Oversight	The Committee exercised active discretion by approving the balcony and gazebo but denying the neighbor's request for a second-story addition.
Regulatory Validation	Ms. Duran obtained building permits from the City of Buckeye; the structures passed all municipal inspections and a final HOA inspection.
Timeline Adherence	Evidence demonstrated that construction commenced within 90 days and was completed within the six-month window required by the 2011 Guidelines.
Harmony & Precedent	Committee member Willard Brunner testified that "numerous" similar balconies and gazebos exist in Sundance, making these structures consistent with community "harmony."

The Legal Verdict: Why the Petition was Dismissed

The case was adjudicated by ALJ M. Douglas under the "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard, requiring the Petitioner to prove her claims were "more likely true than not." Ultimately, the ALJ found that Ms. Morris failed to meet this burden.

The ruling was based on the broad authority granted to the Committee under the CC&Rs:

Objective Harmony: Under Article VII, Section 7.01, the Committee is tasked with reviewing plans for harmony with "surrounding structures, landscaping, topography and views." The judge found the Committee’s determination that the structures met community standards to be credible.
Compliance with Law: Per Section 7.04, the neighbor’s successful acquisition of City of Buckeye permits and subsequent passing of inspections provided strong evidence of compliance.
Finality of Authority: The court highlighted Article VII, Section 7.07, which states that Board decisions regarding architectural control are final and not subject to further appeal or alternate dispute resolution.

Because the structures were consistent with community standards and the "as-built" measurements matched the approved plans, the ALJ recommended dismissal.

Administrative Post-Script: The Order to Vacate

The legal proceedings saw a brief extension when a rehearing was initially considered. However, the matter reached its final conclusion in October 2015. ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer signed an "Order Vacating Hearing" after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety rescinded the rehearing request. The matter was remanded to the Department, effectively upholding ALJ Douglas's initial recommendation and finalizing the dismissal of Ms. Morris's claims.

Conclusion: Key Takeaways for HOA Members

The Morris case provides a roadmap for how architectural governance is viewed through a legal lens. For homeowners, the following lessons are paramount:

Understand the "Harmony" Clause: Architectural committees evaluate projects based on the aesthetic of the entire community, not the subjective preference of an individual. Per Section 7.01, "harmony" is a collective standard involving topography and surrounding structures, which often supersedes a single neighbor's desire for a specific view.
Documentation is Mandatory: Formal disputes require a paper trail. A critical weakness in Ms. Morris’s case was her admission (referencing Paragraph 14 of the findings) that her requests for documents from the HOA were not made in writing. Verbal requests rarely hold weight in administrative hearings.
The Limits of Veto Power: As testified by Willard Brunner, "neighbors do not have a veto power for construction projects" that have been approved by the HOA and meet municipal codes. Living in a planned community means accepting the Committee’s authorized discretion over architectural changes.

Ultimately, this dispute reinforces that while CC&Rs protect a community's standards, they do not guarantee an individual homeowner permanent control over their neighbor’s airspace or aesthetic choices, provided the formal Architectural Change Request process is followed.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Deanna Morris (Petitioner)
Sundance Residential HOA member
Appeared on her own behalf; owner of residence in Sundance
Rod Fleishman (Witness)
Co-owner of Petitioner's residence
Testified regarding scenic view blockage

Respondent Side

Mark Sahl (Respondent Attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Represented Sundance Residential HOA
Martha Duran (Witness)
Neighbor/Homeowner
Testified regarding her construction of the gazebo/balcony at issue
Willard Brunner (Witness)
Sundance Architectural Committee
Member of the Committee; testified regarding approval process
Tom Campanella (Witness)
Sundance Residential HOA
Community Manager

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presided over the hearing and issued the decision
Debra Blake (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Interim Director
Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Order Vacating Hearing in related docket 15F-H1515001-BFS-rhg
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
CC'd on Order Vacating Hearing
Dawn Vandeberg (Administrative Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed/Processed Order Vacating Hearing

Strike, Kristyne P. vs. Las Torres Homeowners Association

Posted on May 16, 2014 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	13F-H1314009-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2014-05-16
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	The Respondent (HOA) was deemed the prevailing party and the matter was dismissed. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner's claim regarding the unauthorized concrete slab in the common area was barred by the one-year statute of limitations because the slab had been in existence since 1998 and the Petitioner had owned her unit since 2007, filing the petition in 2013.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Krystine P. Strike	Counsel	—
Respondent	Las Torres Homeowners Association	Counsel	Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1221, A.R.S. § 33-1218

Outcome Summary

The Respondent (HOA) was deemed the prevailing party and the matter was dismissed. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner's claim regarding the unauthorized concrete slab in the common area was barred by the one-year statute of limitations because the slab had been in existence since 1998 and the Petitioner had owned her unit since 2007, filing the petition in 2013.

Why this result: Statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541) expired.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized alteration of common area

Petitioner alleged the Association violated statutes by allowing a neighbor to maintain and use a concrete slab in the common area as a private patio without proper consent or authorization.

Orders: The matter is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

13F-H1314009-BFS Decision – 394719.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:48:38 (125.8 KB)

13F-H1314009-BFS Decision – 399395.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:48:41 (58.3 KB)

13F-H1314009-BFS Decision – 394719.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:46 (125.8 KB)

13F-H1314009-BFS Decision – 399395.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:46 (58.3 KB)

Krystine P. Strike vs. Las Torres Homeowners Association: Administrative Law Judge Decision and Analysis

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative hearing and subsequent final decision in the matter of Krystine P. Strike vs. Las Torres Homeowners Association (No. 13F-H1314009-BFS). The dispute centered on a concrete slab constructed in a common area at Las Torres, a homeowners' association in Carefree, Arizona. Petitioner Krystine P. Strike alleged that the association violated state statutes by allowing a neighbor to use the common area as a private patio, thereby infringing on her privacy rights and improperly altering common elements.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that while the concrete slab was indeed located in a common area, it had been in existence since 1998—long before the Petitioner purchased her unit in 2007. Ultimately, the ALJ ruled that the Petitioner’s claims were time-barred under the applicable one-year statute of limitations. The matter was dismissed on May 16, 2014, and the decision was certified as final on June 24, 2014.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Classification of Common Elements

A primary point of contention in the case was the legal classification of the concrete slab and the land it occupied. The Petitioner argued that the association violated statutes regarding the reallocation of common elements.

General Common Element vs. Limited Common Element: The Respondent (Las Torres) argued that the area was a "General Common Element" as defined in the Association's Declaration. This distinction is critical because A.R.S. § 33-1218 primarily concerns "Limited Common Elements"—areas assigned for the exclusive use of one or more (but fewer than all) units.
Use and Exclusivity: The Association maintained that the neighbor in unit 604 did not have exclusive rights to the area. Testimony revealed that the Association had repeatedly ordered the owner of unit 604 to remove furniture from the slab when not in use, reinforcing that the area remained common property rather than a private patio.

2. Statutory Violations and Jurisdiction

The Petitioner alleged violations of two specific Arizona Revised Statutes:

A.R.S. § 33-1218: Regarding the allocation and alteration of limited common elements.
A.R.S. § 33-1221: Regarding improvements or alterations to units and the requirement for written permission to change the appearance of common elements.

The Association countered that the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety lacked the jurisdiction to grant the specific relief requested by the Petitioner—the restoration of the common area to its unaltered state. Such a request constitutes injunctive relief, which the Association argued was outside the Department’s statutory authority under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02.

3. Statute of Limitations and the "Code of Conduct"

The most significant legal hurdle for the Petitioner was the timing of the filing. Under A.R.S. § 12-541, actions regarding liabilities created by statute must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrues.

Accrual of Action: The ALJ found that the slab existed when the Petitioner moved in (2007), but she did not file her petition until 2013, approximately six years later.
Board Member Restrictions: The Petitioner attempted to circumvent the statute of limitations by testifying that her former role on the Board of Directors and a signed "Code of Conduct" prevented her from filing unilateral actions against the Association. She resigned in April 2013 and filed shortly thereafter. However, the ALJ did not find this argument sufficient to toll the statute of limitations.

4. Historical Precedent and Documentation

The case highlighted the challenges of HOA governance over long periods.

Legacy Construction: The slab was built in 1998 by previous owners of units 603 and 604 with "tacit approval" from the Association and inspection by the City of Carefree.
Record Keeping: Testimony from Board member Pamela A. Dixon revealed that the Association had purged old records from the 1990s, meaning there was no formal written record of the original Board's approval for the slab.

Important Quotes with Context

Petitioner’s Allegation

"The association (Las Torres) has allowed an owner to alter the common area between units by placing a concrete slab, filling it with furniture, and using as her patio… The HOA did [not] consider my privacy rights. I want the common area restored to its unaltered state."

— Krystine P. Strike, Petition for Hearing

Context: This quote establishes the core of the Petitioner's complaint: that the HOA's failure to enforce common area boundaries resulted in a private encroachment that affected her property rights and privacy.

Respondent’s Defense

"The area at issue is not a limited common element. The common area between Petitioner’s unit and her neighbor’s unit is simply a General Common Element… Petitioner’s neighbor does not have exclusive use to this area."

