Case Summary
| Case ID |
20F-H2019014-REL |
| Agency |
ADRE |
| Tribunal |
OAH |
| Decision Date |
2020-01-27 |
| Administrative Law Judge |
Tammy L. Eigenheer |
| Outcome |
loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded |
$500.00 |
| Civil Penalties |
$0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner |
Paul L Moffett |
Counsel |
Richard M. Rollman |
| Respondent |
Vistoso Community Association |
Counsel |
Jason E. Smith |
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Article VII Membership and Voting section 7.3.1 Voting Classes
Outcome Summary
The ALJ dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Vistoso Community Association committed a violation of Article VII, Section 7.3.1 by allowing certain owners to vote. The ALJ reasoned that the specific restriction on voting for those paying reduced assessments was inapplicable in this case.
Why this result: The restriction on voting found in Section 7.3.1 applies only when the owner is paying a reduced assessment 'pursuant to Section 8.3.' Since the reduced assessment period permitted under Section 8.3 had expired for the developer owners, they were not paying reduced assessments 'pursuant to Section 8.3,' and were therefore entitled to vote.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of community document regarding the voting rights of Developer Owners paying reduced assessments.
Petitioner filed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition alleging the Respondent HOA violated the community documents (CC&Rs Article VII, Section 7.3.1) by allowing Developer Owners (Vistoso Highlands and Pulte) to vote in an election while they were paying reduced assessments, which Petitioner argued was prohibited.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
- A.R.S. § 32-2199
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- Vazanno v. Superior Court
- MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
- BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Election, Voting Rights, Reduced Assessment, Community Document Violation
Additional Citations:
- A.R.S. § 32-2199
- CC&Rs Article VII, Section 7.3.1
- CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.3
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- Vazanno v. Superior Court
- MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
- BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Decision Documents
20F-H2019014-REL Decision – 766242.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:28 (48.3 KB)
20F-H2019014-REL Decision – 766243.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:31 (109.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2019014-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Moffett vs. Vistoso Community Association (Case No. 20F-H2019014-REL)
Executive Summary
On January 27, 2020, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings dismissed a petition filed by Paul L. Moffett against the Vistoso Community Association. The core of the dispute was the validity of 207 votes cast by two developer-owners, Vistoso Highlands and Pulte, in a Board of Directors election held on March 29, 2019.
The petitioner argued that because these entities were paying reduced assessments on their lots, they were prohibited from voting under the community’s governing documents (CC&Rs). The respondent association contended that the voting prohibition was narrowly tied to a specific provision allowing reduced assessments for a limited time, a period which had long expired for both entities.
The judge ruled in favor of the Vistoso Community Association, concluding that the votes were valid. The decision hinged on a strict interpretation of the CC&Rs. Although the developers were factually paying reduced assessments, they were not doing so pursuant to the specific section that triggers the voting prohibition. The judge noted that the failure to collect full assessments was a separate “financial concern for the association,” but it did not invalidate the votes cast in the election. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the community documents.
Case Overview
This briefing analyzes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter between petitioner Paul L. Moffett and respondent Vistoso Community Association concerning an alleged violation of community CC&Rs.
Detail
Information
Case Name
Paul L Moffett vs. Vistoso Community Association
Case Number
20F-H2019014-REL
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Petition Filed
On or about September 25, 2019
Hearing Date
December 16, 2019
Decision & Order Date
January 27, 2020
Petitioner
Paul L. Moffett
Petitioner’s Counsel
Richard M. Rollman, Gabroy, Rollman & Bosse, P.C.
Respondent
Vistoso Community Association
Respondent’s Counsel
Jason E. Smith, CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD DELGADO & WOOD, PLC
The Core Dispute: Voter Eligibility and Reduced Assessments
Petitioner’s Allegation
On September 25, 2019, Paul L. Moffett filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging that the Vistoso Community Association violated its own governing documents. The specific violation cited was of Article VII, Section 7.3.1 (Voting Classes) of the community’s Declaration.
