Tag Archives: Carpenter Hazlewood

George Holub v. 3 Canyons Ranch Master

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-02-12
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome Petitioner's petition alleging violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803 regarding assessment increase and fine imposition was denied in its entirety. The Administrative Law Judge found Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, concluding the HOA did not violate the statute.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner George Holub Counsel —
Respondent 3 Canyons Ranch Master Homeowners’ Association Counsel Marcus Martinez, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B), (C), (D), (E)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition alleging violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803 regarding assessment increase and fine imposition was denied in its entirety. The Administrative Law Judge found Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, concluding the HOA did not violate the statute.

Why this result: Petitioner did not meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803, as the assessment error was corrected and the notice requirements for the fine were met.

Key Issues & Findings

Assessment Increase

Petitioner alleged the yearly assessment increased from $525.00 to $1,010.00, violating ARS § 33-1803(A). The HOA claimed this was a clerical error that was promptly corrected to $525.00.

Orders: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the evidence showed the assessment error was immediately corrected, resulting in no statutory violation.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803

Imposition of fine without proper notice

Petitioner challenged a $500 fine for commencing construction of a courtyard wall without prior approval. Petitioner claimed insufficient notice, while the HOA asserted notice was provided via email, satisfying statutory requirements.

Orders: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The email notice complied with statutory requirements. The Association was ordered not to reimburse the filing fee.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(C)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H021-REL Decision – 1114406.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:19 (48.9 KB)

24F-H021-REL Decision – 1114407.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:22 (6.6 KB)

24F-H021-REL Decision – 1135788.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:25 (57.8 KB)

24F-H021-REL Decision – 1143255.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:29 (124.1 KB)

24F-H021-REL Decision – 1114406.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:08 (48.9 KB)

24F-H021-REL Decision – 1114407.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:11 (6.6 KB)

24F-H021-REL Decision – 1135788.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:15 (57.8 KB)

24F-H021-REL Decision – 1143255.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:18 (124.1 KB)

The hearing summary for *George Holub v. 3 Canyons Ranch Master Homeowners’ Association* (No. 24F-H021-REL) addresses allegations that the Homeowners’ Association (HOA) violated the Arizona Planned Communities Act regarding assessments and fines.

Case Overview and Key Issues

The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on January 26, 2024. Petitioner George Holub filed a two-issue petition, alleging the Respondent HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.

The main issues were:

  1. Assessment Increase: The HOA allegedly "nearly doubled the assessment amount from previous year," violating the statutory limit that prevents increases over twenty percent without a majority member vote (ARS 33-1803(A)).
  2. Improper Fine: The HOA allegedly "imposed violation fee without first discussing the violation with [Petitioner] in front of the board members". This concerned a $500 fine levied for unapproved construction.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Petitioner's Argument (George Holub):

Petitioner testified that in July 2023, he received a statement showing his annual assessment increased from $525.00 (or $540.00) to $1,010.00 (or $1,495.00 in one statement). He argued this substantial increase was illegal. Regarding the violation, Holub admitted commencing construction of a courtyard and a 5.5-foot wall without prior HOA approval. He asserted he never received the initial Notice of Violation (NOV) via certified mail. He confirmed the certified mail NOV was returned as undeliverable. Holub also argued the subsequent fine letter (January 2023) was sent to a wrong, outdated address for his property-owning entity, Jolly Acres LLC.

Respondent's Argument (Marcus Martinez, Esq. and Mike Needham, Board President):

Respondent argued that there was no assessment increase. Board President Mike Needham testified that the high assessment amount was a clerical error made by the managing agent. This error was immediately corrected after Petitioner inquired, and a new ledger reflecting the correct $525.00 annual assessment was generated on July 7, 2023.

Concerning the fine, Respondent acknowledged the initial certified NOV (September 15, 2022) was returned undeliverable. However, the Board re-sent the NOV via e-mail on October 24, 2022, which Petitioner acknowledged receiving. The $500 fine was subsequently approved at the January 2023 board meeting for failure to seek approval for the construction. Respondent maintained that its procedures strictly adhered to Arizona law.

Final Decision and Legal Points

The ALJ issued a decision on February 12, 2024, denying the petition. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Assessment Ruling:

The ALJ concluded that the assessment issue was merely a clerical error that was promptly corrected. The evidence showed the annual assessment remained $525.00, meaning the Respondent did not violate ARS § 33-1803(A) by illegally increasing dues.

Fine Ruling:

The ALJ held that nothing in the relevant statute requires the association to send the Notice of Violation via certified mail. Although the mail was returned, Petitioner did receive the NOV via email on October 24, 2022. Since the fine was not imposed until the January 2023 board meeting (two and a half months later), Petitioner was given ample time to respond. Furthermore, the ALJ found Petitioner’s claim regarding failure to receive the fine letter to be "disingenuous," as Petitioner had failed to update a corrected address for the property-owning LLC with the Association after being notified of the requirement.

The Petitioner’s petition was denied in its entirety, and the HOA was not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Questions

Question

Is an HOA required to send a Notice of Violation via certified mail?

Short Answer

No, Arizona statute does not require the initial Notice of Violation to be sent via certified mail.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that while homeowners often expect certified mail, the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 33-1803) does not mandate it for the initial notice. As long as the homeowner actually receives the notice (even via email) and it contains the required statutory information, it is considered valid.

