Tag Archives: Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen PLC

Paul Gounder vs. Royal Riviera Condominium Association

Posted on by

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 K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2)
A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner achieved a partial win. The Respondent HOA was found to have violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) by using substantively different ballots which impaired the voting rights of absentee members. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, but no other relief was granted.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4).

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of right to vote for or against each proposed action due to substantively different ballots.

The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) by using two substantively different ballots for the 2016 election. The meeting ballot included a seventh candidate whose name was not on the mail-in ballot, denying members who did not attend the meeting the opportunity to vote for or against all proposed candidates.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition is granted. Respondent must reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. No other relief is available to Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)

Absentee Ballot Requirements (Received-by date and advance delivery)

The ALJ concluded Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4). While the meeting ballot lacked the statutory requirements listed in C(4), those requirements apply primarily to absentee ballots, and a meeting ballot does not need to comply if it is substantively the same as the compliant absentee ballot.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Absentee Voting, Ballot Differences, Statutory Violation, Condominium Association, Filing Fee Refund
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. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • Section 10-3708

Decision Documents

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 564851.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:56:33 (44.2 KB)

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 567887.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:56:34 (79.0 KB)

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 575055.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:56:34 (689.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716002-REL


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.


Paul Gounder vs. Royal Riviera Condominium Association

Posted on by

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 K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2)
A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner achieved a partial win. The Respondent HOA was found to have violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) by using substantively different ballots which impaired the voting rights of absentee members. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, but no other relief was granted.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4).

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of right to vote for or against each proposed action due to substantively different ballots.

The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) by using two substantively different ballots for the 2016 election. The meeting ballot included a seventh candidate whose name was not on the mail-in ballot, denying members who did not attend the meeting the opportunity to vote for or against all proposed candidates.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition is granted. Respondent must reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. No other relief is available to Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)

Absentee Ballot Requirements (Received-by date and advance delivery)

The ALJ concluded Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4). While the meeting ballot lacked the statutory requirements listed in C(4), those requirements apply primarily to absentee ballots, and a meeting ballot does not need to comply if it is substantively the same as the compliant absentee ballot.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Absentee Voting, Ballot Differences, Statutory Violation, Condominium Association, Filing Fee Refund
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. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • Section 10-3708

Decision Documents

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 564851.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:00:38 (44.2 KB)

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 567887.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:00:39 (79.0 KB)

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 575055.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:00:40 (689.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716002-REL


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.


John Klemmer vs. Caribbean Gardens Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 16F-H1616006-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-08-19
Administrative Law Judge Dorinda M. Lang
Outcome no
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)

Decision Documents

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)

**Case Summary: *John Klemmer vs. Caribbean Gardens Association***
**Case No.** 16F-H1616006-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

**Overview and Proceedings**
On August 2, 2016, Administrative Law Judge Dorinda M. Lang presided over a hearing regarding a petition filed by homeowner John Klemmer (Petitioner) against the Caribbean Gardens Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes and the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to repair damage to the common area located between his unit and the unit directly above him.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The dispute arose from flooding in the upstairs unit that affected the space above the Petitioner's ceiling.
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Klemmer argued that the Association was responsible for the common areas and must repair the damage caused by the flooding. He presented photographs showing discoloration on the subfloor and staining on a sewer pipe. He demanded the replacement of the stained wood due to concerns regarding mold, bacteria, and the condition of the sewer pipe.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The Association acknowledged its responsibility for common areas but argued that the specific condition complained of did not require repair. The Respondent presented testimony from a licensed contractor who stated that he inspected the area and determined the discoloration did not constitute structural damage. The witness testified that water staining is common near toilets and, despite the lack of mold testing, the wood remained structurally sound.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge applied the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, requiring the Petitioner to show his contentions were more probably true than not.