The dispute centered on the Board of Directors election held on March 29, 2019. In the days leading up to the election, property management solicited votes from two developer-owners:
• Vistoso Highlands: Owner of 39 lots.
• Pulte: Owner of 168 lots.
Both entities cast their total available votes—207 votes—for three candidates: Sarah Nelson, Patrick Straney, and Dennis Ottley. Mr. Moffett’s petition argued that these 207 votes were invalid because, at the time of the election, both Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were paying reduced assessments on their lots, which he contended made them ineligible to vote under the CC&Rs.
Analysis of Arguments and Key Provisions
The decision in this case rested entirely on the interpretation of two interlinked sections within the Vistoso Community Association’s Declaration.
Key Governing Document Provisions
• Article VII, Section 7.3.1 (Voting Prohibition): This section states, in pertinent part, that “a Class A Member shall not be entitled to vote with respect to any Lots, Parcels or Apartment Units in regard to which the Owner is paying only a reduced Assessment pursuant to Section 8.3.”
• Article VIII, Section 8.3 (Reduced Assessment Eligibility): This section permits a Developer Owner to pay a reduced assessment on lots for a maximum of two years after the initial Developer Owner obtains ownership from the Declarant.
Petitioner’s Position (Paul L. Moffett)
The petitioner’s argument was straightforward:
• Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were paying reduced assessments.
• Section 7.3.1 prohibits voting for members who pay reduced assessments.
• Therefore, their votes should not have been counted.
Respondent’s Position (Vistoso Community Association)
The respondent’s argument focused on the precise qualifying language in the CC&Rs:
• The voting prohibition in Section 7.3.1 is conditional and applies only when members are paying reduced assessments specifically “pursuant to Section 8.3.”
• The eligibility window for paying reduced assessments under Section 8.3 had expired years prior for both entities.
• Therefore, although they were factually paying reduced assessments, this was not being done under the authority or conditions of Section 8.3.
• Consequently, the voting prohibition of Section 7.3.1 was not applicable to them.
Established Findings of Fact
The evidence presented at the hearing established a clear timeline regarding the ownership of the lots and the expiration of the reduced assessment periods.
• March 20, 2007: Vistoso Highlands obtained ownership of 39 lots from the Declarant.
• March 20, 2009: The two-year maximum period for Vistoso Highlands to pay reduced assessments under Section 8.3 officially terminated.
• August 21 & October 14, 2014: Pulte’s predecessor obtained ownership of 168 lots from the Declarant.
• October 14, 2016: The two-year maximum period for these 168 lots to have reduced assessments under Section 8.3 officially terminated.
• January 2, 2019: Pulte obtained ownership of the 168 lots from its predecessor.
• March 29, 2019: The Board of Directors election was held.
• Key Fact: The judge found that “For whatever reason, neither Vistoso Highlands nor Pulte had been paying the full assessment as required by the Declaration as of the date of the election.”
The Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sided with the respondent’s interpretation of the governing documents, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Legal Interpretation
The ALJ concluded that the two articles could not be read in isolation. The critical legal finding was that the voting prohibition was explicitly and inextricably linked to the conditions set forth in Section 8.3.
The decision states:
“Because Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were paying reduced assessments but not pursuant to Section 8.3, the prohibition on them voting found in Section 7.3.1. was not applicable to them.”
The judge reasoned that since the eligibility period under Section 8.3 had expired in 2009 and 2016, respectively, the developers were no longer paying reduced fees “pursuant to” that section at the time of the 2019 election.
Acknowledgment of Financial Discrepancy
The ALJ acknowledged the underlying issue that the developers were not paying the full assessments they owed. However, this was deemed a separate matter from voter eligibility. The judge noted that the failure to be invoiced for and to pay the full amount “is certainly a financial concern for the association as a whole,” but “that does not necessitate a finding that Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were not entitled to cast votes in the election.”
