Briefing Document: Magana v. Wynstone Park Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in case number 25F-H070-REL, Sally Magana v. Wynstone Park Homeowners Association. The petitioner, Sally Magana, filed a two-issue petition alleging the Homeowners Association (HOA) improperly fined her for a public nuisance related to parking and mischaracterized necessary property maintenance as an unauthorized architectural modification.

The respondent, Wynstone Park HOA, countered that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction over the alleged city ordinance violation and that the work performed by the petitioner was, in fact, an unapproved “alteration” under the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The HOA maintained its enforcement actions were authorized and appropriate.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed the petitioner’s case in its entirety. The decision was based on two key findings: 1) The OAH does not have the jurisdiction to rule on violations of a municipal (City of Mesa) ordinance, and 2) The petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof to establish that the HOA violated its own governing documents. The ALJ concluded that the work performed—which included removing the original paver base, installing a new gravel surface, and altering the slope of the driveway—constituted a “change or alteration” requiring prior approval under CC&R Section 7.1, which the petitioner did not obtain.

Case Overview

Entity / Individual

Petitioner

Sally Magana (Homeowner)

Respondent

Wynstone Park Homeowners Association (HOA)

Presiding Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

Case Number

25F-H070-REL

Hearing Date

October 9, 2025

Decision Date

October 29, 2025

Timeline of Key Events

July 3, 2019

HOA granted a variance allowing Ms. Magana to park anywhere on her driveway extension.

Feb 26, 2021

HOA sent a notice to Ms. Magana for parking past the garage, citing nuisance under CC&R Section 8.4.

Jan 27, 2025

Ms. Magana submitted a Design Review Application to modify drainage under her paver extension.

Feb 11, 2025

HOA’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) disapproved the application, citing the 50% lot coverage rule and nuisance complaints from a neighbor.

March 12, 2025

The HOA Board met with Ms. Magana at her property to discuss the matter.

May/June 2025

Ms. Magana proceeded with work on the pavers without ARC approval.

June 2, 2025

HOA issued a courtesy notice for an unapproved architectural change under CC&R Section 7.1.

June 11, 2025

HOA issued a Violation Notice with a $25 fine for the unapproved change.

July 14, 2025

HOA issued a second Violation Notice with a $50 fine.

July 17, 2025

Ms. Magana filed her petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Oct 29, 2025

The ALJ issued a decision dismissing the petition.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

Ms. Magana’s case was centered on two primary allegations:

1. Violation of Public Nuisance Ordinance: The petitioner alleged the HOA violated “Title 8, Chapter 6, Article I, 8-6-3: PUBLIC NUISANCES PROHIBITED” of the City of Mesa code by fining her for parking on her driveway extension. She argued that the extension was approved in 1998 and reaffirmed by an HOA variance in 2019, making the fine improper.

2. Violation of CC&R Section 7.1 (Architectural Approval): The petitioner contended that the HOA mischaracterized routine maintenance as an “unauthorized modification.” She argued the work was necessary to correct a drainage issue causing water pooling against her foundation and creating a risk of termites. Her position was that since no new pavers were installed and the layout was not changed, the work did not constitute an architectural change requiring ARC approval. She also raised the issue of selective enforcement, providing photos of other homes with alleged violations that had not been cited.

Respondent’s Position and Defense

The HOA’s defense, presented by attorney Ashley Turner and Board President Andrew Hancock, rested on the following points:

1. Jurisdictional Challenge: The HOA argued that the OAH does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the association violated a City of Mesa ordinance, and that this issue should be dismissed on that basis alone.

2. The Work Was an “Alteration,” Not “Maintenance”: The HOA asserted that the work performed went beyond simple maintenance. Testimony revealed that the original play sand base was removed, a new decomposed granite base was installed, and the grade of the surface was altered to change the slope and water flow. The HOA considered these actions a “change or alteration” as defined in CC&R Section 7.1, which explicitly requires prior written approval from the ARC.

