Case Summary
| Case ID | 08F-H089009-BFS |
|---|---|
| Agency | DFBLS |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2008-12-19 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Lewis D. Kowal |
| Outcome | yes |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $550.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Karl Riem | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Rancho Antigua Condos | Counsel | — |
Alleged Violations
None
Outcome Summary
The Respondent failed to respond to the petition and a Notice of Default was entered. The Administrative Law Judge ruled the Respondent in default and designated the Petitioner as the prevailing party. However, because the Petitioner failed to cite specific statutory provisions or governing documents in the petition, the ALJ could not award substantive relief beyond the reimbursement of the $550.00 filing fee.
Key Issues & Findings
Default Judgment / Failure to Cite Provisions
Respondent failed to submit a response to the Petition and was held in default. However, Petitioner did not cite any provision of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16 or any provision of any planned community or condominium document allegedly violated. Consequently, relief was limited to the filing fee.
Orders: Respondent is in default and Petitioner is the prevailing party. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.
Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Decision Documents
08F-H089009-BFS Decision – 204670.pdf
Administrative Ruling: Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos
Executive Summary
On December 19, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal issued an Order of Default and Award of Filing Fee in the matter of Karl Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos (No. 08F-H089009-BFS). The ruling followed a Notice of Default entered on October 31, 2008, after the Respondent failed to answer the Petitioner’s allegations.
While the Respondent was found to be in default and the Petitioner was named the prevailing party, the relief granted was strictly limited to the reimbursement of the $550.00 filing fee. This limitation was due to a significant deficiency in the Petition: the failure to cite specific statutory violations or governing document breaches. Consequently, while the allegations were deemed admitted by statute, they did not provide a legal basis for substantive relief beyond the recovery of costs.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
The following table summarizes the administrative and legal context of the proceedings:
Category
Details
Case Number
08F-H089009-BFS
Petitioner
Karl Riem
Respondent
Rancho Antigua Condos
Presiding Official
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Administrative Body
Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)
Overseeing Agency
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Date of Order
December 19, 2008
——————————————————————————–
Procedural History and Findings
The Entry of Default
The matter was initiated via a Petition submitted by Karl Riem to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The Respondent, Rancho Antigua Condos, failed to submit a response to the Petition. Under the administrative rules governing the Department:
• On October 31, 2008, the Director of the Department entered a Notice of Default based on the Respondent’s failure to answer.
• Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), in the event of a default, the allegations contained within a Petition can be “deemed admitted.”
Deficiencies in the Petition
Despite the Respondent’s default, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) identified critical technical omissions in the Petitioner’s filing. The Source Context notes that the Petitioner “did not cite any provision of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16 or a provision of any planned community or condominium document that was allegedly violated by Respondent.”
Because the Petition lacked citations to specific laws (Chapters 9 or 16 of Title 33) or specific internal condominium documents, the ALJ determined that substantive relief could not be justified, even though the allegations were technically admitted through the default process.
——————————————————————————–
Final Order and Award
Based on the findings of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the following mandates were issued:
1. Prevailing Party Designation: The Respondent is officially in default, and the Petitioner, Karl Riem, is designated as the prevailing party.
2. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: The Respondent is ordered to reimburse the Petitioner for the filing fee in the amount of $550.00.
3. Compliance Timeline: The Respondent must complete this reimbursement within forty (40) days of the date of the Order (December 19, 2008).
——————————————————————————–
Distribution and Service
The original Order was transmitted to the following parties:
• Robert Barger, Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (Attn: Debra Blake).
• Karl Riem (Petitioner) at his Scottsdale, Arizona residence.
• Rancho Antigua Condos (Respondent) via Cuellar Realty Services in Phoenix, Arizona.
Study Guide: Administrative Hearing Case No. 08F-H089009-BFS
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal proceedings between Karl Riem and Rancho Antigua Condos. It is designed to facilitate an understanding of the procedural outcomes and legal limitations inherent in default judgments within the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
——————————————————————————–
Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided source text.
1. Who are the Petitioner and the Respondent in this specific case?
2. What was the primary reason for the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety to enter a Notice of Default?