Final Order
Based on this legal interpretation, the ALJ found that the petitioner, Paul L. Moffett, failed to sustain his burden of proof to establish a violation of the community documents by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Official Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.”
• Notice: The decision is binding on the parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.
Study Guide – 20F-H2019014-REL
Study Guide: Moffett v. Vistoso Community Association (Case No. 20F-H2019014-REL)
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case between Petitioner Paul L. Moffett and Respondent Vistoso Community Association, based on the Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on January 27, 2020. It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the facts, legal arguments, and final ruling of the case.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information provided in the source documents.
1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what were their respective roles?
2. What specific article and section of the community documents did the Petitioner allege was violated?
3. When was the Board of Directors election held, and what was the total number of votes cast by Pulte and Vistoso Highlands?
4. According to the community’s Declaration, under what specific condition is a Class A Member not entitled to vote?
5. What did Article VIII, Section 8.3 of the Declaration allow for, and what was the maximum time limit for this provision?
6. Based on the timeline provided, when should the reduced assessment period have ended for Vistoso Highlands and for Pulte?
7. What was the Petitioner’s core argument for why Pulte and Vistoso Highlands should not have been allowed to vote?
8. How did the Respondent counter the Petitioner’s argument regarding the voting rights of Pulte and Vistoso Highlands?
9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the voting eligibility of Vistoso Highlands and Pulte, and what was the reasoning?
10. What was the final order in this case, and what recourse was available to the parties after the decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Paul L. Moffett, who served as the Petitioner, and the Vistoso Community Association, which was the Respondent. Moffett initiated the dispute by filing a petition against the association.
2. The Petitioner alleged a violation of “Article VII Membership and Voting, Section 7.3.1 Voting Classes” of the community documents (CC&Rs). This was the single issue presented for the hearing.
3. The Board of Directors election was held on or about March 29, 2019. In that election, Pulte and Vistoso Highlands collectively cast 207 votes for candidates Sarah Nelson, Patrick Straney, and Dennis Ottley.
4. According to Article VII, Section 7.3.1 of the Declaration, a Class A Member is not entitled to vote with respect to any lots for which the owner is paying only a reduced assessment “pursuant to Section 8.3.”
5. Article VIII, Section 8.3 of the Declaration allowed Developer Owners to pay a reduced assessment on lots purchased from the Declarant. This provision was permitted for a maximum period of two years (24 months) after the initial Developer Owner obtained ownership.
6. The reduced assessment period for Vistoso Highlands should have terminated on March 20, 2009. For the lots owned by Pulte, the reduced assessments should have terminated on October 14, 2016.
7. The Petitioner argued that because Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were, in fact, paying reduced assessments at the time of the election, they were not entitled to vote. The argument was based on the fact that they were paying reduced fees, regardless of whether they were supposed to be.
8. The Respondent argued that the voting prohibition in Section 7.3.1 was not applicable. Their reasoning was that while Pulte and Vistoso Highlands were paying reduced assessments, they were not doing so “pursuant to Section 8.3” because the time limit for that provision had long expired.
9. The Judge concluded that Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were entitled to vote in the election. The reasoning was that the prohibition in Section 7.3.1 only applied to reduced assessments paid as authorized by Section 8.3; since the authorization period had passed, the prohibition no longer applied, even if they were improperly paying a lower rate.
10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s petition was dismissed. After the order was served, the parties had 30 days to file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-style response. Use the source material to construct a thorough and well-supported argument.
1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of the phrase “pursuant to Section 8.3” from Article VII, Section 7.3.1. Explain how this interpretation was central to the case’s outcome and discuss the distinction made between paying a reduced assessment and paying a reduced assessment under the authority of Section 8.3.
2. Describe the timeline of property ownership and assessment obligations for both Vistoso Highlands and Pulte. Explain how the failure to adhere to the timeline for ending reduced assessments created the central conflict in this dispute.
3. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Who held the burden, what was the standard required (preponderance of the evidence), and why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately find that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden?