3. Proper Denial and Enforcement: The HOA’s denial of Ms. Magana’s initial application was based on established Design Guidelines, specifically that the total parking area “may not exceed… fifty percent (50%) of the lot width.” The denial also cited ongoing nuisance complaints from a neighbor regarding noise and access issues caused by vehicles parked on the extension. The subsequent fines were issued in accordance with the HOA’s enforcement policy after Ms. Magana completed the work without approval.

4. Authority to Enforce: The HOA cited CC&R Section 10.1, which grants it the right to enforce all covenants and restrictions in the governing documents.

Key Testimonies and Evidence

Witness Testimony

• Rita Elizalde (Petitioner’s Witness; Owner, JLE Heartscape and Design):

◦ Testified that the initial proposal, which included drains, was not executed due to the HOA’s denial.

◦ Characterized the work performed as “a maintenance on what you already had” to correct sinking pavers and water pooling against the foundation.

◦ Confirmed that the previous installer had used an improper “play sand base,” which her company removed.

◦ Stated they installed a new base of “decomposite granite,” replaced the original pavers in the same design, and added polymeric sand to lock them in.

◦ Confirmed the ground “had to be sloped back a little bit” to ensure water ran toward the street and not toward the neighbor’s property or the house foundation.

• Andrew Hancock (Respondent’s Witness; HOA Board President):

◦ Testified that the board considered the work a “change to the design of the pavers” because it addressed slope and drainage issues, which is more than basic maintenance.

◦ Stated that the board denied the initial application due to the 50% lot coverage rule and nuisance complaints from the neighbor, which included “the sound of the vehicle’s wake child” and the car blocking the neighbor’s access for taking out trash cans.

◦ Clarified that the board offered Ms. Magana two potential compromises: stopping the pavers at the garage line or bringing her fence/gate forward to be in line with the garage.

◦ Testified that photos of the work in progress (Exhibit G) showed all pavers removed and the base grading “manipulated.” He also noted what appeared to be new PVC piping.

◦ Referencing a photo of the pre-maintenance water pooling (Exhibit E), he testified that it showed water flowing “over the end border into the gravel and the neighbor’s yard.”

Key Exhibits

Exhibit #

Description & Significance

Respondent

The HOA’s CC&Rs, establishing the rules for architectural approval (Sec 7.1) and enforcement (Sec 10.1).

Respondent

Ms. Magana’s initial Design Review Application (denied) and a photo showing significant water pooling on the pavers and onto the neighboring lot.

Petitioner

Before and after photos of the paver extension, intended to show no visual change in design.

Respondent

Photos taken during the project showing all pavers removed, piled up, and the underlying base exposed and re-graded.

H, I, K

Respondent

The series of enforcement letters: Courtesy Notice (June 2), $25 Fine (June 11), and $50 Fine (July 14) for the unapproved alteration.

Petitioner

The HOA’s Design Guidelines, which include the 50% lot width limitation for parking areas.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s final decision dismissed Ms. Magana’s petition. The ruling was grounded in the following conclusions of law:

• Lack of Jurisdiction over Municipal Ordinance: The ALJ determined that “The OAH does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a planned community organization has violated a City of Mesa Code Ordinance.” This effectively dismissed the first issue of the petition without ruling on its merits.

• Petitioner’s Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: For the second issue, the ALJ found that the petitioner bore the burden of proving the HOA violated its CC&Rs and failed to do so. The decision noted:

◦ CC&R Section 7.1 regulates homeowners, requiring them to obtain prior approval for any “exterior addition, change, or alteration.”

◦ The preponderance of evidence, including testimony from the petitioner’s own witness (Ms. Elizalde), showed that changes were made to the surface under the pavers and to the slope of the driveway.

◦ These actions constitute an “alteration” under the CC&Rs.

◦ Because Ms. Magana made these changes without prior approval, she did not establish that the HOA mischaracterized her actions or violated Section 7.1.

• HOA’s Authority to Enforce: The decision affirmed that CC&R Section 10.1 authorizes the respondent to enforce its governing documents.

The final order concluded: “Petitioner has failed to meet her burden to establish that Respondent violated Respondent’s CC&Rs, governing document, or any statutes that regulate planned communities. Petitioner’s petition should be dismissed.”