Alj Quote

As to the fine, nothing in the statute requires the Association to send the notice via certified mail.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • notices
  • procedural requirements

Question

Does a clerical error on a ledger count as an illegal assessment increase?

Short Answer

No, if the error is corrected and the homeowner is not actually forced to pay the incorrect amount, it is not a violation.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA's management company sent a ledger showing an incorrect assessment amount that appeared to double the fees. However, because the HOA acknowledged the mistake, corrected the ledger to the proper amount, and communicated the correction to the homeowner, the ALJ ruled that the HOA did not violate the statute regarding assessment increases.

Alj Quote

The testimony provided, demonstrated that there was an error in the ledger Petitioner received initially, but that was corrected as evidenced by the July 7, 2023 ledger… Petitioner has not met its burden to prove that the Association violated the statute.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)

Topic Tags

  • assessments
  • billing errors
  • fees

Question

Whose responsibility is it to ensure the HOA has the correct mailing address?

Short Answer

It is the homeowner's responsibility to update their address with the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that a homeowner cannot claim they didn't receive notice if they failed to provide the HOA with their current address. Even if the homeowner informs a board member verbally or via email of a change in ownership entity, they must explicitly provide the correct mailing address to the Association.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner informed Mr. Needham that Jolly Acres was now the owner and to mail all community documents to them, he did not provide an address nor update a corrected address with the Association. Thus, this was not the Association’s fault that he did not receive notice of the fine.

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • homeowner obligations
  • notices
  • mailing address

Question

Can an HOA send a Notice of Violation via email?

Short Answer

Yes, if the homeowner receives it.

Detailed Answer

The decision validated a Notice of Violation sent via email because the homeowner acknowledged receiving it. Since the homeowner received actual notice and the content of the email met statutory requirements, the notice was deemed valid despite not being mailed initially.

Alj Quote

Therefore, although Petitioner never received the Notice of Violation via mail, he did receive the same on October 24, 2022. From the evidence provided, the Notice complied with all of the statutory requirements

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • email
  • notices

Question

Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the petition must prove that the HOA violated the law by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that their claims are more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092

Topic Tags

  • hearings
  • legal standards
  • burden of proof

Question

Can a homeowner respond to a violation notice to contest it?

Short Answer

Yes, a homeowner has 21 days to respond via certified mail.

Detailed Answer

Statute allows a member to provide a written response to a violation notice. This response must be sent by certified mail within 21 calendar days of the notice date.

Alj Quote

A member who receives a written notice that the condition of the property owned by the member is in violation of the community documents… may provide the association with a written response by sending the response by certified mail within twenty-one calendar days after the date of the notice.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(C)

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • due process
  • homeowner rights

Question

If a homeowner makes a partial payment on a debt, how must the HOA apply the money?

Short Answer

Payments must be applied to the principal debt first, then to accrued interest.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law mandates that any monies paid by a member for an unpaid penalty or assessment must be applied first to the principal amount unpaid and then to the interest accrued.

Alj Quote

Any monies paid by a member for an unpaid penalty shall be applied first to the principal amount unpaid and then to the interest accrued.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Topic Tags

  • payments
  • accounting
  • penalties

Question

Will the filing fee for the hearing be refunded if the homeowner loses?

Short Answer

No, the filing fee is not reimbursed if the petition is denied.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered that because the petition was denied, the Respondent (HOA) was not required to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • hearings
  • fees
  • costs

Case

Docket No
24F-H021-REL
Case Title
George Holub v 3 Canyons Ranch Master Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2024-02-12
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Is an HOA required to send a Notice of Violation via certified mail?

Short Answer

No, Arizona statute does not require the initial Notice of Violation to be sent via certified mail.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that while homeowners often expect certified mail, the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 33-1803) does not mandate it for the initial notice. As long as the homeowner actually receives the notice (even via email) and it contains the required statutory information, it is considered valid.

Alj Quote

As to the fine, nothing in the statute requires the Association to send the notice via certified mail.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • notices
  • procedural requirements

Question

Does a clerical error on a ledger count as an illegal assessment increase?

Short Answer

No, if the error is corrected and the homeowner is not actually forced to pay the incorrect amount, it is not a violation.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA's management company sent a ledger showing an incorrect assessment amount that appeared to double the fees. However, because the HOA acknowledged the mistake, corrected the ledger to the proper amount, and communicated the correction to the homeowner, the ALJ ruled that the HOA did not violate the statute regarding assessment increases.

Alj Quote

The testimony provided, demonstrated that there was an error in the ledger Petitioner received initially, but that was corrected as evidenced by the July 7, 2023 ledger… Petitioner has not met its burden to prove that the Association violated the statute.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)

Topic Tags

  • assessments
  • billing errors
  • fees

Question

Whose responsibility is it to ensure the HOA has the correct mailing address?

Short Answer

It is the homeowner's responsibility to update their address with the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that a homeowner cannot claim they didn't receive notice if they failed to provide the HOA with their current address. Even if the homeowner informs a board member verbally or via email of a change in ownership entity, they must explicitly provide the correct mailing address to the Association.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner informed Mr. Needham that Jolly Acres was now the owner and to mail all community documents to them, he did not provide an address nor update a corrected address with the Association. Thus, this was not the Association’s fault that he did not receive notice of the fine.

