Tom Barrs vs Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on March 31, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-04-01
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$25.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Tom Barrs	Counsel	Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.
Respondent	Desert Ranch Homeowners Association	Counsel	B. Austin Baillio, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge Decision granted the remanded petition based on the parties' stipulation that the Respondent Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide the membership roster. The ALJ ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and assessed a civil penalty of $25.00 against Respondent. All other respects of the previous ALJ Decision issued February 21, 2023, remain unchanged.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to timely provide full membership roster

The remanded issue concerned whether Respondent failed to timely fulfill records requests, specifically a full roster of Association Member names and corresponding property addresses, in violation of ARS § 33-1805. The parties stipulated that a violation of ARS § 33-1805 occurred.

Orders: Petitioner's remanded petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and pay a $25.00 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $25.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Membership Roster, Records Disclosure, Statutory Violation, Stipulation, Remand

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09(A)(1)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1280942.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:21 (50.9 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1285833.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:25 (107.0 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1286292.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:30 (21.7 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1288559.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:36 (149.2 KB)

Briefing Doc – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

Briefing Document: The Matter of Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the key events, legal arguments, and ultimate resolution of the administrative case Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (No. 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD). The dispute, which progressed through the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the Maricopa County Superior Court, centered on a homeowner’s right to access association records, specifically the membership roster.

The case concluded on March 31, 2025, when the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA) stipulated to a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805. The HOA admitted it failed to timely fulfill a records request for the membership roster, which was submitted on October 21, 2021, and not fulfilled until May 2023—a delay of approximately 19 months.

The resolution required the HOA to pay petitioner Tom Barrs a total of $975.00, which included the reimbursement of a $500.00 filing fee. Citing the respondent’s “unconscionable conduct,” the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) also levied a nominal civil penalty of $25.00 against the association.

A critical turning point in the case was a landmark ruling by the Maricopa County Superior Court on April 4, 2024. The Court reversed an earlier OAH decision, establishing that HOA membership lists containing names and property addresses do not qualify as exempt personal records. The Court reasoned that access to such information is “essential to having a homeowners association” and necessary for members “to actively participate in HOA affairs.” This ruling, however, specified that more private data, such as email addresses and phone numbers, are not subject to mandatory disclosure. The matter was subsequently remanded to the OAH on this single issue, leading to the final stipulated resolution.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview and Parties Involved

This administrative action details a prolonged dispute between a homeowner and his planned community association regarding access to records.

• Case Name: In the Matter of: Tom Barrs, Petitioner, vs. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Respondent.

• Docket Number: 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark

• Petitioner: Tom Barrs (Appeared pro per initially, later represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.)

• Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Represented by HOA President Michel Olley)

II. Procedural History: From Initial Petitions to Superior Court

The case originated from four separate petitions filed by Mr. Barrs with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, each incurring a $500 filing fee.

Petition Filing Date

Alleged Violation

Subject Matter

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Document requests from Apr 2021, Nov 2021, and Feb 2022.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Alleged preclusion of audio recording at a meeting.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Membership roster request from October 2021.

May 12, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Multiple document requests from Oct 2021 to Mar 2022.

• May 25, 2022: The Department of Real Estate consolidated the matters and referred them to the OAH for an evidentiary hearing.

• January 9-10, 2023: The consolidated hearing takes place before the OAH.

• February 21, 2023: The OAH issues an Administrative Law Judge Decision. It granted portions of the general document request petitions but denied the petitions regarding the audio recording and the membership roster in their entirety. The petitioner’s request for civil penalties was also denied.

• March 26, 2023: As the aggrieved party, Mr. Barrs files a timely Dispute Rehearing Petition with the Department of Real Estate.

• April 18, 2023: The Department of Real Estate issues an order denying the rehearing request.

• June 6, 2023: The Department is notified that Mr. Barrs has appealed its decision to the Maricopa County Superior Court.

III. The Superior Court Ruling: A Key Decision on HOA Record Transparency

On April 4, 2024, the Superior Court issued a pivotal order that reversed the Department of Real Estate’s decision in part, focusing squarely on the issue of membership lists.

The Court concluded that the ALJ had erred in treating the membership roster as exempt personal records. It ruled that such lists, containing names and property addresses, must be made available to all members unless they qualify for a specific statutory exception.

“In this case, Desert Ridge has kept membership lists as a part of their records undoubtedly for a variety of reasons. Unless those records qualify for an exception, they must be made available to all members… Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records.”

The Court’s rationale was grounded in the principle of homeowner participation in association governance:

“In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.”

The ruling drew a clear line between public-facing information and private contact details. It affirmed that while names and addresses are necessary for HOA functions, more personal data is not.