— Las Torres Homeowners Association, Answer to Petition

Context: This forms the basis of the HOA's legal defense, arguing that the statutes cited by the Petitioner regarding "limited common elements" were inapplicable because the area remained open to the general community.

Administrative Law Judge’s Finding

"Because Ms. Strike’s petition was not filed within one year of the accrual of Ms. Strike’s cause of action, it is time-barred."

— M. Douglas, Administrative Law Judge

Context: This was the dispositive conclusion of the case. Regardless of the merits of the encroachment claim, the delay in filing (six years after purchasing the unit) invalidated the legal standing of the petition.

Actionable Insights

Based on the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, the following insights are relevant for homeowners and associations:

Category	Insight
Timeliness of Claims	Potential litigants must file complaints within one year of discovering a statutory violation. Waiting several years, even for reasons of professional conduct (such as being a Board member), likely results in the claim being time-barred.
Common Area Enforcement	Associations should maintain clear distinctions between General Common Elements and Limited Common Elements. Allowing furniture or personal property to remain in general common areas can create the appearance of a private patio, leading to disputes between neighbors.
Record Retention	The lack of records from the 1990s complicated the Association's ability to prove formal approval. HOAs should maintain permanent records of any permanent structural changes or approvals involving common elements to prevent future litigation.
Notice of Violation	The Association’s practice of issuing multiple, documented violation letters (e.g., Nov 2013, Jan 2014, Feb 2014, April 2014) served as evidence that they were actively attempting to manage the use of the common area, even if the structure itself was permanent.
Jurisdictional Awareness	Parties should be aware that administrative hearings through the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety have specific jurisdictional limits. Requests for injunctive relief, such as the physical removal of a concrete structure, may require a different legal venue.

Study Guide: Krystine P. Strike vs. Las Torres Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal case Krystine P. Strike v. Las Torres Homeowners Association (No. 13F-H1314009-BFS). It examines the legal disputes regarding common area encroachments, the interpretation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) governing condominiums, and the application of statutes of limitations in administrative hearings.

I. Case Overview and Key Concepts

Background of the Dispute

The case centers on a dispute within the Las Torres Homeowners Association in Carefree, Arizona. Krystine P. Strike (Petitioner) alleged that the association allowed the owner of an adjacent unit (Unit 604) to improperly use a concrete slab in a common area as a private patio.

The concrete slab in question was constructed in 1998 by a previous owner who owned both units 603 and 604. It was built with the tacit approval of the HOA and inspected by the City of Carefree. Ms. Strike purchased Unit 603 in 2007, nine years after the slab was installed.

Primary Legal Allegations

The Petitioner alleged violations of two specific Arizona statutes:

A.R.S. § 33-1218: Governing the allocation and alteration of limited common elements.
A.R.S. § 33-1221: Governing improvements and alterations to units and the appearance of common elements.

The Petitioner sought the restoration of the common area to its "unaltered state," effectively requesting the removal of the concrete slab.

Defense and Findings

The Respondent (Las Torres HOA) argued that:

The statutes cited were inapplicable because the area was a General Common Element, not a Limited Common Element.
The neighbor did not have exclusive use of the area.
The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief (ordering the removal of the slab).
The claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations.

Final Ruling

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the matter. The primary reason for dismissal was the Statute of Limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541), as the Petitioner waited approximately six years after moving into her unit to file the petition, exceeding the one-year legal limit for actions based on a liability created by statute.

II. Referenced Provisions of Law

The following table outlines the statutes central to the proceedings:

Statute	Core Provision
A.R.S. § 12-541	Establishes a one-year statute of limitations for actions upon a liability created by statute.
A.R.S. § 33-1218	Mandates that the allocation of limited common elements (patios, balconies, etc.) cannot be altered without the consent of affected unit owners.
A.R.S. § 33-1221	Prohibits unit owners from changing the appearance of common elements or the exterior of a unit without written permission from the association.
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01	Permits homeowners to file petitions with the Department regarding violations of community documents or statutes.
A.A.C. R2-19-119	Establishes that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting the claim, using the "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

Who originally constructed the concrete slab at the center of the dispute, and when?

Answer: The previous owners of Units 603 and 604 constructed the slab in 1998.

What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the classification of the common area?

Answer: The Respondent argued the area was a "General Common Element" rather than a "Limited Common Element," meaning no specific owner had exclusive use or a specific allocation to it under A.R.S. § 33-1218.

Why did Ms. Strike argue that the statute of limitations should not apply to her?

Answer: She claimed that as a former member of the Board of Directors, she had signed a Code of Conduct that prevented her from filing unilateral actions against the association while serving.

How did the ALJ define "Preponderion of the Evidence"?

Answer: It is the standard of proof where the finder of fact is persuaded that a proposition is "more likely true than not."

What action did the HOA take regarding the neighbor's use of the slab in 2013 and 2014?

Answer: The HOA issued four letters (November 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and April 2014) asking the owner of Unit 604 to remove her patio furniture from the common area when not in use.

What was the final outcome of the ALJ's Recommended Order?

Answer: The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party, and the matter was dismissed.

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

The Impact of the Statute of Limitations: Analyze the ALJ’s decision to dismiss the case based on A.R.S. § 12-541. Discuss why the law imposes a one-year limit on statutory claims and how the timeline of Ms. Strike’s residency (2007–2013) influenced the "accrual" of the cause of action.
General vs. Limited Common Elements: Compare and contrast "General Common Elements" and "Limited Common Elements" based on the arguments presented in the case. How does the classification of an area change the legal requirements for consent and allocation under A.R.S. § 33-1218?
Administrative Jurisdiction and Relief: The Respondent argued that the Department lacked jurisdiction to grant the "injunctive relief" requested by the Petitioner (restoring the area to its unaltered state). Discuss the limitations of administrative hearings compared to superior courts regarding the power to order the physical removal of structures.

V. Glossary of Important Terms

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over an administrative hearing and issues findings of fact and recommended orders.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes): The codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Burden of Proof: The obligation of a party to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the burden was on the Petitioner.
Certification of Decision: The process by which an ALJ decision becomes the final administrative decision of an agency (e.g., the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety) if no other action is taken within a specific timeframe.
Common Element: Portions of a condominium or planned community owned by all members or the association, rather than an individual unit owner.
General Common Element: An area within the association that is not assigned to a specific unit and is available for use by all, as defined by the association's Declaration.
Injunctive Relief: A legal remedy that requires a party to do, or refrain from doing, a specific act (such as removing a concrete slab).
Limited Common Element: Portions of the common elements allocated by the declaration for the exclusive use of one or more, but fewer than all, of the units (e.g., specific patios or balconies).
Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof used in civil and administrative cases, requiring that a claim be more likely true than not.
Statute of Limitations: A law that sets the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated.

The Concrete Slab Conflict: Lessons in HOA Law and Statute of Limitations

Introduction: The Common Area Conundrum

In the complex landscape of community association governance, the boundary between individual property enjoyment and collective regulatory authority is frequently a flashpoint for litigation. Disputes often emerge when long-standing physical modifications—tolerated for years—clash with modern interpretations of a declaration’s restrictive covenants. The case of Krystine P. Strike vs. Las Torres Homeowners Association serves as a definitive case study in the risks of delayed legal action. At the center of the conflict was an unapproved concrete slab in a general common area, a modification that persisted for fifteen years before triggering an administrative showdown that ultimately hinged more on timing than on the merits of the construction itself.

Case Background: The 15-Year Timeline

The history of this dispute demonstrates how historical "tacit approval" can complicate modern enforcement. The timeline of the concrete slab is as follows:

1998: The previous owners of Units 603 and 604 constructed a concrete slab in the common area to join their existing patios. This was done with the knowledge and tacit approval of the Association.
November 18, 1998: The City of Carefree, Arizona, inspected and approved the construction (validated via Respondent’s Exhibit 5, the City’s Inspection Card).
2007: Petitioner Krystine Strike purchased Unit 603, nine years after the slab’s installation.
June 2012: The owner of Unit 604 petitioned to enlarge the slab. The Board denied this expansion, asserting that the area was a General Common Element and not the private property of the owner.
November 2013: Ms. Strike filed a formal petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, seeking the removal of the slab and restoration of the area to its original state.

General vs. Limited Common Elements: The Legal Friction

The legal dispute focused on the classification of the land under Arizona law. The Association successfully argued that the area was a "General Common Element" rather than a "Limited Common Element," meaning no single owner held exclusive rights to it—a distinction that shaped the Board's enforcement strategy.

Legal Point	Petitioner's (Ms. Strike) Allegation	Respondent's (Las Torres HOA) Defense
A.R.S. § 33-1218	The HOA allowed an owner to reallocate common area without the consent of affected owners.	This statute applies only to Limited Common Elements. The area is a General Common Element.
A.R.S. § 33-1221	The neighbor altered the appearance of common elements without proper written permission.	The Association’s Declaration (Article IV) controls the use of General Common Elements.
Injunctive Relief	Petitioner requested the common area be "restored to its unaltered state."	The Department lacks jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02 to grant the injunctive relief (removal) requested.