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • homeowner obligations
  • notices
  • mailing address

Question

Can an HOA send a Notice of Violation via email?

Short Answer

Yes, if the homeowner receives it.

Detailed Answer

The decision validated a Notice of Violation sent via email because the homeowner acknowledged receiving it. Since the homeowner received actual notice and the content of the email met statutory requirements, the notice was deemed valid despite not being mailed initially.

Alj Quote

Therefore, although Petitioner never received the Notice of Violation via mail, he did receive the same on October 24, 2022. From the evidence provided, the Notice complied with all of the statutory requirements

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • email
  • notices

Question

Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the petition must prove that the HOA violated the law by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that their claims are more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092

Topic Tags

  • hearings
  • legal standards
  • burden of proof

Question

Can a homeowner respond to a violation notice to contest it?

Short Answer

Yes, a homeowner has 21 days to respond via certified mail.

Detailed Answer

Statute allows a member to provide a written response to a violation notice. This response must be sent by certified mail within 21 calendar days of the notice date.

Alj Quote

A member who receives a written notice that the condition of the property owned by the member is in violation of the community documents… may provide the association with a written response by sending the response by certified mail within twenty-one calendar days after the date of the notice.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(C)

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • due process
  • homeowner rights

Question

If a homeowner makes a partial payment on a debt, how must the HOA apply the money?

Short Answer

Payments must be applied to the principal debt first, then to accrued interest.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law mandates that any monies paid by a member for an unpaid penalty or assessment must be applied first to the principal amount unpaid and then to the interest accrued.

Alj Quote

Any monies paid by a member for an unpaid penalty shall be applied first to the principal amount unpaid and then to the interest accrued.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Topic Tags

  • payments
  • accounting
  • penalties

Question

Will the filing fee for the hearing be refunded if the homeowner loses?

Short Answer

No, the filing fee is not reimbursed if the petition is denied.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered that because the petition was denied, the Respondent (HOA) was not required to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • hearings
  • fees
  • costs

Case

Docket No
24F-H021-REL
Case Title
George Holub v 3 Canyons Ranch Master Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2024-02-12
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • George Holub (petitioner)
    Jolly Acres LLC (Owner Entity)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Emily Holub (Petitioner's Wife)
    Involved in communications with the HOA regarding assessment

Respondent Side

  • Marcus Martinez (HOA attorney)
    3 Canyons Ranch Master Homeowners’ Association
    Represented Respondent
  • Mike Needham (Board President)
    3 Canyons Ranch Master Homeowners’ Association
    President of the Board of Directors, testified as a witness
  • Nicholas Nogami (Attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
    Listed in service transmission
  • Sarah Malovich (HOA Agent)
  • David Roberts (HOA Agent)
    Provided statement
  • Mrs. Turka (HOA contact)
    Gate person contact
  • Mr. Plat (MDC Chairman)
    3 Canyons Ranch Master Homeowners’ Association
    Chairman of the Master Design Committee
  • Donna (HOA Agent)
    Platinum Management
    HOA/Accounting contact
  • Stacy Smith (board member)
    3 Canyons Ranch Master Homeowners’ Association
    Board member who made a motion regarding the fine

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed in service transmission email list
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed in service transmission email list
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed in service transmission email list
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed in service transmission email list

Other Participants

  • Dimitry Wilker (Neighbor)

Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H066-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-13
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated its documents. The Declaration and Rules unambiguously prohibited hard floor coverings (including vinyl) in the Petitioner's third-floor unit, and the Petitioner admitted installing the flooring without seeking approval.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sebastien Verstraet Counsel —
Respondent Monterey Ridge Condominium Association Counsel Marcus R. Martinez

Alleged Violations

Section 4.24, Declaration/Rules

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated its documents. The Declaration and Rules unambiguously prohibited hard floor coverings (including vinyl) in the Petitioner's third-floor unit, and the Petitioner admitted installing the flooring without seeking approval.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. Petitioner received the governing documents prior to closing, failed to fully read them, and failed to seek permission from the Association prior to installing the prohibited Luxury Vinyl Plank flooring.

Key Issues & Findings

Flooring Restriction for New Units

Petitioner challenged the Association's enforcement of a declaration rule prohibiting hard floor coverings (like LVP) in his third-floor unit, arguing his chosen flooring had sufficient soundproofing. The Association argued the rule was clear, unambiguous, and mandatory for enforcement.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flooring Restriction, Luxury Vinyl Plank (LVP), CCNR Enforcement, Third Floor Unit, Prior Approval
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H066-REL Decision – 1085177.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:13:28 (48.3 KB)

23F-H066-REL Decision – 1112087.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:13:33 (110.4 KB)

23F-H066-REL Decision – 1085177.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:06 (48.3 KB)

23F-H066-REL Decision – 1112087.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:14 (110.4 KB)

This summary details the proceedings, arguments, and final decision in the case of Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association (No. 23F-H066-REL), heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The core dispute was whether the Monterey Ridge Condominium Association (Respondent) violated its governing documents by enforcing a prohibition against the Petitioner, Sebastien Verstraet, who installed Luxury Vinyl Plank (LVP) flooring in his third-floor unit. The Petitioner filed the action after the Association, upon discovery of the unauthorized installation, issued a violation notice and required removal of the LVP.