“The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association… Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature… While disclosure of names and property addresses… may be essential to having a homeowners association, the disclosure of email addresses and phone numbers is not.”

On August 2, 2024, the Court reaffirmed its ruling and remanded “only the reversed portion of the Department’s Decision” back to the OAH for “proceedings consistent” with its order. The petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees for his pro per work was denied.

IV. The Remand Process and Clarification of Scope

Following the remand, the OAH scheduled a new hearing for March 31, 2025. A prehearing conference on March 18, 2025, revealed a significant disagreement between the parties on the scope of this new hearing.

• Petitioner’s Position: Mr. Barrs argued that the remand reopened all four of his original petitions for reconsideration.

• Respondent’s Position: Mr. Olley contended that the remand was narrowly focused on the single issue of the membership roster, as specified by the Superior Court.

ALJ Clark noted that the Department of Real Estate’s hearing notice was “deficient” because it failed to specify the issue for adjudication. To resolve the conflict, she issued a clarifying Minute Entry on March 24, 2025.

The Order explicitly narrowed the scope of the hearing:

“IT IS ORDERED that the issue to be addressed at the hearing… is whether Respondent failed to timely fulfill records requests submitted by Petitioner… by providing Petitioner with a full roster of Association Member names and corresponding property addresses per his request(s) in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

The order further stated that in all other respects, the original ALJ Decision from February 21, 2023, “remains unchanged and in full force and effect,” thereby validating the respondent’s interpretation.

V. Final Hearing and Resolution

The remanded hearing convened on March 31, 2025. Before testimony could begin, the case moved swiftly to a resolution.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Olley, on behalf of the HOA, made a “motion for summary judgment,” conceding a violation of the statute regarding the withholding of the membership roster and offering to reimburse the petitioner’s $500 filing fee. The ALJ treated this as a settlement offer and allowed the parties to confer off the record.

The parties returned having reached a full agreement, which was entered into the record. The key stipulated facts were:

Stipulation

Details

Violation Admitted

The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the membership roster.

Specific Request

The violation pertains to the request made by Mr. Barrs on October 21, 2021.

Untimeliness

The roster was not provided until May 2023, approximately 19 months after the request.

Monetary Settlement

The Association agreed to pay Mr. Barrs a total of $975.00.

Based on the parties’ stipulations, ALJ Clark issued a final decision on April 1, 2025, formalizing the outcome:

1. Petition Granted: The petitioner’s remanded petition was granted.

2. Civil Penalty: A civil penalty of $25.00 was assessed against the Respondent. In his closing argument, petitioner’s counsel argued this was warranted due to the HOA’s “unconscionable conduct” in delaying compliance for 19 months.

3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: Respondent was ordered to reimburse the petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, as per the stipulation and statute.

4. Finality: The decision reaffirmed that all other elements of the original February 21, 2023, OAH decision remain in effect.

Study Guide – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H2222050-REL-RMD”, “case_title”: “Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-04-01”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA refuse to give me a list of other homeowners’ names and addresses?”, “short_answer”: “No. Unless an exception applies, membership lists with names and addresses must be made available so members can participate in HOA affairs.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that membership lists containing names and addresses are not considered ‘personal records’ that can be withheld. Access to this information is deemed necessary for members to actively participate in the association, such as knowing who belongs to the association and which properties they own.”, “alj_quote”: “Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records. … In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Records Request”, “Membership List”, “Homeowner Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Am I entitled to receive the email addresses and phone numbers of other homeowners?”, “short_answer”: “No. Email addresses and phone numbers are considered personal and private, unlike physical addresses.”, “detailed_answer”: “While names and physical addresses are necessary for HOA participation, the decision states that email addresses and phone numbers are more personal. Disclosure of this contact information is not essential for association business and could lead to harassment or marketing issues.”, “alj_quote”: “The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association. … Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Privacy”, “Records Request”, “Personal Records” ] }, { “question”: “How quickly must the HOA respond to my request to inspect records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law grants the association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Timelines”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee for simply looking at the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making material available for review. Charges are only permitted for copies.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Fees”, “Records Request” ] }, { “question”: “How much can the HOA charge me for copies of records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA can charge a maximum of 15 cents per page.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a member requests copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, but it is capped at fifteen cents per page.”, “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”: [ “Fees”, “Records Request” ] }, { “question”: “What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA can withhold privileged legal communications, pending litigation, closed meeting minutes, and specific personal or employee records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision outlines specific statutory exceptions where records can be withheld, including attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, and personal/health/financial records of members or employees.”, “alj_quote”: “Books and records… may be withheld… to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation. 3. Meeting minutes… of a session… not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Exceptions”, “Records Request”, “Privacy” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be penalized if they delay providing records for a long time?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Significant delays can result in a violation and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA failed to provide a membership roster for approximately 19 months (from October 2021 to May 2023). This was deemed untimely and resulted in a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s October 21, 2021, records request was untimely, as it was not fulfilled until May 2023. … Petitioner’s request to assess civil penalties totaling $25.00 against Respondent is granted.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Enforcement”, “Timelines” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my hearing, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fee?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision orders the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee as required by statute when the Petitioner prevails.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “Costs”, “Remedies” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute. This means showing that the contention is more probably 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. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Standards”, “Procedure” ] } ] }