The "Statute of Limitations" Factor

The dismissal of the case hinged on the threshold issue of timeliness. Under A.R.S. § 12-541, actions based upon a liability created by statute must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrues.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that because the slab existed and was visible when Ms. Strike purchased her unit in 2007, her 2013 filing was six years overdue. Notably, the ALJ rejected the Petitioner's argument that the "Code of Conduct" she signed as a Board member—which she claimed prevented her from filing unilateral actions—effectively paused or "tolled" the statute of limitations. The ruling clarified that Board service or personal agreements do not excuse a failure to meet statutory deadlines; the claim was officially "time-barred."

HOA Enforcement and Board Responsibility

The record reveals a Board caught between the "tacit approval" granted by their 1990s predecessors and the need to curb current owner overreach. While the Association allowed the slab to remain, they actively challenged the neighbor’s attempt to claim it as private space.

Evidence of the Board’s consistent enforcement included four violation letters sent to the owner of Unit 604 demanding the removal of personal furniture from the common area:

November 1, 2013
January 7, 2014
February 20, 2014
April 21, 2014

Board members Pamela A. Dixon and Marc Vasquez testified that these actions were officially authorized. However, the Association faced significant evidentiary hurdles because records from the 1990s had been purged, leaving the Board to rely on municipal records like the City of Carefree’s 1998 inspection card to verify the slab’s history.

Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

The Strike decision provides critical lessons for managing community property and legal disputes:

Know Your Deadlines: In Arizona, the one-year statute of limitations is a strict barrier. If you identify a statutory violation, legal action must be initiated promptly; delays based on Board service or internal politics will not save a late claim.
Due Diligence is Essential: Buyers must inspect common areas for modifications before closing. A modification that receives "tacit approval" from a previous Board can become a permanent fixture that a future Board cannot—or will not—remove.
Record Keeping is a Fiduciary Duty: The purging of 1990s records nearly left the HOA without a defense. Boards must maintain permanent records of architectural approvals and common area modifications to protect the association from future litigation.
General Common Elements are Not Private: The placement of furniture does not grant exclusive rights. Boards must be vigilant in ensuring that "General" areas remain open to all and do not gradually morph into "Limited" elements through owner encroachment.

Conclusion: Final Decision and Order

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove her case within the legally mandated timeframe. The Respondent, Las Torres Homeowners Association, was designated the prevailing party, and the matter was dismissed. This case serves as a stark reminder that in community association law, the merits of a dispute are secondary to the requirement of timely legal action.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Krystine P. Strike (petitioner)
Unit 603 Owner
Appeared on her own behalf; former Board member

Respondent Side

Mark K. Sahl (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Attorney for Las Torres Homeowners Association
Pamela A. Dixon (witness)
Las Torres Homeowners Association
Board Member
Marc Vasquez (witness)
Las Torres Homeowners Association
Testified regarding Board meetings and violation letters

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presiding Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed on transmission of decision
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Certification of Decision
Joni Cage (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
c/o for Gene Palma
Rosella J. Rodriguez (administrative staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Mailed/faxed the certification

Varhely, Emry & Muriel vs. Eighth Street Townhouse Association

Posted on March 1, 2013 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1213009-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2013-03-01
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The ALJ dismissed the petition because the Respondent, having fewer than 50 units, was not statutorily required to provide the specific disclosure statement regarding unit alterations or improvements that the Petitioners claimed was missing.
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Emry & Muriel Varhely	Counsel	—
Respondent	Eighth Street Square Townhouse Association	Counsel	Nikita Patel

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1806

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition because the Respondent, having fewer than 50 units, was not statutorily required to provide the specific disclosure statement regarding unit alterations or improvements that the Petitioners claimed was missing.

Why this result: The Respondent successfully established that it governs a community with fewer than 50 units, which exempted it from the specific disclosure requirement alleged by the Petitioners.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide statement regarding existing violations at sale

Petitioners alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1806 by failing to provide a statement as to whether association records reflected any alterations or improvements to the unit that violated the declaration prior to closing escrow.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed; no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

12F-H1213009-BFS Decision – 327965.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:44:41 (86.7 KB)

12F-H1213009-BFS Decision – 333516.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:44:45 (57.9 KB)

12F-H1213009-BFS Decision – 327965.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:22 (86.7 KB)

12F-H1213009-BFS Decision – 333516.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:23 (57.9 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Varhely v. Eighth Street Square Townhouse Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative legal proceedings in the matter of Emry & Muriel Varhely vs. Eighth Street Square Townhouse Association (No. 12F-H1213009-BFS). The case centered on allegations that the Eighth Street Square Townhouse Association (Respondent) violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1806 by failing to disclose existing property violations to the Petitioners during their unit purchase in February 2012.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Petitioners failed to establish a violation by the Respondent. The decision turned primarily on the size of the community, as the statutory disclosure obligations for associations differ based on whether a planned community contains more or fewer than 50 units. Because the Eighth Street Square community consists of only 48 units, the legal burden for providing specific violation statements did not fall upon the Association under the cited statute. The decision was certified as final on April 10, 2013.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Disclosure Obligations (A.R.S. § 33-1806)

The core of the dispute involved the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1806, which mandates the disclosure of certain information to purchasers of units within planned communities.

The 50-Unit Threshold: The statute distinguishes between small and large communities. For communities with fewer than 50 units, the "member" (seller) is typically responsible for providing required documentation to the purchaser.
The Definition of "Member": Under A.R.S. § 33-1806(G), a "member" is defined as the seller of the unit title. Importantly, this definition excludes trustees of a deed of trust selling property in a trustee's sale.
Association Responsibility: The Association’s obligation to provide a statement regarding alterations or improvements that violate the Declaration is specifically tied to the size of the community. In this case, since Eighth Street Square has 48 units, the Association was not legally mandated to provide the statement of violations that the Petitioners expected.

2. Burdens of Proof and Evidence

The proceedings were governed by the standard of a "preponderance of the evidence."

Petitioner's Burden: As the initiating party, the Varhelys bore the burden of proving that the Association had a legal duty to provide the violation statement and failed to do so.
Respondent's Defense: The Association argued that because the community fell below the 50-unit threshold, they were not responsible for the specific disclosures requested.
The Ruling on Knowledge: The ALJ noted that even if the seller (ING Bank FSB) was unaware of the violation, and even though the Association had provided some documentation, this did not create a statutory obligation for the Association to provide a full statement of violations where one did not exist by law.

3. Impact of Partial Disclosure

A secondary theme was the Petitioners' reliance on partial information. The Association had provided "CondoCerts" and some other unit-related documents prior to closing. The Petitioners argued that because the Association provided some documents, they were obligated to provide all relevant documents, including a statement of violations. The ALJ rejected this argument, ruling that voluntary partial disclosure does not extend an association's statutory obligations beyond what is written in A.R.S. § 33-1806.

Important Quotes with Context

On the Definition of Preponderance of the Evidence

"Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not."

— Context: Cited from Black's Law Dictionary to establish the legal standard the Petitioners had to meet to prove the Association violated the law.

On the Statutory Obligation for Small Communities

"For planned communities with fewer than fifty units, a member shall mail or deliver to a purchaser… a statement as to whether the member has any knowledge of any alterations or improvements to the unit that violate the declaration."

— Context: Referring to A.R.S. § 33-1806(A) and (f), highlighting that in small communities, the disclosure burden rests with the seller ("member"), not the association.

On the Association's Lack of Obligation

"Regardless of the seller’s knowledge of a violation or that Respondent provided some documents relating to the unit, Respondent had no obligation under A.R.S. § 33-1806 to notify Petitioners of the known violation."

— Context: The ALJ's definitive legal conclusion that the Association was not liable for the nondisclosure, despite the Petitioners' arguments regarding the seller's lack of knowledge.

Summary of Findings and Actionable Insights

Case Timeline and Facts

Event	Date
Purchase Contract Entered	February 2012
Respondent provided "CondoCerts"	March 13, 2012
Escrow Closed	March 13, 2012
Petition Filed with Department	October 22, 2012
Administrative Hearing Held	February 13, 2013
ALJ Decision Issued	March 1, 2013
Decision Certified as Final	April 10, 2013

Actionable Insights for Stakeholders

Due Diligence on Community Size: Purchasers in Arizona planned communities should determine the total number of units in the association early in the due diligence process. If the community has fewer than 50 units, the purchaser cannot legally compel the association to provide the violation disclosures mandated for larger communities.
Seller Disclosure Limitations: In cases involving foreclosures (such as the purchase from ING Bank FSB in this case), the "member" disclosure requirements may be complicated by the seller's lack of history with the property. Purchasers should be aware that if the association is not required to disclose violations, and the seller has no knowledge of them, the purchaser may inherit existing violations.
Statutory Limits on Association Liability: Providing some documentation out of courtesy or standard procedure does not legally bind an association to fulfill all disclosure requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1806 if the community size falls below the statutory threshold.
Appellate Rights: Following an ALJ decision, parties have the right to request a rehearing from the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety or seek review by the Superior Court, provided they act within the statutory timeframes (in this case, action was required by April 5, 2013, to prevent the decision from becoming final).