3. Why was the Petitioner unable to receive any relief other than the reimbursement of his filing fee?
4. According to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), what happens to the allegations in a Petition when a default occurs?
5. What specific amount was the Respondent ordered to pay the Petitioner, and for what purpose?
6. Who was the Administrative Law Judge who presided over this matter and issued the order?
7. What is the deadline for the Respondent to fulfill the order for reimbursement?
8. Which two chapters of A.R.S. Title 33 were specifically mentioned as not being cited in the Petition?
9. Where is the Office of Administrative Hearings located, according to the document?
10. To whom was the original copy of the order transmitted on behalf of the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety?
——————————————————————————–
Part 2: Answer Key
1. Who are the Petitioner and the Respondent in this specific case? The Petitioner is Karl Riem and the Respondent is Rancho Antigua Condos. The case was filed under the number 08F-H089009-BFS.
2. What was the primary reason for the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety to enter a Notice of Default? The Notice of Default was entered because the Respondent failed to submit a response to the Petition. This notice was officially entered on October 31, 2008.
3. Why was the Petitioner unable to receive any relief other than the reimbursement of his filing fee? The Petitioner did not cite any specific violations of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16, or any specific community or condominium documents. Because no specific legal violations were alleged, the judge could not award further relief beyond the filing fee.
4. According to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), what happens to the allegations in a Petition when a default occurs? Under this statute, the allegations contained in the Petition can be “deemed admitted” in the event of a default. This means the facts of the petition are accepted as true because they were not contested.
5. What specific amount was the Respondent ordered to pay the Petitioner, and for what purpose? The Respondent was ordered to pay $550.00 to the Petitioner. This payment was specifically for the reimbursement of the Petitioner’s filing fee.
6. Who was the Administrative Law Judge who presided over this matter and issued the order? The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was Lewis D. Kowal. He signed the Order of Default and Award of Filing Fee on December 19, 2008.
7. What is the deadline for the Respondent to fulfill the order for reimbursement? The Respondent is required to reimburse the Petitioner within forty days of the date of the Order. The Order was issued and signed on December 19, 2008.
8. Which two chapters of A.R.S. Title 33 were specifically mentioned as not being cited in the Petition? The document specifically notes that the Petitioner failed to cite provisions from A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16. These chapters generally govern community or condominium legalities.
9. Where is the Office of Administrative Hearings located, according to the document? The Office of Administrative Hearings is located at 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona 85007. Their listed phone number is (602) 542-9826.
10. To whom was the original copy of the order transmitted on behalf of the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety? The original was transmitted to Robert Barger, the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The transmission was marked to the attention of Debra Blake.
——————————————————————————–
Part 3: Essay Format Questions
Instructions: Use the information from the source text to develop detailed responses to the following prompts.
1. The Importance of Statutory Citations: Analyze how Karl Riem’s failure to cite specific provisions of A.R.S. Title 33 or condominium documents affected the outcome of the case. Discuss why a “prevailing party” might still fail to receive substantive relief.
2. The Role of Default in Administrative Law: Explain the procedural implications of a Respondent failing to answer a Petition. Detail how the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety handles such failures and the legal assumptions made under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D).
3. Administrative Law Judge Authority: Discuss the role of Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal in this case. Evaluate his decision to grant a default judgment while simultaneously limiting the award to the filing fee.
4. Timeline and Compliance: Trace the timeline of this case from the Notice of Default to the final order. Explain the significance of the 40-day reimbursement window provided to the Respondent.
5. Service and Notification: Describe the administrative process for transmitting orders and notices as evidenced by the distribution list at the end of the document. Identify the key stakeholders involved in receiving the legal results.
——————————————————————————–
Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
A.R.S.
Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
A presiding officer who hears and decides cases for an administrative agency, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Default
A failure to perform a legal duty or respond to a legal proceeding, such as failing to submit a response to a Petition.
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
The state department responsible for oversight and enforcement related to fire safety, building codes, and community/condominium disputes.
Filing Fee
The administrative cost paid by a Petitioner to initiate a case; in this matter, the fee was $550.00.
Notice of Default
A formal document entered by a director or judge noting that a party has failed to respond to a legal action within the required timeframe.