Blog Post – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Tom Barrs (petitioner)
Jonathan A. Dessaules (petitioner attorney)
Dessaules Law Group

Respondent Side

Michael Olley (HOA President)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Appeared on behalf of Respondent. Also referred to as Michael Ali and Michel Olley.
B. Austin Baillio (respondent attorney)
Maxwell & Morgan P.C.
Counsel for Respondent in official correspondence.

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Judge Mikitish (Superior Court Judge)
Superior Court of Arizona – Maricopa County
Issued minute entries in related Superior Court proceedings.
vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
labril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
mneat (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
lrecchia (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
gosborn (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.

Other Participants

Brian Schoeffler (observer)
Observed the hearing.
Stephen Barrs (observer)
Observed the hearing. Also referred to as Steven Bar and Steven Bars.

Tom Barrs V. Desert Ranch Homeowners Assocation (ROOT)

Posted on February 22, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2222050-REL; 22F-H2222054-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-02-21
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$2,000.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Tom Barrs	Counsel	Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent	Desert Ranch Homeowners Association	Counsel	B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted Petitions 1 and 4 in part, finding the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide records where a Board Member was acting in official capacity (survey requests and City communications), even if the management company did not possess them. Petitions 2 (recordings) and 3 (roster) were denied in their entirety. No civil penalties were assessed due to the tumultuous relationship of the parties. The Tribunal ordered that the Association shall not reimburse the Petitioner's filing fees.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove recording violations or entitlement to the roster given privacy concerns. Filing fees were not reimbursed despite partial success.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records (April 2021, Nov 2021, Feb 2022 requests)

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide various records including survey bids and cleanup volunteer responses. The ALJ found the Association was required to provide the survey request records as the Secretary/Treasurer was acting in his capacity as a Board Member, regardless of whether the management company possessed them.

Orders: Petition 1 granted in relevant parts regarding survey requests; remaining portions denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_win

Meeting recording violations

Petitioner alleged the HOA forbade video/audio recording and provided altered recordings. The ALJ found the Petitioner did not sustain his burden of proof regarding this violation.

Orders: Petition 2 denied in its entirety.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Failure to provide membership roster

Petitioner requested a membership roster. The ALJ denied this petition in its entirety, noting evidence that the Association stopped disseminating rosters due to complaints about Petitioner's unsolicited emails.

Orders: Petition 3 denied in its entirety.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Failure to provide records (Oct 2021-Mar 2022 requests)

Petitioner requested various records including emails regarding a Netflix filming event. The ALJ found the Association violated the statute by failing to provide Board Member communications regarding the event, as the member was acting in his capacity as a Board Member.

Orders: Petition 4 granted in relevant parts regarding Board Member communications; remaining portions denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_win

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1000763.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:55 (52.4 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1002291.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:55 (55.0 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1035796.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:56 (295.5 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 980693.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:56 (54.2 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 981784.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:56 (50.4 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 982383.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:57 (55.5 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 987368.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:57 (61.6 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 987371.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:57 (8.5 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 998623.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:58 (45.7 KB)

Briefing Doc – 22F-H2222050-REL

Briefing Document: Legal Proceedings and Testimony Regarding Desert Ranch HOA vs. Tom Bars

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the testimony and legal findings from the consolidated matters of Case Nos. 22 FH222050 REL and 22 SH22254 REL, presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark. The proceedings center on a dispute between homeowner Tom Bars (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association (Respondent), managed by Associated Asset Management (AAM).

The core of the dispute involves allegations that the HOA and AAM violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 33-1804 and 33-1805 by failing to provide complete records, prohibiting homeowners from recording meetings, and producing edited or incomplete audio/video recordings. The testimony of Lori Loch-Lee, Vice President of Client Services at AAM, highlights a significant transition from a self-managed association to professional management, which coincided with the adoption of more restrictive data privacy and recording policies.

Critical Takeaways:

• Recording Irregularities: Multiple board meeting recordings were found to be incomplete or contained abrupt cuts. AAM staff attributed these to technical errors or personal oversight (forgetting to start the recorder) rather than intentional editing.