The restriction at issue was Section 4.24 of the Declaration, titled "Flooring Restriction for New Units," which prohibited hard floor coverings (listing materials such as ceramic tile, natural stone, vinyl, hardwood, or laminated flooring) in all third-floor units, requiring carpet and pad instead to mitigate noise disturbance.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

The evidentiary hearing took place on October 26, 2023.

Petitioner's Position: Mr. Verstraet argued that he was unaware of the prohibition before installation, having only briefly reviewed the community documents received shortly before closing. He contended that LVP is the preferred modern flooring, significantly improves resale value, and provides soundproofing (IIC rating of 63) equal to or better than standard carpeting, rendering the rule obsolete or illogically drafted. He also noted that LVP was already permitted and installed in the kitchen, bathrooms, and laundry room of the unit. Furthermore, he did not seek prior written approval because he was unaware of the restriction.

Respondent's Position: The Association, represented by counsel, asserted its right and obligation to enforce its governing documents as written. Counsel argued that the recorded covenants were binding upon the Petitioner when he took the deed. The rule explicitly prohibits vinyl flooring in all third-floor units to address noise mitigation, a factor contemplated by the developer or subsequent amendment. The Community Manager, Robert Stein, testified that the Association followed typical enforcement procedures, and a neighbor below had complained about rolling noises emanating from the unit. The Association requested dismissal, arguing it had not violated its CC&Rs or Arizona law.

Legal Outcome and Final Decision

The ALJ issued the decision on November 13, 2023.

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated its documents or Arizona law. The decision emphasized the following legal points:

  1. Binding Nature of Documents: Although the Petitioner's points regarding LVP's aesthetic appeal and value were "valid," the Declarations and Rules are clear and unambiguous regarding the prohibition of hard floor coverings (including vinyl) in third-floor units.
  2. Failure to Seek Approval: The Petitioner admitted receiving the Declaration prior to closing, not fully reading it, and failing to seek permission to install the flooring. Had he sought approval, he likely would have been informed of the prohibition.

The ALJ ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition be DENIED. Consequently, the Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.

Questions

Question

Can I install hard flooring like vinyl or hardwood in my upper-floor condo unit?

Short Answer

Not if the CC&Rs specifically prohibit it to mitigate noise, even if the product is high quality.

Detailed Answer

If the governing documents explicitly prohibit hard floor coverings in specific units (such as second or third-floor units) to mitigate noise, the HOA can enforce this restriction regardless of the quality or sound rating of the material installed.

Alj Quote

Except for entry areas where hard floor coverings have been installed by Declarant, and except for kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas, hard floor coverings (e.g., ceramic tile, natural stone, vinyl, hardwood or laminated flooring) shall be prohibited in all other areas… and all third floor Units.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 4.24

Topic Tags

  • architectural restrictions
  • flooring
  • noise mitigation

Question

Is it a valid defense that I didn't read the CC&Rs before making a change?

Short Answer

No. If you received the documents, you are responsible for knowing the rules.

Detailed Answer

Admitting that you received the Declaration and Rules but did not read them is not a valid defense against a violation. The tribunal will likely find against a homeowner who had the opportunity to review the restrictions but failed to do so.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted in his testimony that he timely received a copy of the Declaration and Rules approximately a week prior to closing. Petitioner also admitted that he did not fully read the same… The tribunal finds that Petitioner has not met his burden.

Legal Basis

Contractual Obligation / Constructive Notice

Topic Tags

  • homeowner responsibilities
  • CC&Rs
  • ignorance of law

Question

Does my HOA have to approve a renovation if the new material is 'better' or more valuable than what is required?

Short Answer

No. Clear rules in the CC&Rs override arguments about aesthetics or resale value.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner presents valid points about the superior look or potential resale value of a prohibited improvement (like LVP flooring vs. carpet), the ALJ will enforce the clear and unambiguous language of the governing documents.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner probably had valid points about the look and potential value of LVP flooring versus carpeting, unfortunately, the Declarations and Rules are clear and unambiguous…

Legal Basis

Enforcement of Governing Documents

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • property value
  • renovations

Question

What happens if I start a renovation without asking for HOA permission first?

Short Answer

You risk violating rules you weren't aware of and may be forced to stop or reverse the work.

Detailed Answer

Skipping the approval process is risky. If a homeowner fails to seek permission, they miss the opportunity to be informed of specific prohibitions before spending money on installation.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted that he did not seek permission from the Association to install the LVP flooring, which had he done, he probably would have been informed that the Rules did not allow for the same.

Legal Basis

Architectural Review Process

Topic Tags

  • procedural requirements
  • renovations
  • violations

Question

Who has to prove their case in an HOA dispute hearing?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the governing documents or laws.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the Declarations and Association Rules.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof (ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119)

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • burden of proof
  • hearings

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard involves superior evidentiary weight that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Legal Standard of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • evidence

Question

If I lose my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

No. Reimbursement is generally denied if the petition is denied.

Detailed Answer

If the ALJ rules against the homeowner and denies the petition, the order will typically state that the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee…

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • costs
  • penalties
  • fees

Case

Docket No
23F-H066-REL
Case Title
Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-11-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I install hard flooring like vinyl or hardwood in my upper-floor condo unit?

Short Answer

Not if the CC&Rs specifically prohibit it to mitigate noise, even if the product is high quality.