A formal instruction or decision issued by a judge (in this case, Lewis D. Kowal) that mandates specific actions or determines the outcome of a case.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or petition (Karl Riem).
Prevailing Party
The party in a legal proceeding that is deemed successful; despite receiving limited relief, the Petitioner was named the prevailing party due to the Respondent’s default.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition or legal action is filed (Rancho Antigua Condos).
Source Fidelity Note: This study guide is based entirely on excerpts from the “204670.pdf” document regarding Karl Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos.
Why “Winning” Your Case Isn’t Always a Victory: Lessons from an Administrative Default
1. Introduction: The High Cost of a Quiet Courtroom
In the pursuit of legal redress, many litigants imagine the “gold standard” of outcomes: a scenario where the opposition fails to respond, leading to an automatic victory. From a strategic perspective, however, a procedural win is often a hollow shell if it lacks a substantive foundation. The case of Karl Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos (No. 08F-H089009-BFS) serves as a stark reminder that even when the other side remains silent, the burden of pleading remains with the petitioner.
Processed through the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, this case illustrates how a failure to establish a statutory nexus can turn a “win” into a net loss of time and resources. For the petitioner, the “high cost” was not just the filing fee, but the forfeiture of any meaningful relief due to a fundamental failure of pleading.
2. The Default Trap: When Silence is an Admission, but Not a Guarantee
The procedural timeline of this matter began with a significant tactical advantage for the Petitioner. On October 31, 2008, the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety entered a Notice of Default against the Respondent, Rancho Antigua Condos, following their failure to submit a formal response to the Petition.
Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), a default allows the Administrative Tribunal to deem the factual allegations in the petition as admitted. While this technically designates the Petitioner as the “prevailing party,” a Legal Insights Strategist must recognize this as a double-edged sword. Admitting the facts does not automatically equate to proving a legal violation that warrants a specific remedy. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is still bound by the statutory framework of the initial filing.
The final Order emphasizes this distinction:
3. The Citation Gap: Why Specificity is the Soul of Legal Relief
The primary obstacle in Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos was a critical “citation gap.” Despite the Respondent’s default, ALJ Lewis D. Kowal noted that the Petitioner failed to state a claim upon which substantive relief could be granted. Specifically, the Petitioner did not cite any provision of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9 (the Arizona Condominium Act) or Chapter 16 (the Planned Communities Act), nor any specific governing documents of the condominium association.
In Arizona property law, these chapters function as the “constitutions” of dispute resolution. Without anchoring allegations to these statutes, a Petitioner fails to establish the necessary statutory basis for a cause of action. The OAH cannot manufacture a legal theory or invent a remedy that the Petitioner has not explicitly requested through proper statutory citation.
——————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————–
4. The $550 Victory: A Breakdown of the Final Award
The final Order, issued on December 19, 2008, resulted in what can only be described as a pyrrhic victory. Although the Petitioner “won” the case, the lack of substantive legal grounding meant that the only recovery permitted was the restitution of the costs required to initiate the hearing.
Summary of the Orders issued by ALJ Lewis D. Kowal:
• Notice of Default: Confirmed the Respondent’s default status based on the Director’s October 31 entry.
• Prevailing Party Designation: Officially named Karl Riem as the prevailing party in the administrative matter.
• Reimbursement Window: Ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s $550.00 filing fee within forty days of the December 19, 2008, Order.
From an analytical standpoint, the Petitioner ended the dispute in the exact financial position they occupied before the filing, minus the significant “opportunity cost” of the time invested in the litigation.
5. Conclusion: The Importance of a Solid Foundation
The Riem case serves as a masterclass in the importance of preparation and legal precision. In administrative law, the tribunal’s power is not broad; it is specific and tethered to the law. A “win” by default does not relieve a petitioner of the duty to build a solid evidentiary and legal foundation. Simply identifying a grievance is insufficient; one must bridge the gap between a perceived wrong and the specific legislative acts—such as the Arizona Condominium and Planned Communities Acts—that govern it.
——————————————————————————–
Ponder This
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Karl Riem (petitioner)
Neutral Parties
- Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge - Robert Barger (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety - Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