• Access to Records: While the ALJ found that the majority of records requests were fulfilled, specific violations were identified regarding the failure to provide survey proposals and certain board communications.

• Privacy vs. Precedent: A significant conflict exists regarding homeowner rosters. Historically, the HOA provided unredacted rosters; however, under current management, AAM maintains that email addresses and phone numbers are private information and has withheld them from the Petitioner.

• Homeowner Recording Restrictions: The HOA implemented a policy and board resolution asserting its own recording as the “official” version and used Zoom settings to block homeowners from recording meetings directly to their devices.

——————————————————————————–

Witness Profile: Lori Loch-Lee

Lori Loch-Lee serves as the Vice President of Client Services for Associated Asset Management (AAM). She has been employed in this capacity for over nine years and has acted as the community manager for Desert Ranch HOA since approximately April 1, 2018.

Key Responsibilities:

• Financial management and accounting coordination with CPAs.

• Production of financial statements.

• Record-keeping for the association (though she clarifies that AAM is primarily a financial management company for this specific client).

• Attending board meetings and recording them via Zoom.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of Record-Keeping and Transparency Disputes

1. Incomplete and “Edited” Meeting Recordings

A primary point of contention is the integrity of meeting recordings provided to the Petitioner.

• April 27, 2021 Meeting: The recording provided was 36 minutes and 48 seconds long, whereas the meeting itself lasted approximately one hour and six minutes. Loch-Lee testified that she “forgot to start the recording at the very beginning” and denied any intentional editing.

• September 2020 Meeting: This meeting involved an incident where the Petitioner was removed from a board member’s home. Testimony and video evidence showed an “abrupt cut” in the recording at 17 minutes and 20 seconds and another at 30 minutes and 24 seconds.

• Witness Defense: Loch-Lee repeatedly stated, “I do not edit anything. I’m lucky I turned it on and turn it off. I don’t know how to edit.” She attributed cuts to the Zoom platform or the suspension of meetings when disruptions occurred.

2. Policies on Homeowner Recording

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated statutory rights by prohibiting homeowners from making their own recordings.

• Technological Prohibitions: Evidence (Exhibit P243) showed a Zoom notification stating: “This meeting is not allowed to be recorded to your device. Please stop recording to continue the meeting.” Loch-Lee claimed she had never seen this message from her end.

• Board Resolutions: The board adopted a resolution stating that the HOA’s recording is the “official” version. Loch-Lee interpreted this as a means to prevent “intimidating” behavior by homeowners who would bring equipment and “cameras on their hats” to the business office, causing distress to staff.

• Consistency of Enforcement: While Loch-Lee stated she could not stop a homeowner from recording on their own side of a phone line, the HOA maintained a policy (Exhibit P71) that “no audio or visual equipment can be used by individual members of the association.”

3. Homeowner Roster and Data Privacy

The dispute over the membership roster highlights a shift in HOA policy following the hiring of AAM.

• Historical Context: Prior to 2018, the association (then self-managed) voluntarily provided unredacted rosters, including emails and phone numbers, to all homeowners.

• Current Stance: Loch-Lee testified that she treats emails and phone numbers as “private and personal and confidential.” She stated, “I have not been providing homeowner rosters to homeowners when they ask for it because it’s not a directory.”

• The “Opt-In” vs. “Opt-Out” Conflict: The Petitioner argued the association historically used an “opt-out” provision for sharing info. Loch-Lee contended that AAM uses an “opt-in” system through their mobile app, where homeowners must choose to share contact information.

• Justification for Restriction: The HOA alleged that the Petitioner used previous rosters to “blast” unsolicited emails to members, leading the board to stop disseminating the information in 2018.

——————————————————————————–

4. Bids and Financial Records

The Petitioner sought copies of various bids, particularly for street work and common area surveys.

• Retention Policy: Loch-Lee testified that she only retains bids if they are “contracted.” If the board procures a bid but does not accept it, she claims she does not keep it in the official files.

• Holbrook Asphalt Bid: Despite claims of not having certain bids, a proposal for $10,738.60 from Holbrook Asphalt was identified with Loch-Lee’s name in the “attention” line. She stated she had “no idea” why she was listed and denied destroying any documents.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Findings (ALJ Order – Case No. HO22-22050/22054)

The ALJ’s final order, issued February 21, 2023, summarized the findings based on the evidence and testimony provided during the January 2023 hearings.

Statutory Requirements (A.R.S. Title 33)

Statute

Requirement

§ 33-1804(A)

Meetings must be open to all members; any person may tape record or use a video camera subject to reasonable board rules.