Detailed Answer

If the governing documents explicitly prohibit hard floor coverings in specific units (such as second or third-floor units) to mitigate noise, the HOA can enforce this restriction regardless of the quality or sound rating of the material installed.

Alj Quote

Except for entry areas where hard floor coverings have been installed by Declarant, and except for kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas, hard floor coverings (e.g., ceramic tile, natural stone, vinyl, hardwood or laminated flooring) shall be prohibited in all other areas… and all third floor Units.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 4.24

Topic Tags

  • architectural restrictions
  • flooring
  • noise mitigation

Question

Is it a valid defense that I didn't read the CC&Rs before making a change?

Short Answer

No. If you received the documents, you are responsible for knowing the rules.

Detailed Answer

Admitting that you received the Declaration and Rules but did not read them is not a valid defense against a violation. The tribunal will likely find against a homeowner who had the opportunity to review the restrictions but failed to do so.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted in his testimony that he timely received a copy of the Declaration and Rules approximately a week prior to closing. Petitioner also admitted that he did not fully read the same… The tribunal finds that Petitioner has not met his burden.

Legal Basis

Contractual Obligation / Constructive Notice

Topic Tags

  • homeowner responsibilities
  • CC&Rs
  • ignorance of law

Question

Does my HOA have to approve a renovation if the new material is 'better' or more valuable than what is required?

Short Answer

No. Clear rules in the CC&Rs override arguments about aesthetics or resale value.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner presents valid points about the superior look or potential resale value of a prohibited improvement (like LVP flooring vs. carpet), the ALJ will enforce the clear and unambiguous language of the governing documents.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner probably had valid points about the look and potential value of LVP flooring versus carpeting, unfortunately, the Declarations and Rules are clear and unambiguous…

Legal Basis

Enforcement of Governing Documents

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • property value
  • renovations

Question

What happens if I start a renovation without asking for HOA permission first?

Short Answer

You risk violating rules you weren't aware of and may be forced to stop or reverse the work.

Detailed Answer

Skipping the approval process is risky. If a homeowner fails to seek permission, they miss the opportunity to be informed of specific prohibitions before spending money on installation.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted that he did not seek permission from the Association to install the LVP flooring, which had he done, he probably would have been informed that the Rules did not allow for the same.

Legal Basis

Architectural Review Process

Topic Tags

  • procedural requirements
  • renovations
  • violations

Question

Who has to prove their case in an HOA dispute hearing?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the governing documents or laws.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the Declarations and Association Rules.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof (ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119)

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • burden of proof
  • hearings

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard involves superior evidentiary weight that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Legal Standard of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • evidence

Question

If I lose my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

No. Reimbursement is generally denied if the petition is denied.

Detailed Answer

If the ALJ rules against the homeowner and denies the petition, the order will typically state that the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee…

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • costs
  • penalties
  • fees

Case

Docket No
23F-H066-REL
Case Title
Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-11-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Sebastien Verstraet (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Ron Riecks (witness)
    Flooring installer for Petitioner; also referred to as Ron Reichkes

Respondent Side

  • Joshua M. Bolen (attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
  • Marcus R. Martinez (attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
  • Robert Stein (property manager)
    City Property Management
    Testified as a witness for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE

Megan E Gardner v. Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H061-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-16
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The ALJ affirmed the petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G by failing to provide 30 days' notice prior to the 2023 assessment increase. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Megan E Gardner Counsel —
Respondent Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc. Counsel Kyle A. von Johnson and Edith I. Rudder

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G

Outcome Summary

The ALJ affirmed the petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G by failing to provide 30 days' notice prior to the 2023 assessment increase. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide 30-day notice for 2023 dues increase

The HOA increased annual dues from $200.00 to $240.00 effective 1/1/2023 due to a financial crisis caused by embezzlement, but failed to provide the required 30-day written notice as mandated by the CC&Rs. Although the increase was later refunded, the ALJ affirmed the petition finding the HOA failed to comply with the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is affirmed. Respondent is ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et al.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dues Increase, Notice Violation, CC&R Violation, Embezzlement, Filing Fee Refund, Assessment Timing
Additional Citations:

  • CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1077230.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:12:40 (41.5 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095389.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:12:45 (44.3 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095762.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:12:51 (6.7 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1102356.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:12:57 (110.9 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1077230.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:31 (41.5 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095389.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:34 (44.3 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095762.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:37 (6.7 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1102356.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:42 (110.9 KB)

This summary addresses the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the case of *Megan E Gardner v Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.* (No. 23F-H061-REL), heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone on October 2, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The dispute centered on the Association’s increase of the annual assessment from $200.00 to $240.00 for the 2023 calendar year.

Petitioner's Claim: Megan E. Gardner alleged the Association violated the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs), specifically Article 3, Section G, which requires the regular assessment amount to be fixed and noticed at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of the calendar year (i.e., by December 1st). The Board voted on the increase on December 16, 2022, missing the required deadline.

Association's Defense (Respondent): The Association, represented by counsel, argued the violation was necessary due to extraordinary circumstances. The former property manager had embezzled nearly $500,000.00 of the Association’s funds in late 2022, leading to financial collapse. Facing an urgent $110,000.00 debt to the road maintenance contractor (crucial for maintaining 200 miles of necessary roadways), the Board had "no choice" but to raise rates to secure immediate funds. The Association asserted that the CCRs did not contemplate such a crisis.