* **Responsibility vs. Necessity:** While the legal responsibility of the Association to maintain common areas was undisputed, the Judge found that the Petitioner failed to prove that the area actually required remediation.
* **Insufficiency of Evidence:** The Judge determined that photographs of staining were insufficient to prove that wood replacement was necessary. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to provide evidence that the sewer pipe was malfunctioning or that there were levels of mold or bacteria requiring abatement.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petition be **dismissed in its entirety**.

Following the decision dated August 19, 20

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 by

Case Summary

Case ID 16F-H1616013-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-08-22
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome yes
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

Decision Documents

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)

**Case Summary: Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA**
**Case No. 16F-H1616013-BFS**

**Proceedings and Key Facts**
Petitioners John and Debborah Sellers filed a motion for summary judgment against The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA (Respondent) regarding actions taken by the HOA board,. The dispute arose after three of the Respondent's four board members resigned in July 2015. The sole remaining board member continued to conduct business and appointed new members to serve the remaining terms in January 2016.

**Main Issues and Arguments**
The central legal issue was whether the remaining board member's actions violated A.R.S. § 33-1804, which governs public meetings for homeowners' associations.

* **Petitioners' Position:** They argued the Respondent violated the statute and legal precedent established in *Dennis J. Legere and Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA* regarding open meetings. They requested reimbursement of their filing fee and the imposition of sanctions,.
* **Respondent's Position:** The Respondent acknowledged that the "emergency" exception to A.R.S. § 33-1804 did not apply to this situation and admitted to the violation,. However, the Respondent argued against civil penalties, claiming the violation was not intentional. They asserted the remaining board member acted under a mistaken belief of necessity due to a lack of directors and an expiring management contract.

**Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) distinguished this case from *Legere*, where a board had routinely violated open meeting laws for convenience. In this instance, the ALJ found the Respondent did not routinely violate the law but acted due to "exigent circumstances based upon a mistake about the law’s requirements",. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), the Director has discretion to levy civil penalties. The ALJ determined that while the statute was violated, the lack of malicious intent meant a civil penalty was not warranted,.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
On July 7, 2016, ALJ Diane Mihalsky issued an Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision:
1. **Summary Judgment:** Granted in favor of the Petitioners because the Respondent admitted to violating A.R.S. § 33-1804.
2. **Reimbursement:** Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for their filing fee.
3. **Penalties:** No civil penalty was levied. The Respondent was placed on notice that future violations would result in penalties,.
4. **Hearing:** The hearing scheduled for August 10, 2016, was vacated as unnecessary.

The Department of Real Estate did not reject or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, on August 22, 2016, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision,.

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 by

Case Summary

Case ID 16F-H1616007-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-06-06
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome yes
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

Decision Documents

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)

**Case Title:** *Province Community Association v. Caroll Gaines*
**Case No:** 16F-H1616007-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date:** Hearing held June 1, 2016; Final Certification July 14, 2016

### **Procedural Background**
This case involved a dispute between the Province Community Association ("Petitioner") and homeowner Caroll Gaines ("Respondent") regarding alleged violations of the community's age-restriction covenants. Province is a planned community intended primarily for residents aged 55 and older. The Petitioner sought enforcement of its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) after receiving complaints that the Respondent was allowing minors to occupy her home.

### **Key Facts**
* **The Restriction:** Article 3, Section 3.1(b) of the CC&Rs prohibits persons under 19 from "Occupying" a unit. "Occupy" is defined as actually residing in the unit for at least 90 days. Minors are permitted to stay overnight for up to 90 days per year but cannot occupy the home.
* **The Accommodation:** The Respondent, an elderly woman requiring care, previously received an accommodation allowing her granddaughter and minor great-grandchildren to live with her. The Association revoked this accommodation in October 2015 after determining the granddaughter was working/attending school rather than providing the requisite 24-hour care.
* **The Arrangement:** Following the revocation, the granddaughter and children ostensibly moved out in December 2015. However, testimony revealed that the Respondent’s daughter provided childcare for the minors at the Respondent’s home on weekdays from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Additionally, the granddaughter brought the children to the home on weekends.
* **Total Presence:** Testimony established that the minor children were physically present at the home for approximately 80 to 85 hours per week, despite generally not sleeping there overnight.