§ 33-1805(A)

All financial and other records shall be made reasonably available for examination within 10 business days.

§ 33-1805(B)

Certain records may be withheld (e.g., attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, personal/health/financial info of individual members).

Summary of Rulings

• Records Compliance: The ALJ found that the “overwhelming majority” of the Petitioner’s records requests were complied with fully and timely.

• Specific Violations: The Respondent failed to timely and completely fulfill requests regarding:

◦ Survey proposals (April 27, 2021).

◦ Specific board communications involving Brian Schoeffler (December 07, 2021).

• Recordings: The ALJ noted that the beginning of the April 27 meeting was missing and that the September 2020 recording was stopped twice, but did not find sufficient evidence of “purposeful” or “flagrant” editing.

• Outcome: The ALJ ordered the Respondent to provide the missing survey proposals and communications. However, the request to levy civil penalties against the HOA was denied, and the Respondent was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fees.

——————————————————————————–

Key Quotes from Testimony

On Recording Errors: “I provided the recording that I had and I forgot to start it at the very beginning. I believe this is the meeting that it happened in… I simply forgot.” — Lori Loch-Lee

On Historical Transparency: “That was then… I don’t know of any specific change, sir. What I do know is when I started managing, there’s never been any conversation about homeowner rosters.” — Lori Loch-Lee, responding to evidence that rosters were previously public.

On Data Privacy: “I’ve never sent a I don’t recall ever sending a redacted one. I have sent recently a roster with just the names on it, but homeowner addresses and email s are considered private information. I’ve always been trained that way.” — Lori Loch-Lee

On Recording Prohibitions: “I will remind you that no tape recording nor visual recording can or will be done in this business office… [the Petitioner’s family] were being very intimidating and causing a ruckus. So that’s when we stopped it.” — Lori Loch-Lee

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Tom Barrs (Petitioner)
Homeowner
Jonathan A. Dessaules (Legal Counsel for Petitioner)
Dessaules Law Group

Respondent Side

Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent)
HOA
B. Austin Baillio (Legal Counsel for Respondent)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (Administrative Law Judge)

Brian D Sopatyk v. Xanadu Lake Resort Condominium, Inc.

Posted on November 1, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121065-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-11-01
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,000.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Brian D. Sopatyk	Counsel	Jacob A. Kubert, Esq.
Respondent	Xanadu Lake Resort Condominium, Inc.	Counsel	Penny L. Koepke, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)
CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)
CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding Issues 1 and 3, while Respondent was deemed the prevailing party regarding Issue 2. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $1,000.00. No civil penalty was found appropriate.

Why this result: Petitioner lost Issue 2 because he failed to prove the Respondent's no-pet policy was arbitrarily or unreasonably applied.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that screen doors are not permitted in Xanadu under CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2), and CC&R Article 7 (Architectural Committee authority) does not override this explicit prohibition.

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2) going forward.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)
CC&R Article 7

Alleged violation of CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)

Petitioner alleged violation concerning the 'no-pet' policy. The ALJ concluded that Respondent is not required to allow pets, but may allow them with Board approval, and the Petitioner did not establish that the policy was arbitrarily or unreasonably applied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)
A.R.S. § 12-548

Alleged violation of CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)

The ALJ concluded that the marquee is common area, and the Association was not authorized under CC&R Article 6 § 2(a) to charge a separate assessment or rental fee for its use. Furthermore, there was no evidence the $50 assessment complied with CC&R Article 6 § 5 (special assessment requirements).

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&R Article 6 § 2(a) going forward.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)
CC&R Article 6 § 5
A.R.S. § 12-548

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Governance, Condominium, CC&R Violation, Assessment Dispute, Architectural Control, Pet Policy, Statute of Limitations Defense

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
A.R.S. § 12-548
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)
CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)
CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)
CC&R Article 6 § 5
CC&R Article 7

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121065-REL Decision – 913797.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:10 (41.8 KB)

21F-H2121065-REL Decision – 913859.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:13 (5.9 KB)

21F-H2121065-REL Decision – 921820.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:16 (100.1 KB)

21F-H2121065-REL Decision – 921823.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:19 (112.8 KB)

Legal Standards
CC&R Interpretation

Case

Docket No: 21F-H2121065-REL
Case Title: Brian D. Sopatyk vs. Xanadu Lake Resort Condominium, Inc.
Decision Date: 2021-11-01
Alj Name: Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Can the HOA Board or Architectural Committee authorize an improvement (like a screen door) if the CC&Rs explicitly ban it?