Case Study: Varhely v. Eighth Street Square Townhouse Association – A.R.S. § 33-1806 Application

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal dispute between Emry and Muriel Varhely (Petitioners) and the Eighth Street Square Townhouse Association (Respondent). It focuses on the interpretation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1806 regarding disclosure obligations in planned communities.

Key Concepts and Case Summary

The central issue of this case was whether a homeowners association is legally required to disclose existing violations to a potential buyer when the community contains fewer than 50 units.

Background and Dispute

In February 2012, the Petitioners contracted to purchase a unit in Eighth Street Square, a community in Phoenix, Arizona. The unit was previously owned by ING Bank FSB, which had acquired it through foreclosure. During the escrow process, the Respondent provided "CondoCerts" information and other documents but did not provide a specific statement regarding whether association records reflected alterations or improvements that violated the community’s Declaration.

After closing escrow, the Petitioners alleged that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1806 by failing to provide notice of existing violations.

Legal Thresholds and Findings

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined the following:

Unit Count: Eighth Street Square consists of 48 units (numbered 1 through 49, excluding unit 13).
Statutory Requirement: Under A.R.S. § 33-1806, the obligation for an association to provide a statement regarding violations only applies to planned communities with 50 units or more.
Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, which they failed to do because the community fell below the 50-unit threshold.
Outcome: The Petition was dismissed, and the decision was certified as final when the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to modify the ALJ’s recommendation.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. What is the specific unit count of Eighth Street Square, and why is that number significant in this case? The community has 48 units. This is significant because A.R.S. § 33-1806 dictates different disclosure responsibilities for associations with fewer than 50 units compared to those with 50 or more.

2. Who was the seller of the unit, and how did they acquire the title? The seller was ING Bank FSB. The bank acquired the title to the unit through foreclosure.

3. According to A.R.S. § 33-1806(G), who is generally responsible for providing disclosure documents in a sale? The "member," which is defined as the seller of the unit title. However, this definition specifically excludes a trustee of a deed of trust selling property in a trustee's sale.

4. What was the Petitioners' primary argument regarding the Respondent's partial disclosure? The Petitioners argued that because the Respondent provided some documents required under the statute, they were obligated to provide all required documents, including the statement on violations. They also argued they were unaware the community had fewer than 50 units.

5. What is the "preponderance of the evidence" standard used in this hearing? It is evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition; essentially, it shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The 50-Unit Disclosure Threshold Analyze the implications of the 50-unit threshold established in A.R.S. § 33-1806. Discuss how this threshold shifts the burden of due diligence between the buyer, the seller, and the association. In your response, consider the ALJ’s ruling that the association had no obligation to notify the Petitioners of violations, regardless of whether the seller was aware of them.

2. Disclosure Obligations in Foreclosure Sales Examine the complexities of real estate disclosures when a property is sold by a bank following foreclosure (as seen with ING Bank FSB). How does A.R.S. § 33-1806(G) impact a buyer's ability to obtain information about property violations, and what protections, if any, does the statute provide to associations in these scenarios?

3. Equitable Reliance vs. Statutory Language The Petitioners argued they relied on the Respondent’s act of providing some documents as an indication that no violations existed. Evaluate the conflict between "equitable reliance" (the idea that one's actions create an expectation) and the strict interpretation of statutory language as applied by the ALJ in this decision.

Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition
A.R.S. § 33-1806	The Arizona Revised Statute governing the resale of units in a planned community and the required disclosure of association records.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	An official who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (Declaration)	The legal documents that establish the rules and regulations for a planned community or homeowners association.
CondoCerts	A service or document providing specific association information, often requested by escrow companies during a property sale.
Escrow	A legal arrangement where a third party holds funds or assets until specific conditions of a contract (like a home sale) are met.
Preponderance of the Evidence	The legal standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning the claim is more likely to be true than not true.
Planned Community	A real estate development which includes common areas and is governed by an association of homeowners.
Trustee's Sale	A foreclosure sale of real property conducted by a trustee under a deed of trust.
Violation	An alteration or improvement to a unit that does not comply with the community’s Declaration or rules.

Understanding the "Rule of 50": A Cautionary Tale of HOA Disclosures and A.R.S. § 33-1806

1. Introduction: The Hidden Risks of the "As-Is" Purchase

For many real estate investors and homebuyers, a foreclosure property sold "as-is" represents a prime opportunity for equity. However, when that property is situated within a planned community, a specific statutory threshold—which I call the "Rule of 50"—can transform a perceived bargain into a legal minefield. In Arizona, the size of your community is not just a matter of density; it is the legal pivot point that determines who is responsible for disclosing property violations.

The case of Emry & Muriel Varhely vs. Eighth Street Square Townhouse Association serves as a sobering reminder of how disclosure expectations can clash with statutory realities. The Varhelys discovered that "not knowing" the law is no defense when a community falls below the 50-unit threshold. In such cases, the burden of disclosure shifts away from the Association, often leaving buyers in the lurch during distressed sales.

2. The Dispute: A Surprise Violation After Closing

The Varhelys' legal journey began with a purchase from ING Bank FSB, which had acquired a unit in the Eighth Street Square community through foreclosure. Like many bank-owned sales, the transaction was handled with a degree of distance that left the buyers vulnerable.

While the Association provided "CondoCerts" to the escrow company—which noted the existence of general violations—the Varhelys did not receive a formal, detailed statement regarding specific unapproved alterations or improvements before they closed. It was only after taking possession that the gravity of the property's non-compliance became clear.

Timeline of the Dispute:

February 2012: Petitioners enter into a contract to purchase the unit from ING Bank FSB.
March 13, 2012: The Association provides "CondoCerts" to the escrow company. These documents mention violations but lack a formal statement on specific improvements violating the community’s Declaration.
March 13, 2012: Escrow closes, and title is transferred to the Varhelys.
October 22, 2012: Realizing the impact of the undisclosed issues, the Varhelys file a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
February 13, 2013: An administrative hearing is held to determine if the Association breached its duties under A.R.S. § 33-1806.

A critical fact established during the proceedings was the exact size of the community. While units were numbered 1 through 49, unit number 13 does not exist, bringing the total count to exactly 48 units. This single missing unit changed the entire legal landscape of the case.

3. The Legal Turning Point: A.R.S. § 33-1806 Explained

The resolution of this dispute hinged entirely on the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1806. This statute dictates the disclosure obligations during the resale of a unit within a planned community, and it draws a hard line at the 50-unit mark.

Disclosure Obligations by Community Size

Communities with < 50 Units	Communities with 50+ Units
The "Member" (the seller) is legally responsible for mailing or delivering the disclosure documents to the purchaser.	The Association bears the primary burden of providing the statement of violations and other required documents.
The Association has no statutory obligation under A.R.S. § 33-1806 to provide a violation statement directly to the purchaser.	The Association must provide a statement as to whether its records reflect any alterations or improvements that violate the declaration.

Under A.R.S. § 33-1806(G), a "Member" is defined as the seller of the unit title. While this definition excludes a trustee in a trustee's sale, it applied to ING Bank FSB in this instance, as the bank had already acquired title and was acting as the seller.

4. Why the Homeowners Lost: The Association’s Defense

In administrative proceedings, the Petitioners bear the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. This means the Varhelys had to prove it was more probable than not that the Association violated a specific legal duty.

The Association’s defense was built on statutory immunity. Because Eighth Street Square consisted of only 48 units, the Association had no legal obligation under A.R.S. § 33-1806 to provide the specific violation statements the Varhelys sought. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the homeowners' arguments based on the following:

Irrelevance of Buyer Knowledge: The Varhelys argued they did not know the community had fewer than 50 units. The ALJ ruled that the statute applies based on the factual unit count, regardless of a buyer's awareness.
The "Partial Disclosure" Fallacy: The Varhelys claimed that because the Association provided some documents (the CondoCerts) to escrow, they were then obligated to provide all documents. The ALJ rejected this, noting that providing voluntary information does not create a statutory mandate where none exists.
The "Double Jeopardy" Clause: Crucially, A.R.S. § 33-1806(A)(3)(e) contains a warning for all buyers. It states that even if the Association is not required to disclose, the seller is not relieved of their obligation to disclose violations. Furthermore, the Association is not precluded from taking enforcement action against a buyer for violations that were "apparent at the time of purchase," even if they weren't in the records.

5. The Final Verdict: Dismissal and Certification

The Petitioners ultimately failed to establish a violation by the Respondent. On March 1, 2013, ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a recommended order for the dismissal of the petition, concluding that no action was required of the Association.

As the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to modify or reject this recommendation by the April 5 deadline, the decision achieved administrative finality. On April 10, 2013, the decision was officially certified as the final administrative decision.