### **Main Issues**
The central legal issue was the interpretation of "Occupy" and "Reside" within the context of the CC&Rs.
1. **Petitioner’s Argument:** The Association argued that the continuous presence of the children violated the age-restriction intent and threatened the community’s status.
2. **Respondent’s Defense:** The Respondent argued compliance because the children did not stay overnight, and the CC&Rs specifically restricted "overnight" stays to 90 days.

### **Legal Findings and Analysis**
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky ruled in favor of the Petitioner, providing the following legal analysis:
* **Interpretation of "Reside":** The Judge determined that "reside" means to dwell for a "considerable time". The tribunal found that being present for 80 to 85 hours per week constitutes a "considerable time" and therefore amounts to residency/occupancy.
* **Purpose of the Restriction:** The Judge rejected the argument that "occupancy" requires sleeping overnight. The decision noted that if overnight stays were the only metric, residents could run daycare services from sunrise to sunset without violating the rules. Such an interpretation would cause the "exception [to] swallow the rule," undermining the community's age-restricted nature.
* **Conclusion on Violation:** The Petitioner met its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, establishing that the Respondent had been in continuous violation of Article 3, Section 3.1(b) since August 2015.

### **Outcome**

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 by

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 yes
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:

  • 3
  • 4
  • 15
  • 16

Decision Documents

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)

**Case Summary: Griffith v. Alisanos Community Association**
**Case No:** 15F-H1516011-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date:** April 8, 2016 (Certified Final June 3, 2016)

**Proceedings and Issue**
This hearing involved a dispute between Petitioner Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. and Respondent Alisanos Community Association regarding the community’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). While the Petitioner initiated the action, the parties agreed to amend the hearing issue to determine whether the Petitioner violated CC&R Section 7.7, which prohibits exterior property alterations without Architectural Review Committee approval. The specific object in dispute was a concrete ring installed around a jacaranda tree in the Petitioner's yard.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Griffith received approval to plant the jacaranda tree in December 2008. He argued that his submitted plan included a "squiggly line" intended to represent the concrete ring, meaning the structure was approved. He completed the installation in early 2009. He further argued that the Association conducted inspections of his property in 2009 regarding a separate issue (artificial grass) and did not object to the ring at that time.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association argued the ring was never approved by the Committee. They asserted that they did not notice the ring until 2012 or 2013, claiming it only became visible after tree roots lifted it. The Association first issued a written notice of the alleged violation in January 2014.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden applied the preponderance of the evidence standard, noting that the Respondent bore the burden of proof to establish the violation.

1. **Approval Defense:** The ALJ found the Petitioner failed to prove the ring was explicitly approved in 2008. The judge noted that "squiggly lines" on landscape plans typically represent bushes or trees, not concrete structures.
2. **Constructive Notice:** Despite the lack of initial approval, the ALJ determined that the Respondent had **constructive notice** of the ring in 2009. This conclusion was based on evidence that the Association conducted routine inspections of the Petitioner's yard in 2009 and reserved the right to inspect completed improvements.
3. **Failure to Meet Burden:** Because the Association had constructive notice of the structure in 2009 but failed to inform the Petitioner of the alleged violation until 2014, the ALJ concluded the Respondent failed to meet its burden of proof that a violation of CC&R Section 7.7 existed at the time of the hearing.

**Outcome**
The ALJ ruled that the Petitioner was the prevailing party. The Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner’s $750.00 filing fee. The decision became final on June 3, 2016, after the relevant state department declined to modify or reject the ALJ's decision.