Short Answer

No. The Board cannot use its general approval powers to override specific prohibitions in the CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

If Respondent were permitted to authorize the installation of screen doors through the approval of the Architectural Committee, the bar in CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2) would have no meaning.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

Architectural Control
Board Authority
CC&R Interpretation

Question

If the CC&Rs say pets are allowed 'with Board permission,' does the Board have to let me have a pet?

Short Answer

No. The Board has discretion to deny permission.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Board Discretion

Topic Tags

Pets
Rules Enforcement

Question

Can the HOA charge a 'rental fee' or separate assessment to specific owners for the use or repair of a common area structure?

Short Answer

Not usually. Common area maintenance should be paid from general reserve funds or regular assessments.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)

Topic Tags

Assessments
Common Areas
Financials

Question

Is there a statute of limitations for filing a petition against my HOA with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

Short Answer

No.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 12-548 (distinguished)

Topic Tags

Procedure
Statute of Limitations

Alj Quote

Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.

Legal Basis

Common Law Interpretation

Topic Tags

Legal Standards
CC&R Interpretation

Case

Docket No: 21F-H2121065-REL
Case Title: Brian D. Sopatyk vs. Xanadu Lake Resort Condominium, Inc.
Decision Date: 2021-11-01
Alj Name: Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Brian D. Sopatyk (petitioner)
Unit Owner
Jacob A. Kubert (petitioner attorney)
Dessaules Law Group

Respondent Side

Penny L. Koepke (respondent attorney)
Maxwell Morgan PC

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

c. serrano (clerk/staff)
Transmitting agent mentioned in distribution list

John H. Kelly v. Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association

Posted on September 13, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919060-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-09-13
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John H. Kelly	Counsel	—
Respondent	Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association	Counsel	Jonathan A. Dessaules

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243

Outcome Summary

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the required threshold of 21 valid signatures from eligible voters needed to compel the Association to call a special meeting under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243. The petition was consequently denied.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide the minimum required 21 valid signatures from eligible unit owners (only 13 were valid) as required by the Association's Bylaws and state statute.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of failure to call a special meeting to remove a board member.

Petitioner filed a petition alleging the Association failed to call a special meeting to remove a board member after collecting what Petitioner believed were sufficient signatures (36 collected, 21 required). The Association countered that only 13 of those signatures were valid (excluding non-owners, duplicates, and delinquent members ineligible to vote).

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium, Special Meeting, Board Member Removal, Petition Signature Validity, Voting Rights, Delinquency

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919060-REL Decision – 737890.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:17 (142.6 KB)

Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919060-REL

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Kelly vs. Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919060-REL, a dispute between Petitioner John H. Kelly and the Respondent, Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association (“the Association”). The core issue was whether the Association violated Arizona state law by refusing to call a special meeting to remove a board member, as demanded by a petition initiated by Mr. Kelly.

The Association’s bylaws require a petition signed by at least 25% of eligible voting members—in this case, 21 of the 84 unit owners—to compel such a meeting. Mr. Kelly submitted a petition with 36 signatures. However, upon review, the Association invalidated 23 signatures for specific reasons: 11 were from non-owner renters, 6 were duplicate signatures from units that had already signed, and 6 were from owners whose voting rights were suspended due to being over 15 days delinquent on payments.

This left only 13 valid signatures, well short of the 21 required. The Administrative Law Judge, Jenna Clark, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The evidence clearly demonstrated that the number of valid signatures was insufficient to legally compel the Association to call a special meeting. Consequently, the judge ruled that the Association did not violate Arizona statute § 33-1243 and denied Mr. Kelly’s petition.

Case Overview

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Details

Petitioner

John H. Kelly

A condominium owner and member of the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association. Appeared on his own behalf.

Respondent

Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association

The homeowners’ association for the Cortez Canyon condominium development in Phoenix, AZ. Represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.

Witness

Saundra Garcia

President of the Association’s Board of Directors.

Adjudicator

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge, Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

Core Dispute

The central issue adjudicated was whether the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association violated Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1243 by failing to call a special meeting for the purpose of removing a board member after receiving a petition from unit owners. The Petitioner alleged that the required number of signatures had been collected, while the Respondent denied this claim, asserting that the petition lacked the requisite number of valid signatures from eligible voters.

Legal and Governance Framework

The dispute was governed by Arizona state law and the Association’s own internal documents.

• Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1243(H)(4): This statute mandates that an association with 1,000 or fewer members must call a special meeting to remove a board member upon receipt of a petition signed by at least 25% of the eligible voters in the association.

• Association Bylaws, Article II, Section 2: Mirrors the state statute, stipulating that a special meeting may be called by unit owners holding at least 25% of the votes in the Association.