4. The judge noted that the failure to collect full assessments from Vistoso Highlands and Pulte was a “financial concern for the association as a whole.” Elaborate on the potential implications of this financial issue for the Vistoso Community Association, even though it did not affect the outcome of the election dispute.
5. Outline the procedural history of the case, starting from the filing of the petition. Include key dates, the entities involved (Petitioner, Respondent, Department of Real Estate, Office of Administrative Hearings), the legal representatives, and the final step available to the parties after the judge’s order.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms and Entities
Term / Entity
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official, in this case Tammy L. Eigenheer, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes decisions on disputes.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency with which the Petitioner filed the initial Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition.
Article VII, Section 7.3.1
The section of the Vistoso Community Association Declaration that prohibits a Class A Member from voting on lots for which they are paying a reduced assessment “pursuant to Section 8.3.”
Article VIII, Section 8.3
The section of the Declaration that permits a Developer Owner to pay a reduced assessment for a maximum of two years after purchasing a parcel from the Declarant.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal case to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.
Declarant
The original entity that owned the land before selling lots to Developer Owners like Vistoso Highlands and Pulte’s predecessor.
Developer Owner
An owner, such as Vistoso Highlands or Pulte, who obtained lots from the Declarant and was eligible for reduced assessments for a limited time under Section 8.3.
Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition
The formal document filed by Paul L. Moffett with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on September 25, 2019, to initiate the legal dispute.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
The state office where the formal hearing for this case was conducted before an Administrative Law Judge.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition. In this case, Paul L. Moffett.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side over the other.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Vistoso Community Association.
Blog Post – 20F-H2019014-REL
The Legal Loophole That Flipped an HOA Election on Its Head
For anyone living in a planned community, the thick binder of Homeowners Association (HOA) rules is a familiar reality. These documents govern everything from mailbox colors to lawn maintenance, and their dense language can be a source of constant confusion. But beyond the day-to-day frustrations lies a deeper legal truth: the precise wording of these documents is absolute. This principle, known in contract law as strict constructionism, holds that a text’s literal meaning must be followed, even if it leads to an outcome that seems unfair.
This is the story of a homeowner who believed he had uncovered a clear-cut violation during a critical HOA election. Developers who were underpaying their dues had cast hundreds of votes, seemingly in direct contravention of the community’s own governing documents. But when the case was adjudicated, the outcome hinged on a single phrase, providing a textbook example of how strict constructionism can create a mind-bending loophole and turn a seemingly open-and-shut case completely upside down.
The Rule Seemed Simple: Pay a Discount, You Don’t Get a Vote
The petitioner, Paul L. Moffett, filed a formal complaint against the Vistoso Community Association, alleging a violation of a specific clause in the governing documents: “Article VII Membership and Voting, Section 7.3.1 Voting Classes.” His case was built on what appeared to be a straightforward set of rules designed to ensure fairness.
The community’s governing documents contained two key sections:
• Article VIII, Section 8.3: This rule allowed “Developer Owners” who purchased property from the original Declarant to pay a reduced assessment. However, this discount was explicitly limited to a maximum of two years.
• Article VII, Section 7.3.1: This rule stated that any member paying a reduced assessment pursuant to Section 8.3 was not entitled to vote with respect to those properties.
On the surface, the logic was simple and equitable: if you aren’t paying your full share as authorized by the rules, you don’t get a say in the community’s governance.
The Smoking Gun: Developers Were Underpaying for Years
The petitioner presented evidence that seemed to prove his case conclusively. Two developers, Vistoso Highlands and Pulte, owned a combined 207 lots. According to the two-year limit, their eligibility for reduced assessments should have ended long ago.
• Vistoso Highlands’ reduced assessment period should have terminated on March 20, 2009.
• Pulte’s predecessor’s reduced assessment period should have terminated on October 14, 2016.