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 by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1515001-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2015-06-23
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
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

Decision Documents

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)

**Case Summary: Deanna Morris v. Sundance Residential HOA**
**Case No. 15F-H1515001-BFS**

**Proceedings and Parties**
This administrative hearing was held on June 10, 2015, before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a petition filed by homeowner Deanna Morris (Petitioner) against Sundance Residential HOA (Respondent),. The Petitioner represented herself, while the Respondent was represented by counsel.

**Main Issues and Key Facts**
The dispute centered on the HOA’s approval of a walkout balcony and gazebo constructed on a property neighboring the Petitioner's residence.
* **Architectural Violations:** The Petitioner alleged the structures violated the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding "harmony and compatibility," blocked her scenic views of the sunset, and were not completed within approved timeframes,,. She further argued the Architectural Committee used incorrect rules during the approval process and that the structures included unapproved, intrusive lighting,.
* **Billing Dispute:** The Petitioner contested an unexplained invoice for $1,076.00 added to her account.

**Key Arguments and Testimony**
* **Petitioner's Position:** Ms. Morris argued that the Committee failed to protect her property value and privacy. She claimed the neighbor's project deviated from approved plans and that the Committee should have utilized rules effective April 1, 2014, rather than the 2011 rules used,.
* **Respondent's Position:** The HOA denied the allegations, asserting the project complied with all governing documents,.
* **Witness Testimony:** The neighbor, Martha Duran, testified that she obtained necessary approvals from the HOA and the City of Buckeye and completed construction within the allowed period,. Committee member Willard Brunner testified that the Committee reviews plans for harmony and view impact but noted that neighbors do not possess "veto power" over approved projects,. He confirmed the structures were within community standards.
* **Billing Resolution:** The HOA’s community manager testified that the disputed $1,076.00 fee was an administrative error and had been removed from the Petitioner’s account prior to the hearing,.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, placing the burden of proof on the Petitioner,.
* **Compliance:** The ALJ found credible testimony established that the Committee properly reviewed the plans and that the "as-built" structures complied with the approved specifications and community standards,.
* **Governing Documents:** The ALJ cited Article VII of the CC&Rs, which authorizes the Committee to review plans for harmony and location, and noted that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated these documents,.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
* **Hearing Decision:** The ALJ recommended that the petition be dismissed, ruling that Sundance Residential HOA was the prevailing party. The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the CC&Rs.
* **Subsequent Action:** A rehearing was initially granted and scheduled for November 2, 2015. However, on October 29, 2015, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety rescinded the Order Granting Rehearing Request. Consequently, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order vacating the hearing and mooting all pending motions.

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

Deanna Morris v. Sundance Residential HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1515001-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2015-06-23
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
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

Strike, Kristyne P. vs. Las Torres Homeowners Association

Posted on by

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 no
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

Decision Documents

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)

**Case Summary: Strike v. Las Torres Homeowners Association**
**Case No:** 13F-H1314009-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date:** May 6, 2014 (Hearing); June 24, 2014 (Final Certification)

**Key Facts**
Petitioner Krystine P. Strike, owner of Unit 603, filed a dispute against Las Torres Homeowners Association (HOA) regarding a concrete slab situated in the common area connecting her unit to Unit 604. The slab was constructed in 1998 by previous owners who owned both units, with approval from the City of Carefree and tacit approval from the HOA.

Ms. Strike purchased Unit 603 in 2007, at which point the slab had existed for nine years. In 2012, the current owner of Unit 604 petitioned to enlarge the slab, which was denied, but continued to place patio furniture on the existing slab. The HOA issued multiple letters to the owner of Unit 604 requesting the removal of furniture when not in use, asserting the slab was a common area not approved for exclusive private use.