6. Key Takeaways for Arizona Homebuyers

Verify the Statutory Threshold: Do not assume a community is "large." Verify the unit count personally. If the community has 49 or fewer units (remembering to check for "missing" unit numbers like Unit 13), your primary legal recourse for non-disclosure is against the seller, not the HOA.
Foreclosure Disclosure Gaps: In a foreclosure-resale scenario, the bank is the "Member" and is responsible for disclosures in small HOAs. However, banks often have no "actual knowledge" of violations. This creates a "disclosure vacuum" where the bank doesn't know and the HOA isn't legally required to tell you.
Beware of "Apparent" Violations: Under A.R.S. § 33-1806, an HOA in a small community can still fine you for violations that were visible at the time of purchase, even if they never mentioned them during escrow. Your due diligence must include a physical inspection specifically aimed at HOA compliance.
Sue the Right Party: The Varhelys’ case was dismissed largely because they targeted the Association. In communities with fewer than 50 units, any legal challenge regarding a failure to provide A.R.S. § 33-1806 disclosures must generally be directed at the seller.

Navigating the complexities of HOA law requires more than just reading a contract; it requires an understanding of the statutory thresholds that protect Associations from liability. When buying into a small community, the mantra must be caveat emptor—buyer beware.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Emry Varhely (petitioner)
Spelled 'Varhaly' in Source 2 mailing list
Muriel Varhely (petitioner)
Appeared on behalf of Petitioners

Respondent Side

Nikita Patel (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Represented Respondent

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Certification of Decision
Joni Cage (administrative staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed c/o for Gene Palma

Knight, Edmund R. vs. Springfield Community Association

Posted on January 31, 2013 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1213008-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2013-01-31
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 because the statute permits the redaction of individual employee compensation from association records.
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Edmund R. Knight	Counsel	—
Respondent	Springfield Community Association	Counsel	Chad Miesen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 because the statute permits the redaction of individual employee compensation from association records.

Why this result: The requested record fell under a statutory exception (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5)) protecting employee compensation data.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide complete employment contract

Petitioner requested a copy of the manager's employment contract. Respondent provided a redacted copy with compensation details removed. Petitioner argued he was entitled to full financial records.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

12F-H1213008-BFS Decision – 323297.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:44:29 (84.4 KB)

12F-H1213008-BFS Decision – 329618.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:44:33 (59.0 KB)

12F-H1213008-BFS Decision – 323297.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:18 (84.4 KB)

12F-H1213008-BFS Decision – 329618.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:18 (59.0 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Knight v. Springfield Community Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the administrative legal proceedings and final decision in the matter of Edmund R. Knight v. Springfield Community Association (No. 12F-H1213008-BFS). The dispute centered on a homeowner’s request for the complete employment contract of a community manager and the subsequent redaction of compensation details by the homeowners' association (HOA).

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805, associations are legally permitted to withhold specific portions of records relating to the compensation of individual employees. Consequently, the Petitioner failed to prove a statutory violation, and the petition was dismissed. This decision was certified as the final administrative action on March 13, 2013.

Case Background

The Springfield Community Association is a planned community of homeowners located in Chandler, Arizona. The conflict began in May 2012 when Petitioner Edmund R. Knight sought access to the employment contract of the association’s manager.

Timeline of Document Requests

Date	Action	Result
May 14, 2012	Petitioner submits written request for the manager’s contract.	Respondent provides a word processing document with compensation deleted.
June 8, 2012	Petitioner's counsel (J. Roger Wood, Esq.) requests a complete, unredacted copy.	Counsel argues A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) does not justify withholding data.
June 26, 2012	Respondent's counsel (Chad Miesen, Esq.) replies.	Respondent provides the original signed contract with compensation redacted.
October 4, 2012	Petitioner files a formal Petition.	Petitioner pays a $550.00 filing fee to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

Analysis of Key Themes

Statutory Transparency vs. Privacy Exemptions

The core of the dispute involved the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs the records of planned communities.

The Right to Access: Subsection A generally requires that all financial and other records of an association be made "reasonably available for examination by any member."
The Right to Withhold: Subsection B provides specific exemptions where records may be withheld from disclosure.

The Petitioner argued that as a homeowner, he was entitled to "all financial" records to ensure a full understanding of the association's financial standing. However, the Respondent relied on A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5), which explicitly allows an association to withhold records relating to the "compensation of… an individual employee of the association."

Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings

As the Petitioner, Edmund Knight bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Springfield Community Association violated the law. Under the legal definition used in this case, "preponderance of the evidence" refers to evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposition's, making the sought-after fact "more probable than not."

The ALJ determined that because the manager was an employee of the association, the association acted within its legal rights to redact the compensation information. Therefore, the Petitioner could not meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation.

Important Quotes and Context

Regarding the Right to Withhold Records

"Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: . . . 5. Records relating to the . . . compensation of . . . an individual employee of the association…"

— A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5), as cited in the Conclusions of Law.

Context: This statutory excerpt was the primary legal basis for the ALJ's decision. It serves as a specific exception to the general rule that association records must be open to members.

Regarding the Petitioner’s Argument

"Petitioner alleged that as a homeowner, he was entitled to the information he requested so he would have a full understanding of the financial standing of the association."

— Conclusion of Law No. 5.

Context: This highlights the Petitioner's motivation. He viewed the manager's salary not as private employee data, but as a critical component of the association's overall financial transparency.

The Final Ruling

"As the manager is an employee of the association, Respondent was entitled to redact compensation information from the records provided. Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805."

— Conclusions of Law No. 7 and 8.

Context: This represents the ALJ's application of the law to the facts, concluding that the association's actions were legally protected.

Actionable Insights

Employee Privacy Protections: Planned community associations in Arizona are not required to disclose individual employee compensation to members. While general financial records must be transparent, the specific pay of individuals (whether employees of the HOA or employees of a contractor) is protected under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5).
Redaction Practice: When responding to records requests that contain protected information, associations may provide the requested document with the sensitive portions (such as salary figures) redacted, rather than withholding the entire document.
Filing Consequences: Petitioners should be aware that filing a dispute involves a significant fee (in this case, $550.00). If the Petitioner fails to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, the petition will be dismissed without any required action from the Respondent.
Finality of ALJ Decisions: If the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety does not accept, reject, or modify an ALJ decision within a specific timeframe (pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08), the ALJ’s decision is automatically certified as the final administrative decision.

Final Administrative Action

The ALJ decision was transmitted on February 4, 2013. The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety had until March 11, 2013, to take action. As no action was received by that date, the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the decision as final on March 13, 2013. Parties retain the right to request a rehearing or seek review by the Superior Court, subject to specific statutory timelines.

Case Study: Edmund R. Knight vs. Springfield Community Association

This study guide examines the administrative law case of Edmund R. Knight v. Springfield Community Association (No. 12F-H1213008-BFS). The case centers on the interpretation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) regarding a homeowner's right to access association records versus the association's right to protect employee compensation information.

I. Key Concepts and Case Overview

Core Dispute

The primary issue in this case was whether the Springfield Community Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing a redacted copy of a property manager's employment contract to Edmund R. Knight (Petitioner). The Respondent withheld specific portions of the contract pertaining to the manager's compensation.

Legal Framework

The ruling was dictated by specific Arizona Revised Statutes and Administrative Codes:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): General mandate that all financial and other records of an association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member.
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5): A specific exception that allows an association to withhold records relating to the compensation of an individual employee or a contractor's employee working under the association's direction.
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B): Grants the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and planned community associations.
A.A.C. R2-19-119: Establishes that the Petitioner bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Procedural History and Timeline

Date	Event
May 14, 2012	Petitioner submits a written request for the association manager’s contract.
May 17, 2012	Respondent provides a word processing document with compensation details deleted.
June 8, 2012	Petitioner’s counsel requests a complete copy, arguing A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) does not justify withholding.
June 26, 2012	Respondent provides the original signed contract with compensation information redacted.
Oct 4, 2012	Petitioner files a formal Petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
Jan 15, 2013	Administrative hearing held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Tammy L. Eigenheer.
Jan 31, 2013	ALJ issues decision recommending dismissal of the Petition.
Mar 11, 2013	Deadline for the Department to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ decision.
Mar 13, 2013	ALJ decision certified as the final administrative decision due to Department inaction.

II. Glossary of Important Terms

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes): The codified statutory laws of the state of Arizona.
Burden of Proof: The obligation of a party (in this case, the Petitioner) to provide enough evidence to support their claim.
Certification of Decision: The process by which an ALJ's decision becomes final, often occurring if the supervising agency takes no action within a statutory timeframe.
Preponderance of the Evidence: A standard of proof meaning the evidence shows that the fact sought to be proved is "more probable than not."
Redaction: The process of censoring or obscuring part of a text for legal or confidentiality reasons.
Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed (here, the Springfield Community Association).

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

What was the specific filing fee paid by Edmund R. Knight to initiate his petition?
Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), which state department has the jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and planned community associations?
Why did the Respondent argue they were legally permitted to redact the manager's contract?
What definition did the Administrative Law Judge use for "Preponderance of the Evidence"?
What happened when the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety failed to act on the ALJ decision by March 11, 2013?
Who represented the Springfield Community Association during the proceedings?
What was the Petitioner’s primary argument for wanting the full, unredacted financial information of the manager's contract?