• Association Bylaws, Article II, Section 7: Critically, this section states that a unit owner’s right to vote is automatically suspended if they are in arrears on payments (assessments, penalties, etc.) for a period of 15 days. This suspension remains until all payments are brought current.

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (John H. Kelly)

Mr. Kelly initiated the petition to recall an Association board member. His position and the evidence he presented are summarized as follows:

• Petition Submission: Mr. Kelly, with assistance from others, collected 36 signatures and submitted them to the Association’s then-property management group, Golden Valley.

• Initial Confirmation: He testified that Golden Valley initially informed him that he had secured enough signatures to compel the special meeting.

• Reversal by New Management: A short time later, after the Association’s contract with Golden Valley expired on June 1, 2019, a new property management company informed him that the petition did not meet the signature threshold.

• Key Admission: Mr. Kelly testified that neither he nor his assistants verified whether the signatories were unit owners eligible to vote prior to submitting the petition.

• Argument at Hearing: Mr. Kelly argued that he had submitted a minimum of 23 valid signatures. This included the signature of Jeffery Law, an owner of six units, which Mr. Kelly contended should be counted six times. However, it was established that Mr. Law’s signature was secured after the initial submission and was never provided to the management company.

• Formal Allegation: In his April 29, 2019, filing with the Department, Mr. Kelly stated: “Cortez Canyon has 84 units and 25% is 21 units. Homeowners have collected more than the required 21 home-owner’s signatures. The Cortez Canyon HOA board has stated that they will not schedule the required special meeting.”

Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Cortez Canyon Association)

The Association, represented by its Board President Saundra Garcia, presented a detailed rebuttal based on a thorough review of the submitted petition.

• Receipt of Petition: The Association received the petition with 36 purported unit owner signatures on or about April 19, 2019.

• Signature Verification Process: Upon review, the Association determined that a significant number of signatures were invalid based on the community’s governing documents.

• Disqualification of Signatures: The Association provided a specific breakdown of the 23 signatures it disqualified:

◦ 11 signatures were removed because they were from non-owner renters or occupants.

◦ 6 signatures were removed because they were from units for which another owner’s signature had already been collected (only one vote is permitted per unit).

◦ 6 signatures were removed because the unit owner was ineligible to vote, being more than 15 days delinquent on fines, fees, or dues owed to the Association, as stipulated in the Bylaws.

• Final Tally: After removing the 23 invalid signatures from the 36 submitted, the Association concluded that the petition contained only 13 valid signatures.

• Conclusion: Since 13 signatures is below the required threshold of 21, the Association determined it was not obligated by law or its bylaws to call the special meeting. The signature from the multi-unit owner, Jeffrey Law, was not part of the petition received by the Association and was therefore not considered in its count.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Ruling

The Administrative Law Judge, Jenna Clark, reviewed the evidence and testimony from both parties and issued a decision decisively in favor of the Respondent.

Conclusions of Law

• Burden of Proof: The Judge established that the Petitioner, John H. Kelly, bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association had violated the statute. A preponderance of evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

• Undisputed Facts: The material facts of the case were not at issue. Both parties agreed that 21 valid signatures were required to compel the special meeting.

• Evidence of Record: The Judge found that the evidence presented demonstrated the Petitioner’s failure to meet the required threshold. The decision states, “While Petitioner is correct that he submitted more than twenty-one signatures to the Association, he is incorrect that all of signatures provided were valid.”

• Final Determination on Signatures: The ruling affirmed the Association’s count, concluding, “What the evidence of record reflects is that Petitioner only provided thirteen valid signatures along with his petition to the Association, which was not enough to compel the Association to call a special meeting.”

Final Order

Based on the failure of the Petitioner to sustain his burden of proof, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following order on September 13, 2019:

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition be denied.

Study Guide – 19F-H1919060-REL

Study Guide: Kelly v. Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association (Case No. 19F-H1919060-REL)

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter between Petitioner John H. Kelly and Respondent Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association. It is designed to test and reinforce understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, governing documents, and final outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in two to three complete sentences, based solely on the information provided in the case document.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this hearing, and what were their respective roles?

2. What was the specific violation of Arizona law alleged by the Petitioner in his initial petition to the Department of Real Estate?

3. How many condominium units are in the Cortez Canyon development, and what number of valid signatures was consequently required to compel a special meeting?

4. According to the Association’s Bylaws, what circumstances would cause a Unit Owner to have their voting rights suspended?

5. List the three categories of invalid signatures that the Association identified in its review of the Petitioner’s submission.

6. Who was Jeffery Law, and why was his signature ultimately not counted by the Association?

7. What was the initial assessment given to the Petitioner by the property management group, Golden Valley, and how did it differ from the Association’s final determination?