**Main Issues and Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Claims:** Ms. Strike alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1221 and § 33-1218 by allowing a neighbor to alter and encroach upon the common area without consent. She requested the common area be restored to its unaltered state. Regarding timeliness, she argued she was previously barred from filing a unilateral action due to a Code of Conduct she signed while serving on the HOA Board.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The HOA argued the cited statutes were inapplicable because the slab was a General Common Element rather than a Limited Common Element. They further argued the Department lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief (removal of the slab) and that the Petitioner’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

**Legal Findings**
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas dismissed the case, ruling in favor of the Respondent based on the following:

1. **Statute of Limitations:** Under A.R.S. § 12-54

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

Winter, Alexander vs. Cortina Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314005-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-04-17
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Alexander Winter Counsel —
Respondent Cortina Homeowners Association Counsel Mark Sahl

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D); A.R.S. § 33-1248(D)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition because the Petitioner provided insufficient evidence that the Board authorized payments in an executive session within the statutory timeframe (one year). Furthermore, the ALJ concluded that even if such a meeting occurred, matters relating to contractor compensation are permitted in closed executive sessions under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(4).

Why this result: Insufficient evidence of timing; subject matter (compensation) is exempt from open meeting laws.

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meeting Violation (Vendor Compensation)

Petitioner alleged the Board authorized a $50/hour fee for a management vendor in executive session, violating open meeting statutes.

Orders: Petition dismissed; Respondent deemed prevailing party.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(D)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(4)
  • A.R.S. § 12-541

Decision Documents

13F-H1314005-BFS Decision – 385229.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:31 (36.3 KB)

13F-H1314005-BFS Decision – 391125.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:31 (121.4 KB)

13F-H1314005-BFS Decision – 395982.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:31 (60.8 KB)

**Case Overview**
In the matter of *Alexander Winter v. Cortina Homeowners Association* (Case No. 13F-H1314005-BFS), the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings adjudicated a dispute regarding compliance with open meeting laws. The hearing was conducted on March 6, 2014, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas.

**Key Facts and Allegations**
Petitioner Alexander Winter, a homeowner, filed a petition alleging that the Cortina Homeowners Association (Cortina) Board of Directors violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1804(D) and 33-1248(D). The core allegation was that the Board improperly authorized financial compensation increases for a vendor, Renaissance Community Partners (RCP), during a closed executive session rather than an open public meeting.

Specifically, Winter testified that the community manager informed him that the Board had authorized hourly fees—$50.00 for staff and $75.00 for the manager—to handle homeowner information requests. Winter claimed this authorization occurred during a June 2013 executive session. However, Winter admitted he was not present at the meeting, did not know if a quorum was present, and possessed no written evidence or minutes confirming the authorization occurred during the relevant timeframe.

**Legal Issues and Analysis**
The primary legal question was whether the Board was required to approve the vendor's fee increase in an open session. The ALJ analyzed the case based on the burden of proof and statutory exemptions for executive sessions.

* **Statutory Exemptions:** A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) generally requires HOA meetings to be open to members. However, A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(4) specifically exempts matters relating to the "job performance of, compensation of… an individual employee of a contractor of the association".
* **Burden of Proof:** The Petitioner bore the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

**Decision and Rationale**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent, dismissing the petition. The decision relied on two main conclusions:
1. **Lack of Evidence:** The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the alleged executive meeting actually occurred within the one-year statute of limitations (September 2012 to September 2013). The ALJ noted that Winter relied on hearsay and lacked first-hand knowledge or documentation of the Board's actions.
2. **Legal Exemption:** The ALJ determined that even if the meeting had occurred as alleged, the subject matter—compensation for a contractor's employee—is expressly permitted to be discussed in a closed executive session under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(4). Therefore, the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of the open meeting statutes.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Alexander Winter (Petitioner)
    Cortina Homeowners Association (Member)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Mark Sahl (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC; Shaw & Lines, LLC
    Represented Cortina Homeowners Association
  • Kevin Bishop (property manager)
    Renaissance Community Partners
    Manager mentioned in testimony regarding compensation
  • Mr. Shaw (attorney)
    Previous legal counsel for Cortina

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Agency Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed certification mailing