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

Statutory Interpretation: Compare the general disclosure requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) with the exceptions listed in A.R.S. § 33-1805(B). Discuss how the Administrative Law Judge balanced the member's right to "all financial records" against the association's right to withhold "compensation" information.
The Administrative Process: Analyze the timeline of this case from the initial record request in May 2012 to the final certification in March 2013. Discuss the role of the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety in resolving homeowner association disputes.
The Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings: Explain the significance of the "preponderance of the evidence" standard in this case. Why did the ALJ conclude that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden despite the Respondent admitting to redacting the document?
Rights of Appeal: Based on the Certification of Decision, what are the subsequent legal options for a party who disagrees with the final administrative decision? Include references to the role of the Superior Court and requests for rehearing.

V. Answer Key (Short-Answer)

$550.00.
The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
They cited A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5), which allows associations to withhold records relating to the compensation of an individual employee.
"Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not." (Source: Black’s Law Dictionary).
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D), the ALJ decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department.
Chad Miesen, Esq.
He argued that as a homeowner, he was entitled to the information to have a full understanding of the financial standing of the association.

Transparency vs. Privacy: A Deep Dive into HOA Records Disputes

For many homeowners, the internal finances of their Homeowners Association (HOA) are a black box they feel entitled to open. But as one Arizona homeowner learned the hard way, that curiosity can come with a $550 "sticker shock" and a sobering lesson in the limits of statutory transparency. The case of Edmund R. Knight vs. Springfield Community Association highlights the high-stakes friction between a member’s right to oversee association management and the privacy rights of the people running the community. At the heart of the battle was a singular, contested question: Can an HOA legally withhold or redact specific compensation figures from an employment contract requested by a member?

The Timeline of the Dispute

The road from a simple document request to a formal administrative hearing was paved with repeated attempts at disclosure and escalating legal demands. The following timeline outlines the transition from a neighborly inquiry to a litigated dispute:

May 14, 2012: Petitioner Edmund Knight submits a written request to the Springfield Community Association for a copy of the property manager’s employment contract.
May 17, 2012: The Association provides a word-processing version of the contract, but compensation details are deleted prior to printing.
June 8, 2012: Petitioner’s counsel, J. Roger Wood, Esq., demands a complete, unredacted copy, arguing that the statutes do not justify withholding the information.
June 26, 2012: The Association provides the original signed contract but redacts all portions relating to the manager's compensation.
October 4, 2012: Seeking a definitive win, Mr. Knight files a formal Petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, paying a $550.00 filing fee to initiate the process.
January 15, 2013: A formal hearing is convened before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to determine if the Association’s redactions violated state law.

The Legal Tug-of-War: A.R.S. § 33-1805 Explained

The dispute centered on the interpretation of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805. This statute serves as the "open books" law for HOAs, but it contains specific carve-outs designed to protect sensitive data. The "tug-of-war" in this case involved a strategic legal maneuver: Petitioner’s counsel argued that A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)—which typically protects privileged communications between the board and its attorney—did not justify the Association's secrecy. However, the Association countered by pointing to a different, more specific shield: Section (B)(5).

The Legal Framework of A.R.S. § 33-1805

Right to Disclosure (Section A)	Right to Withhold (Section B, Item 5)
The General Rule: Mandates that all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member.	The Privacy Exception: Permits an association to withhold books and records to the extent they relate to the compensation of an individual employee.

Mr. Knight argued that "all financial records" must include the exact cost of the manager's salary so that homeowners can fulfill their duty to monitor the association’s financial health. He posited that the broad mandate for transparency in Section A should override any privacy concerns regarding the contract.

The Administrative Law Judge’s Verdict

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer presided over the hearing. To prevail, Mr. Knight had to meet a specific legal threshold, a standard he ultimately failed to reach.

"Preponderance of the Evidence is '[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.'" — Black's Law Dictionary

Judge Eigenheer’s reasoning was anchored in the manager’s status as an "individual employee" of the Association. Because the manager held this specific status, the Association was legally entitled to redact compensation figures. The Judge found that the Association had acted within its rights by providing the signed contract while withholding the protected financial data, leading to a recommendation that the petition be dismissed.

Final Certification and Procedural Outcomes

In the Arizona administrative system, an ALJ issues a Recommended Order. This recommendation is then reviewed by a state agency—in this case, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety—which acts as the final decision-making body. The Department has the authority to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s findings.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08, the Department had until March 11, 2013, to take action on Judge Eigenheer's recommendation. When the deadline passed in silence, the ALJ’s decision was automatically certified as final. On March 13, 2013, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued the final certification, formally dismissing Mr. Knight's claims and concluding the litigation.

Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Associations

The Knight vs. Springfield case offers essential insights for anyone navigating the complex world of community governance:

The Limits of Transparency: While the phrase "all financial records" sounds absolute, it is subject to statutory exceptions. Transparency in an HOA is a qualified right, not a blank check for all information.
The Right to Redact Includes Contractors: The privacy protection under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5) is broad. It covers not only direct employees of the association but also employees of a contractor (such as a management company) who work under the association's direction.
The Burden of Proof: The homeowner (Petitioner) always carries the burden of proving a violation. If an association can point to a specific statutory exception, the homeowner must provide "more convincing" evidence to the contrary—a high bar in the face of clear privacy laws.

Conclusion

The dismissal of the petition in Edmund R. Knight vs. Springfield Community Association stands as a firm reminder that employee privacy is a primary concern under Arizona law. While homeowners have a legitimate interest in the fiscal management of their communities, that interest stops at the individual’s paycheck. Before spending hundreds of dollars in filing fees and engaging in a formal legal battle, homeowners should carefully review state statutes like A.R.S. § 33-1805 to ensure the "missing" information they seek isn't actually protected by law.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Edmund R. Knight (Petitioner)
Homeowner
Appeared on his own behalf
J. Roger Wood (attorney)
Sent a request on behalf of Petitioner on June 8, 2012

Respondent Side

Chad Miesen (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Represented Springfield Community Association

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presided over the hearing and issued the decision
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Agency Director to whom the decision was transmitted
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decision as final
Joni Cage (staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed in mailing address for Gene Palma

Sellers, John & Debborah vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property

Posted on January 17, 2013 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212002-BFS, 12F-H1212009-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2013-01-17
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	The ALJ dismissed both petitions (consolidated). The judge ruled that the Architectural Review Committee meetings were not regularly scheduled and thus not subject to open meeting notice requirements. Additionally, the judge ruled that the records requested by Petitioners were properly withheld under attorney-client privilege.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John and Debborah Sellers	Counsel	—
Respondent	Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association	Counsel	Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed both petitions (consolidated). The judge ruled that the Architectural Review Committee meetings were not regularly scheduled and thus not subject to open meeting notice requirements. Additionally, the judge ruled that the records requested by Petitioners were properly withheld under attorney-client privilege.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated statutes or governing documents; specific exceptions for non-regularly scheduled meetings and privileged records applied.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to notice and conduct publicly ARC Meetings

Petitioners alleged that the ARC failed to notice and conduct meetings publicly. The HOA argued ARC meetings are not regularly scheduled and occur only as necessary, thus not requiring notice.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Failure to provide requested HOA records

Petitioners requested attorney invoices and communications. The HOA denied the request based on attorney-client privilege.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

12F-H1212002-BFS Decision – 321619.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:39:42 (126.6 KB)

12F-H1212002-BFS Decision – 327760.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:39:45 (58.9 KB)

12F-H1212002-BFS Decision – 321619.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:16 (129.8 KB)

12F-H1212002-BFS Decision – 327760.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:16 (58.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative litigation (Case Nos. 12F-H1212002-BFS and 12F-H1212009-BFS) involving John and Debborah Sellers (Petitioners) and the Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association (Respondent). The disputes, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, centered on two primary allegations: the Association’s failure to notice and conduct public Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings, and the Association’s refusal to provide specific records, including attorney invoices and third-party communications.

Following hearings held on September 26, 2012, and January 4, 2013, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas issued a decision on January 17, 2013, dismissing both petitions. The ALJ concluded that the ARC meetings were not "regularly scheduled" and therefore not subject to statutory notice requirements. Furthermore, the ALJ ruled that the records withheld by the Association were protected under attorney-client privilege and pending litigation exceptions. This decision was officially certified as the final administrative decision on February 28, 2013.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. The Distinction of "Regularly Scheduled" Meetings

A central theme of the litigation was the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), which mandates that "regularly scheduled committee meetings" be open to all members. The Petitioners argued that the ARC’s failure to notice these meetings violated both state law and community documents.

However, testimony from Association representatives established a different operational reality:

Ad Hoc Scheduling: ARC meetings were described as occurring "from time to time as necessary" or "on demand," depending entirely on the submission of architectural applications.
Bylaw Compliance: The Association’s Bylaws (Article XI Section 3) explicitly state the ARC shall meet "from time to time as necessary."
Informal Venue: Testimony revealed that meetings often took place at committee members' residences and, while not formally noticed, had never been closed to a member who specifically requested to attend.

The ALJ determined that because the meetings were irregular and demand-driven rather than "regularly scheduled," the Association was not legally obligated to provide public notice.