However, at the time of the Board of Directors election on March 29, 2019, both developers were still paying the discounted rate—years after their eligibility had expired. Making matters worse, the evidence showed that in the days preceding the election, the property management staff had actively reached out to both developers to obtain their votes. They cast all 207 of them, which appeared to be a direct violation of the rule prohibiting voting by members paying reduced fees.
The Twist: A Single Phrase Created a Mind-Bending Loophole
This is where the case took a sharp, unexpected turn. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to the case did not focus on the fact that the developers were underpaying, but on the precise legal language connecting the two rules. The dispositive element of the case was the phrase “pursuant to Section 8.3.”
The ALJ noted that, “for whatever reason,” the developers had been underpaying for years. However, she reasoned that because the two-year time limit for reduced payments under Section 8.3 had long since expired, the developers were no longer paying their reduced fees “pursuant to Section 8.3.” They were, in fact, simply underpaying their dues improperly and in violation of the documents.
In essence, the developers’ long-term violation of the payment rule served as their shield against the voting penalty. By breaking the rule governing their assessment amount, they had inadvertently immunized themselves from the rule governing voting rights. The voting prohibition in Section 7.3.1 only applied to members who were correctly paying a reduced assessment as authorized by Section 8.3. Since their discount was no longer authorized, the voting ban no longer applied.
The ALJ summarized this stunning conclusion in the final decision:
Because Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were paying reduced assessments but not pursuant to Section 8.3, the prohibition on them voting found in Section 7.3.1. was not applicable to them.
The Verdict: A Financial Problem Doesn’t Invalidate a Vote
Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, and all 207 votes cast by the developers were deemed valid. The ALJ acknowledged that the developers’ failure to pay their full assessments was a serious financial issue for the association but clarified that it was a separate matter from their right to vote.
The ALJ effectively severed the financial issue from the question of voting eligibility. This separation of issues is a fundamental tenet of legal analysis, preventing one breach of contract (underpaying dues) from automatically triggering penalties associated with a completely different clause (voting rights).
While the failure to be invoiced and to pay a full assessment on the 207 parcels at issue is certainly a financial concern for the association as a whole, that does not necessitate a finding that Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were not entitled to cast votes in the election.
This highlights a critical aspect of legal interpretation: issues that seem causally linked in a common-sense way can be treated as entirely distinct under a strict reading of the law.
Conclusion: The Devil is Always in the Details
This case serves as a powerful reminder that in the world of legal documents, every single word matters. It is a perfect demonstration of strict constructionism, where an outcome that seems to defy logic and fairness can be perfectly valid based on the literal, unambiguous phrasing of a rule. What appeared to be a clear prohibition on voting was undone by a loophole created by the developers’ own long-term failure to comply with assessment rules.
The outcome forces us to confront a difficult question at the heart of our legal system: When the literal interpretation of a contract conflicts with our sense of fairness, which should prevail? This case provides a clear, if unsettling, answer.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Paul L Moffett (petitioner)
Appeared at hearing and testified on his own behalf
- Richard M. Rollman (petitioner attorney)
Gabroy, Rollman & Bosse, P.C.
- Alyssa Leverette (legal staff)
Gabroy, Rollman & Bosse, P.C.
Listed below Petitioner's attorney on service list
Respondent Side
- Jason E. Smith (respondent attorney)
CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD DELGADO & WOOD, PLC
- Kimberly Rubly (witness)
Vice President of Southern Region (testified for Respondent)
- Sean K. Moynihan (respondent attorney)
CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD DELGADO & WOOD, PLC
Recipient of Order
Neutral Parties
- Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
- Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
- LDettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of Order
- AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of Order
- djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of Order
- DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of Order
- ncano (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of Order
Other Participants
- Sarah Nelson (board member (elected))
Vistoso Community Association
Recipient of votes in disputed election
- Patrick Straney (board member (elected))
Vistoso Community Association
Recipient of votes in disputed election
- Dennis Ottley (board member (elected))
Vistoso Community Association
Recipient of votes in disputed election