Key Arguments and Legal Points

Respondent's Argument for Mootness: The Association testified that by April 2023, they recovered $387,000.00 in insurance proceeds. Consequently, they paid the debt and issued a $40.00 credit (refund) to all members around May 25, 2023. The Association argued that since the challenged assessment increase was refunded, the petition was moot.

Petitioner's Counter-Argument (Focus on Correction): Gardner received the refund but contended that the issue was not moot. She argued that a refund is not a correction. Gardner sought corrective action requiring the Board to create a formal written record and ensure transparency. She noted that the member portal still incorrectly displayed the $240.00 assessment amount, demonstrating a failure to correct the records and potentially confusing new homeowners. She emphasized that the Board must conduct business according to the CCRs going forward.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge issued a Decision on October 16, 2023, concluding that the Petitioner met her burden of proving the CCR violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Finding: The ALJ affirmed that while he sympathized with the "untenable and horrible position" the Association faced, the Board failed to comply with the CCR’s mandatory 30-day notice provision for the 2023 Assessment.

Order:

  1. Petitioner’s petition was affirmed.
  2. The Association was ORDERED to reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee ($500.00) pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), despite Gardner testifying that she was not seeking reimbursement.
  3. No civil penalty was awarded, as the Petitioner did not request one.

Questions

Question

Can my HOA raise dues without proper notice if they are facing a severe financial emergency?

Short Answer

No, financial crises do not exempt the HOA from following the notice timelines in the CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that even though the HOA was in an 'untenable' position due to embezzlement and urgent debts, they were still strictly bound to provide the specific notice (30 days in this case) required by the governing documents before increasing assessments.

Alj Quote

First, while the tribunal sympathizes with the untenable and horrible position that the Association was facing, it still failed to comply with the CCR’s, by not providing the 30 day notice prior to the 2023 yearly Assessment.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Compliance

Topic Tags

  • Assessments
  • Emergency Powers
  • Notice Requirements

Question

If I win my hearing, will I get my filing fee back even if I tell the judge I don't want it?

Short Answer

Yes, the statute requires the filing fee to be reimbursed if the petitioner prevails, regardless of their personal preference.

Detailed Answer

The judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee because the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01) binds the tribunal to order reimbursement when the petitioner wins, even though the homeowner explicitly testified she did not wish to recover it.

Alj Quote

At hearing, Petitioner testified that she did not wish to recovery her filing fee, the tribunal is bound by the statute to order the same.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01; A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Statutory Mandates

Question

What level of proof do I need to provide to win a dispute against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning your claim is more probable than not.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner bears the burden of proof. The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal cases), but rather showing that the evidence is sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side over the other.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D); A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

Will the judge automatically fine the HOA if I prove they violated the rules?

Short Answer

No, if you do not specifically request a civil penalty in your petition, the judge generally will not award one.

Detailed Answer

In this case, although the HOA was found in violation, the judge ordered that no civil penalty be awarded specifically because the petitioner did not include a request for a penalty in her initial paperwork.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty be awarded as Petitioner did not request the same in her Petition.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Civil Penalties
  • Fines
  • Petition Drafting

Question

If the HOA fixes the problem (like refunding money) before the decision, is the case dismissed?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; the judge may still issue a decision affirming the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The HOA had already refunded the improper assessment increase to members before the decision was written. However, the ALJ still issued an order affirming the petition and finding that the HOA had failed to comply with the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

The tribunal finds that Petitioner has met her burden. … Fortunately for the Association and the homeowners, it … was able to issue a refund of $40.00 to its members.

Legal Basis

Mootness (Implicitly Rejected)

Topic Tags

  • Refunds
  • Violations
  • Case Outcomes

Case

Docket No
23F-H061-REL
Case Title
Megan E Gardner v Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-10-16
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA raise dues without proper notice if they are facing a severe financial emergency?

Short Answer

No, financial crises do not exempt the HOA from following the notice timelines in the CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that even though the HOA was in an 'untenable' position due to embezzlement and urgent debts, they were still strictly bound to provide the specific notice (30 days in this case) required by the governing documents before increasing assessments.

Alj Quote

First, while the tribunal sympathizes with the untenable and horrible position that the Association was facing, it still failed to comply with the CCR’s, by not providing the 30 day notice prior to the 2023 yearly Assessment.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Compliance

Topic Tags

  • Assessments
  • Emergency Powers
  • Notice Requirements

Question

If I win my hearing, will I get my filing fee back even if I tell the judge I don't want it?

Short Answer

Yes, the statute requires the filing fee to be reimbursed if the petitioner prevails, regardless of their personal preference.

Detailed Answer

The judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee because the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01) binds the tribunal to order reimbursement when the petitioner wins, even though the homeowner explicitly testified she did not wish to recover it.

Alj Quote

At hearing, Petitioner testified that she did not wish to recovery her filing fee, the tribunal is bound by the statute to order the same.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01; A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Statutory Mandates

Question

What level of proof do I need to provide to win a dispute against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning your claim is more probable than not.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner bears the burden of proof. The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal cases), but rather showing that the evidence is sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side over the other.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D); A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

Will the judge automatically fine the HOA if I prove they violated the rules?