2. Statutory Records Disclosure vs. Legal Privilege

The second major theme involved the balance between a homeowner's right to examine Association records (A.R.S. § 33-1805) and the Association's right to protect sensitive legal information. The Petitioners sought invoices from the Association’s attorneys and communications with third parties, arguing these did not constitute privileged material.

The Association successfully defended its refusal to disclose these documents by citing:

Pending Litigation: The City of Prescott was involved in civil litigation with the Association at the time of the hearing.
Attorney-Client Privilege: The Association argued that the withheld documents related to legal advice or pending/contemplated litigation.
Statutory Exceptions: A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) explicitly allows associations to withhold records related to privileged communications and pending litigation.

The ALJ found that the Association’s refusal was consistent with these statutory protections, and the Petitioners failed to prove that the refusal violated the law or community documents.

3. Burden of Proof in Administrative Proceedings

The case highlights the procedural requirement that the party asserting a claim—in this case, the Petitioners—bears the "burden of proof." Under Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119, the standard of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning the petitioner must prove their claims are "more likely true than not." The ALJ repeatedly noted that the Petitioners failed to meet this threshold for both the meeting notice and the records disclosure claims.

Important Quotes and Context

Regarding ARC Meeting Frequency

"The Architectural Review Committee shall meet from time to time as necessary to perform its duties hereunder… The Committee shall keep and maintain a written record of all actions taken by it at such meetings or otherwise."

— Crossings’ Bylaws, Article XI Section 3 (Context: This provision was used to establish that the ARC was not required to have a regular, predictable schedule).

"ARC meetings are not noticed but are open to all members… the committee has never denied access to any member to attend an ARC meeting… the committee has never received a request from an owner to attend an ARC meeting."

— Brenda Doziar, Board and ARC Member (Context: Testimony provided to show the Association did not intentionally exclude members, but rather operated informally based on submission volume).

Regarding Open Meeting Statutes

"Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members' association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association…"

— A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) (Context: The legal baseline for the Petitioners’ argument, which ultimately failed because the ARC meetings were deemed not "regularly scheduled").

Regarding Records Exceptions

"Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association. 2. Pending litigation."

— A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) (Context: The legal justification used by the Association to deny the Petitioners' request for attorney invoices and third-party correspondence).

Actionable Insights

Based on the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, the following insights can be derived regarding Association governance and member rights:

Definition of Committee Schedules: Associations can avoid the statutory requirement for public meeting notices if committees (like the ARC) meet on an "as-needed" basis rather than on a "regularly scheduled" basis. If a committee meeting is not on a fixed recurring schedule, it may not trigger the notice requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804.
Documentation of "As-Needed" Status: To defend against claims of secret meetings, Associations should ensure their Bylaws or CC&Rs explicitly state that committees meet "as necessary" or "from time to time," and they should maintain minutes of these meetings to document all actions taken.
Protection of Legal Records: Associations are within their rights to withhold attorney invoices and correspondence if they relate to pending litigation or legal advice. Homeowners seeking such records face a high bar to prove that such documents do not fall under the statutory exceptions of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Member Requests for Attendance: While notice may not be required for ad hoc meetings, refusing a member's specific request to attend an open session could create legal vulnerability. In this case, the Association’s defense was strengthened by the fact that they had never denied a request for attendance.
Burden of Evidence: Petitioners in administrative hearings must provide concrete evidence that a violation occurred. Mere allegations of non-compliance are insufficient to meet the "preponderance of the evidence" standard required to prevail against an Association.

Study Guide: Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal proceedings between John and Debborah Sellers and the Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association. It examines the application of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) regarding homeowners' association (HOA) governance, open meeting requirements, and the disclosure of association records.

1. Case Overview and Key Entities

The consolidated cases (No. 12F-H1212002-BFS and No. 12F-H1212009-BFS) involve a dispute over the transparency of committee meetings and the accessibility of specific legal and financial records within a planned community.

Key Parties and Entities

Entity	Role/Description
John and Debborah Sellers	Petitioners; homeowners and members of the Crossings at Willow Creek.
Crossings at Willow Creek POA	Respondent; the homeowners' association (HOA) governing the community in Prescott, Arizona.
Office of Administrative Hearings	The Arizona state agency responsible for conducting the hearing and issuing the decision.
Dept. of Fire, Building and Life Safety	The state department authorized to receive petitions from HOA members and associations.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)	A committee within the HOA responsible for reviewing property applications and architectural guidelines.

Significant Individuals

M. Douglas: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the hearings and issued the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
G. Eugene Neil: Interim City Attorney for Prescott; testified regarding public records and ongoing litigation between the City and the HOA.
Brenda Doziar: HOA Board member and ARC member; provided testimony on ARC meeting procedures.
Robert Balzano: Former statutory agent and manager of the HOA; testified regarding the lack of regularly scheduled ARC meetings.
Cliff J. Vanell: Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings; certified the ALJ decision as the final administrative decision.

2. Core Legal Issues and Arguments

Issue 1: ARC Meeting Transparency

The Petitioners alleged that the HOA failed to notice and conduct Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings publicly, in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 and community documents.

Petitioner Argument: ARC meetings should be noticed and open to the public.
Respondent Argument: ARC meetings are not "regularly scheduled" but occur "on demand" based on submissions; therefore, statutory notice requirements for regularly scheduled meetings do not apply.

Issue 2: Access to Records

The Petitioners alleged the HOA refused to provide specific records, specifically attorney invoices and communications between HOA attorneys and third parties.

Petitioner Argument: Communications with third parties are not protected by attorney-client privilege. They also sought invoices to understand the HOA's legal expenditures.
Respondent Argument: The withheld records were protected under attorney-client privilege and related to pending litigation, which are statutory exceptions to the disclosure requirement.

3. Statutory Framework and Bylaws

The case relies heavily on specific Arizona statutes and the HOA's internal bylaws:

A.R.S. § 33-1804: Open Meetings

General Rule: All meetings of the association, the board, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings are open to all members or their designated representatives.
Executive Session Exceptions: Meetings may be closed only for specific reasons, including legal advice, pending/contemplated litigation, personal/health/financial info of members or employees, and job performance discussions.

A.R.S. § 33-1805: Association Records

General Rule: Financial and other records must be made reasonably available for examination within ten business days.
Withholding Exceptions: Records may be withheld if they relate to privileged attorney-client communications, pending litigation, or specific personal/health/financial records of individuals.

A.R.S. § 12-2234: Attorney-Client Privilege

In civil actions, attorneys and their staff cannot be examined regarding communications made by the client or advice given during professional employment without the client's consent.

HOA Bylaws (Article XI, Section 3)

The ARC is directed to meet "from time to time as necessary."
The committee must maintain a written record of all actions taken.

4. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. According to the ALJ's decision, why did the ARC meetings not require public notice? Answer: The meetings were found to be held "as necessary" or "on demand" rather than being "regularly scheduled." A.R.S. § 33-1804 only mandates notice and open access for regularly scheduled committee meetings.

2. What is the "burden of proof" in this administrative hearing, and who carries it? Answer: The burden of proof falls on the party asserting a claim (the Petitioners). The standard of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence."

3. What does "preponderance of the evidence" mean in a legal context? Answer: It means the evidence must be sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is "more likely true than not."

4. Name two reasons an HOA board may legally close a portion of a meeting (Executive Session). Answer: Possible answers include: Legal advice from an attorney, pending or contemplated litigation, personal/financial information of a member/employee, or matters relating to employee job performance.

5. How many business days does an association have to fulfill a request for the examination of records? Answer: Ten business days.

6. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805, what is the maximum per-page fee an association can charge for copies of records? Answer: Fifteen cents per page.

5. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The Distinction Between "Regularly Scheduled" and "As Necessary": Analyze how the distinction between "regularly scheduled" and meetings held "from time to time" impacted the outcome of Case No. 12F-H1212002-BFS. Discuss whether this distinction creates a potential loophole for HOAs to avoid transparency, or if it serves as a practical necessity for committees with fluctuating workloads.

2. Attorney-Client Privilege in the Context of HOA Governance: The Petitioners argued that communications between HOA attorneys and third parties should not be privileged. Based on A.R.S. § 12-2234 and the ALJ's conclusions, evaluate the scope of attorney-client privilege. How does the law balance a homeowner's right to financial transparency (specifically regarding legal invoices) with the association’s right to confidential legal strategy?

3. The Role of Testimony in Establishing Facts: Examine the testimony of Brenda Doziar and Robert Balzano. How did their descriptions of the ARC's operational habits (e.g., meeting at private residences, lack of a formal schedule) influence the ALJ’s Findings of Fact? Contrast their testimony with the Petitioners' claims to show why the Petitioners failed to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard.

6. Glossary of Terms

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over an administrative hearing, hears evidence, and makes findings of fact and legal conclusions.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes): The codified laws of the State of Arizona.
Burden of Proof: The obligation of a party in a trial or hearing to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party.
Community Documents: The collective term for an HOA's declaration, bylaws, and other governing rules.
Executive Session: A portion of a meeting that is closed to the general membership to discuss sensitive or confidential matters as defined by statute.
Member: In the context of an HOA, a property owner who is subject to the association's governing documents and holds voting rights.
Preponderance of the Evidence: A legal standard where a claim is proven if it is shown to be more likely true than not (greater than 50% probability).
Respondent: The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed; in this case, the Crossings at Willow Creek POA.
Statutory Agent: An individual or entity designated to receive legal documents and service of process on behalf of a corporation or association.

HOA Transparency and Member Rights: Lessons from Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek

1. Introduction: The Tension Between Homeowners and Associations

Friction between homeowners and Property Owners Associations (POAs) often centers on the perceived "black box" of governance. Many homeowners feel that critical decisions—especially those regarding the aesthetic and structural integrity of the community—are made behind closed doors without proper oversight. Conversely, volunteer boards and their agents often struggle to navigate the granular requirements of state law while managing the day-to-day administrative needs of the association.

This tension is perfectly encapsulated in the consolidated cases of John and Debborah Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association (2013). By analyzing this administrative ruling, we can gain a clearer understanding of how Arizona law distinguishes between "open meetings" and "access to records." For homeowners and board members alike, this case serves as a vital lesson in the nuances of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the high evidentiary bar required to prove a violation of member rights.

2. The Conflict Over Architectural Review Committee (ARC) Meetings

In the first petition (12F-H1212002-BFS), the Sellers alleged that the Crossings at Willow Creek failed to provide notice for and conduct Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings in a public forum. They contended that the lack of formal notice violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 and the community’s governing documents.

The Association’s defense relied on the operational reality of the committee. Brenda Doziar, a member of both the Board and the ARC, testified that the committee’s process was not a standard deliberative assembly but a functional review of applications. Specifically, she noted that the ARC meets to review plans alongside the association’s professional architect to determine if a project should be accepted, modified, or rejected.

Robert Balzano, the former manager and statutory agent for the Association, further testified that the ARC did not follow a fixed calendar. Instead, meetings were held "on-demand" at private residences based on the volume of architectural submissions. The legal pivot point of the case was the specific language found in Arizona's open meeting law for planned communities:

"Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members' association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association…" — A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

3. Defining "Regularly Scheduled": The Legal Turning Point

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) focused on the distinction between a "regularly scheduled" meeting and one that occurs intermittently. The Association’s Bylaws (Article XI, Section 3) explicitly state that the ARC shall meet "from time to time as necessary" to perform its duties. Because the meetings were contingent upon the receipt of homeowner applications rather than a set monthly or quarterly schedule, they did not fall under the statutory mandate for public notice.

The ALJ dismissed the complaint regarding meeting notices based on these factors:

Contingent Nature of Meetings: Evidence showed that meetings depended entirely on architectural submissions; in some months, the committee met multiple times, while in others, it did not meet at all.
Adherence to Bylaws: The Association followed its own governing documents, which authorized the committee to act "from time to time as necessary" rather than on a regular schedule.
Professional Consultation: Testimony established that the meetings involved technical reviews with an architect, a process that is functionally different from a standard board meeting.
Accessibility Without Formal Notice: The committee never denied a member’s request to attend, and the specific applicant was always invited to the meeting where their plans were discussed.

4. The Records Dispute: What Can Homeowners Actually See?

The second petition (12F-H1212009-BFS) concerned the Sellers' demand for records, specifically invoices from the association’s legal counsel—the firm of Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC—and communications between those attorneys and third parties. The Sellers argued that third-party communications, by definition, cannot be protected by attorney-client privilege.

The Association successfully countered this by invoking A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs association records, and A.R.S. § 12-2234, which protects attorney-client communications. The sensitivity of these records was heightened by a pending Declaratory Action—a legal proceeding initiated by the City of Prescott against the association members to determine the legal rights and obligations of the parties involved.

The case established a clear hierarchy of record accessibility:

Public Records: The City of Prescott provided the Petitioners with ninety pages of documents via subpoena. As these were public records held by a municipality, they were fully accessible.
Privileged Association Records: Internal documents, including attorney invoices and correspondence with the insurance agent, Larry Harding, were protected. Mr. Harding testified that such correspondence typically relates to potential insurance claims, which are sensitive legal matters. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B), the Association is permitted to withhold records that "tip its hand" regarding pending litigation or privileged legal advice.

5. Final Verdict: The ALJ Decision

On January 17, 2013, ALJ M. Douglas issued a decision dismissing both petitions, a ruling later certified by Director Cliff J. Vanell. The decision was rooted in the burden of proof established by the Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R2-19-119, which requires the party asserting a claim to prove their case by a "Preponderance of the Evidence."

In simple terms, the Sellers were required to prove that their allegations were "more likely true than not." The ALJ concluded they failed to meet this burden. The Association proved that its ARC meetings were not "regularly scheduled" and that the withheld legal records fell squarely within the statutory exceptions for attorney-client privilege and pending litigation.

6. Key Takeaways for HOA Members and Boards

The Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek case serves as a definitive guide for interpreting A.R.S. Title 33. Homeowners and board members should internalize the following lessons:

The "Regularly Scheduled" Threshold: Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), only committee meetings that occur on a set, recurring basis require formal notice to the membership. "On-demand" or "as-necessary" meetings are legally distinct and do not carry the same notice requirements.
Statutory Symmetry in Confidentiality: There is a direct parallel between the reasons a board may close a meeting under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1-5) and the reasons it may withhold records under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B). Legal advice and pending litigation are strictly protected in both contexts to preserve the association's legal position.
The Importance of Precise Bylaws: The phrase "from time to time as necessary" in the Crossings' Bylaws was a primary factor in the Association's victory. Boards must ensure their governing documents are aligned with state statutes to provide maximum operational flexibility.
The Burden of Proof is on the Accuser: Per A.A.C. R2-19-119, the association is not required to prove it followed the law; rather, the homeowner must provide credible evidence that a violation occurred. Mere disagreement with a board's administrative style does not constitute a legal violation.

As a homeowner, you have a right to transparency, but that right is not unlimited. As a board member, you have a duty to be open, but you also have a duty to protect the association’s legal interests. Review your community’s bylaws and A.R.S. Title 33 immediately. Understanding these boundaries is the only way to ensure your community remains governed by law rather than by conflict.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John Sellers (petitioner)
Homeowner
appeared through John Sellers
Debborah Sellers (petitioner)
Homeowner
Testified; interior designer

Respondent Side

Joshua M. Bolen (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Attorney for Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Brenda Doziar (board member)
Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
ARC member
Robert Balzano (witness)
Former statutory agent and manager of Crossings
Kenneth Burnett (board member)
Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
G. Eugene Neil (witness)
City of Prescott
Interim City Attorney
Larry Harding (witness)
Commercial insurance agent for Crossings
Gene Palma (agency director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Cliff J. Vanell (agency director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Director who certified the decision
Joni Cage (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of decision copy

Case Summary

Parties & Counsel

Alleged Violations

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Ballot must provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.

Analytics Highlights

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 564851.pdf

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 567887.pdf

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 575055.pdf

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 523915.pdf

Briefing Document: Gounder v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association

Executive Summary

I. Case Overview and Background

II. Procedural History

III. The Core Dispute: The Two-Ballot System

IV. Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner’s Position (Paul Gounder)

B. Respondent’s Position (Royal Riviera Condominium Association)

V. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

VI. Final Order and Outcome

Study Guide: Gounder v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer Key

Suggested Essay Questions

Glossary of Key Terms

Your HOA’s Election Rules Might Be Unfair. This Court Case Explains Why.

Introduction: The Devil in the Details

Takeaway 1: “Common Practice” Isn’t a Legal Defense

Takeaway 2: A “Small” Change Can Invalidate an Election

Takeaway 3: Accountability Matters, Even After the Fact

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Respondent Side

Neutral Parties

Other Participants

Case Summary

Parties & Counsel

Alleged Violations

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Maintenance and Repair of Common Elements

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

16F-H1616006-BFS Decision – 513174.pdf

16F-H1616006-BFS Decision – 521856.pdf

16F-H1616006-BFS Decision – 513174.pdf

16F-H1616006-BFS Decision – 521856.pdf

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Klemmer v. Caribbean Gardens Association

Executive Summary

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Responsibility for Common Areas

2. The Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Standards

3. Structural vs. Cosmetic Damage

4. Administrative Oversight and Finalization

Important Quotes with Context

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners and Petitioners

For Homeowners Associations (HOAs)

Procedural Compliance

Case Study and Legal Review: Klemmer v. Caribbean Gardens Association

Key Concepts and Case Overview

1. Jurisdictional Transition

2. The Burden of Proof: Preponderance of the Evidence

3. Defining Common Areas and Responsibility

4. Administrative Finality

Short-Answer Practice Questions

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. Analysis of Evidentiary Standards

2. The Role of Expertise in Property Disputes

3. Administrative Procedure and Finality

Glossary of Important Terms

When Stains Aren't Enough: Lessons from an HOA Common Area Dispute

1. Introduction: The Reality of Condo Living and Common Area Conflicts

2. The Dispute: A Ceiling, a Pipe, and a Disagreement