Short Answer

No, if you do not specifically request a civil penalty in your petition, the judge generally will not award one.

Detailed Answer

In this case, although the HOA was found in violation, the judge ordered that no civil penalty be awarded specifically because the petitioner did not include a request for a penalty in her initial paperwork.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty be awarded as Petitioner did not request the same in her Petition.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Civil Penalties
  • Fines
  • Petition Drafting

Question

If the HOA fixes the problem (like refunding money) before the decision, is the case dismissed?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; the judge may still issue a decision affirming the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The HOA had already refunded the improper assessment increase to members before the decision was written. However, the ALJ still issued an order affirming the petition and finding that the HOA had failed to comply with the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

The tribunal finds that Petitioner has met her burden. … Fortunately for the Association and the homeowners, it … was able to issue a refund of $40.00 to its members.

Legal Basis

Mootness (Implicitly Rejected)

Topic Tags

  • Refunds
  • Violations
  • Case Outcomes

Case

Docket No
23F-H061-REL
Case Title
Megan E Gardner v Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-10-16
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Megan E Gardner (petitioner)
    Property owner of Parcel 222

Respondent Side

  • Kyle A. von Johnson (HOA attorney)
    Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
  • Edith I. Rudder (HOA attorney)
    Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
  • Ronald Carter (Treasurer/Witness)
    Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
    Treasurer since June 2022. Referred to as 'Ronald Cotter' in the ALJ Decision Findings of Fact.
  • David Goodman (Witness)
    Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
    Appeared remotely; recruited to serve as President after previous board members resigned.

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
    Listed for copy transmittal
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
    Listed for copy transmittal
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
    Listed for copy transmittal
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
    Listed for copy transmittal

Nicole Armsby (NICDON 10663 LLC) v. Desert Mountain Master

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121055-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-01-31
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nicole Armsby (NICDON 10663 LLC) Counsel —
Respondent Desert Mountain Master Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge vacated the hearing from the docket because the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew.

Why this result: The Petitioner voluntarily withdrew the request for hearing, leading to the matter being vacated from the docket.

Key Issues & Findings

statute

The party requesting the hearing voluntarily withdrew the matter.

Orders: The matter was vacated from the docket of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: respondent_win

Analytics Highlights

Topics: voluntary withdrawal, vacated hearing, continuance granted

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121055-REL Decision – 934279.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:13 (49.2 KB)

21F-H2121055-REL Decision – 934302.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:18 (8.1 KB)

21F-H2121055-REL Decision – 942918.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:22 (42.0 KB)

21F-H2121055-REL Decision – 909217.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:25 (113.1 KB)

This summary focuses on the procedural history and final administrative disposition of the matter, Case No. 21F-H2121055-REL-RHG, before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Key Facts and Parties

The case involved Petitioner Nicole Armsby (NICDON 10663 LLC) and Respondent Desert Mountain Master Association. The proceedings were conducted under the authority of the OAH, with Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson presiding over the entries.

Hearing Proceedings and Main Issues

The primary procedural actions documented are two Minute Entries concerning the scheduling and eventual removal of the case from the docket.

  1. Granting Continuance (December 22, 2021): The OAH issued a minute entry granting a continuance of the scheduled hearing, noting that good cause appearing. The matter was reset for February 23, 2022, at 9:00 AM. The hearing was scheduled to be conducted either by video conferencing or telephone participation through Google Meet, though parties retained the option to appear in person at the OAH in Phoenix if they advised the office seven days prior. In-person attendance required adherence to social distancing and masking guidelines.
  1. Vacating Hearing (January 31, 2022): Before the continued hearing date, a subsequent Minute Entry was filed vacating the hearing from the OAH docket.

Outcome and Legal Points

The most significant legal outcome was the termination of the proceedings at the administrative level. The matter was vacated because "The party requesting the hearing has voluntarily withdrawn". This voluntary withdrawal by the petitioner rendered the scheduled hearing unnecessary and led to the closure of the case on the OAH docket.

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to provide records if I am currently suing them?

Short Answer

Yes, the HOA may withhold records if they relate to pending litigation between the homeowner and the association.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an association is permitted to withhold books and records if the disclosure relates to pending litigation. In this decision, the ALJ ruled that the HOA could withhold documents regarding a keyless entry system because it related to an ongoing lawsuit regarding short-term rental restrictions (since the entry system controlled renter access).

Alj Quote

Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent was permitted to withhold documentation and communication related to the keyless entry program from Petitioner, due to pending litigation regarding the CC&Rs amendment that prohibits short-term rentals.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • pending litigation
  • withholding records

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA violated the law during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the statutes or governing documents. They must prove this by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated Section 5.10 of the Association’s CC&Rs, Article III, Section 1 of the Association’s Bylaws, and A.R.S. § 33-1805 by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

How much evidence do I need to win a case against my HOA?

Short Answer

You need a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning your claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard of proof in these administrative hearings is 'preponderance of the evidence.' This is defined as evidence that makes a contention 'more probably true than not' or carries the greater weight of convincing force.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standards

Question

How long does the HOA have to respond to my request to inspect records?

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute mandates that an association must make financial and other records reasonably available for examination within ten business days of a request.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • timelines
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can the HOA charge me for copies of the records I request?

Short Answer

Yes, they can charge a fee for copies.

Detailed Answer

While the association cannot charge a member for making material available for review, they may charge a fee for providing actual copies of the records. The statute caps this fee.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • fees
  • HOA obligations

Question

What specific types of information can an HOA legally keep private?

Short Answer

The HOA can withhold privileged attorney communications, pending litigation records, closed meeting minutes, and personal or employee information.

Detailed Answer

The law lists specific categories of records that do not have to be disclosed. These include attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, personal/health/financial records of members or employees, and records related to employee job performance or complaints.

Alj Quote

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… 2. Pending litigation… 3. Meeting minutes… of a board meeting that is not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records… 5. Records relating to the job performance…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • privacy
  • exemptions
  • records request

Question

Does a records request have to be directly about the lawsuit to be denied?

Short Answer

Not necessarily directly, but it must 'relate to' the pending litigation.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner requested records about a security entry system. Even though the lawsuit was about short-term rentals, the ALJ found the records could be withheld because the entry system controlled renter access, making the records related to the litigation.

Alj Quote

The evidence presented at hearing shows that the keyless entry program controls renters’ access to Desert Mountain. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent was permitted to withhold documentation and communication related to the keyless entry program… due to pending litigation regarding the CC&Rs amendment that prohibits short-term rentals.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)

Topic Tags

  • pending litigation
  • records request
  • scope of discovery

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121055-REL
Case Title
Nicole Armsby (NICDON 10663 LLC) vs. Desert Mountain Master Association
Decision Date
2021-09-07
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to provide records if I am currently suing them?

Short Answer

Yes, the HOA may withhold records if they relate to pending litigation between the homeowner and the association.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an association is permitted to withhold books and records if the disclosure relates to pending litigation. In this decision, the ALJ ruled that the HOA could withhold documents regarding a keyless entry system because it related to an ongoing lawsuit regarding short-term rental restrictions (since the entry system controlled renter access).

Alj Quote

Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent was permitted to withhold documentation and communication related to the keyless entry program from Petitioner, due to pending litigation regarding the CC&Rs amendment that prohibits short-term rentals.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • pending litigation
  • withholding records

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA violated the law during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the statutes or governing documents. They must prove this by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated Section 5.10 of the Association’s CC&Rs, Article III, Section 1 of the Association’s Bylaws, and A.R.S. § 33-1805 by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

How much evidence do I need to win a case against my HOA?

Short Answer

You need a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning your claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard of proof in these administrative hearings is 'preponderance of the evidence.' This is defined as evidence that makes a contention 'more probably true than not' or carries the greater weight of convincing force.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standards

Question

How long does the HOA have to respond to my request to inspect records?

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute mandates that an association must make financial and other records reasonably available for examination within ten business days of a request.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • timelines
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can the HOA charge me for copies of the records I request?

Short Answer

Yes, they can charge a fee for copies.

Detailed Answer

While the association cannot charge a member for making material available for review, they may charge a fee for providing actual copies of the records. The statute caps this fee.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • fees
  • HOA obligations

Question

What specific types of information can an HOA legally keep private?

Short Answer

The HOA can withhold privileged attorney communications, pending litigation records, closed meeting minutes, and personal or employee information.

Detailed Answer

The law lists specific categories of records that do not have to be disclosed. These include attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, personal/health/financial records of members or employees, and records related to employee job performance or complaints.

Alj Quote

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… 2. Pending litigation… 3. Meeting minutes… of a board meeting that is not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records… 5. Records relating to the job performance…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • privacy
  • exemptions
  • records request

Question

Does a records request have to be directly about the lawsuit to be denied?

Short Answer

Not necessarily directly, but it must 'relate to' the pending litigation.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner requested records about a security entry system. Even though the lawsuit was about short-term rentals, the ALJ found the records could be withheld because the entry system controlled renter access, making the records related to the litigation.

Alj Quote

The evidence presented at hearing shows that the keyless entry program controls renters’ access to Desert Mountain. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent was permitted to withhold documentation and communication related to the keyless entry program… due to pending litigation regarding the CC&Rs amendment that prohibits short-term rentals.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)

Topic Tags

  • pending litigation
  • records request
  • scope of discovery

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121055-REL
Case Title
Nicole Armsby (NICDON 10663 LLC) vs. Desert Mountain Master Association
Decision Date
2021-09-07
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nicole Armsby (petitioner)
    NICDON 10663 LLC
    Appeared on behalf of herself, also referred to as Nikki,
  • Jon Dessaules (petitioner attorney)
    Armsby's attorney, referred to as 'Dom',
  • Matthew Hoxsie (petitioner attorney)
    Greenberg Traurig, LLP
    Associate, Armsby's attorney
  • Jordan (related party)
    Party referenced in communications between counsel regarding conditional approval to speak,

Respondent Side

  • Mark Sahl (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Kevin C. Pollock (Executive Director)
    Desert Mountain Master Association
    Also referred to as community manager
  • Curtis Ekmark (HOA attorney)
    Respondent's attorney, listed as Curtis S. Ekmark in later filing
  • Stephen Prall (witness)
    Desert Mountain Master Association (implied)
    Presented testimony for Respondent
  • Carlotta L. Turman (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner as of September 7, 2021
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner as of December 22, 2021
  • c. serrano (administrative clerk)
    OAH/ADRE (transmittal)
    Signed transmittal notices,,