8. In this type of legal proceeding, who bears the “burden of proof,” and what standard of proof must be met?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s claim?

10. What was the final ORDER issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The primary parties were John H. Kelly, the “Petitioner,” who appeared on his own behalf, and the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association, the “Respondent,” which was represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq. Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark presided over the hearing. Saundra Garcia, the Association’s Board President, appeared as a witness for the Respondent.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243 by failing to call a special meeting for the purpose of removing a board member. He claimed to have collected the required number of signatures from homeowners to compel such a meeting.

3. The Cortez Canyon development has 84 units. Based on the requirement for signatures from 25% of the votes in the Association, a total of 21 valid Unit Owner signatures were required to compel a special meeting.

4. According to Bylaws Article II, Section 7, a Unit Owner’s right to vote is automatically suspended if the owner is in arrears in the payment of any Assessment, monetary penalties, or other fees for a period of fifteen days. This suspension remains in effect until all payments are brought current.

5. The Association determined that of the 36 submitted signatures, 23 were invalid. The categories for invalidation were: eleven signatures from non-owner renters or occupants, six signatures from units where another signature had already been collected, and six signatures from Unit Owners who were ineligible to vote due to being delinquent on payments.

6. Jeffery Law was an Association member and owner of six condominium units. His signature was not counted because the Petitioner secured it after submitting the petition to the management company and never provided it to the Association as part of the formal submission.

7. The former property management group, Golden Valley, initially informed the Petitioner that he had secured enough valid signatures to compel a special meeting. However, after the Association directly reviewed the petition, it determined that only 13 of the signatures were valid, far short of the required 21.

8. In this proceeding, the Petitioner, John H. Kelly, bore the burden of proof. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means providing evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight than the evidence presented by the opposing side.

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof. The credible evidence demonstrated that the Petitioner submitted only thirteen valid signatures, which was insufficient to compel the Association to call a special meeting under its Bylaws and state law.

10. The final ORDER, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, was that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. They require a deeper analysis of the case’s themes, legal principles, and procedural elements. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means in this context, who held the burden, and how the failure to meet this standard was the central reason for the judge’s final decision.

2. Discuss the critical importance of an association’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws) in resolving internal disputes. Use specific articles and sections from the Cortez Canyon Bylaws to illustrate how they definitively established the rules for calling a special meeting and determining voter eligibility, leaving little room for interpretation.

3. Evaluate the Petitioner’s strategy and execution in collecting signatures for his petition. Identify the critical errors he and his assistants made in the process, and outline the specific steps he could have taken to verify signatures and ensure his petition was valid before its submission.

4. Explain the legal and practical distinctions between a Unit Owner, an occupant/renter, and an “eligible voter” within the context of the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association. How did the Petitioner’s failure to understand these distinctions become the central point of failure for his petition?

5. Imagine you are advising the Cortez Canyon Board of Directors following this hearing. Based on the evidence and outcome of the case, what recommendations would you make regarding their procedures for validating petitions and their communication with Unit Owners about voting rights, petition requirements, and the consequences of financial delinquency?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official (Jenna Clark) who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, reviews evidence, and makes legal findings and conclusions.

Answer

The formal written response filed by the Respondent (the Association) on May 28, 2019, denying the Petitioner’s allegations.

ARIZ. REV. STAT.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. The specific statute at issue was § 33-1243.

Association

The Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association, the governing body for the condominium development, comprised of all unit owners.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The group of individuals that oversees the Association, as empowered by the CC&Rs. The petition sought to remove a member of this board.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation on one party in a dispute (in this case, the Petitioner) to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim.

Bylaws

The set of rules adopted by the Association on June 14, 2000, that govern its internal operations, including meetings and voting rights.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The primary governing documents for the development, recorded on May 9, 2000, which form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions from members of homeowners’ associations.

Eligible Votes

A term defined in the Bylaws as the total number of votes that can be lawfully cast, excluding those from members whose voting rights are suspended.

Findings of Fact

The section of the legal decision that outlines the established, undisputed facts of the case based on the hearing evidence.

OAH (Office of Administrative Hearings)

An independent state agency where evidentiary hearings are conducted by Administrative Law Judges.

The final, legally binding command issued by the judge at the conclusion of the decision. In this case, the Order was to deny the petition.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, John H. Kelly.

Petition

The formal document filed by the Petitioner on April 29, 2019, with the Department to initiate the hearing process against the Association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case, meaning that the evidence must be sufficient to convince the judge that the contention is more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association.

Special Meeting

A meeting of Association members called for a specific purpose outside of the regularly scheduled meetings. The petition sought to compel a special meeting to remove a board member.

Unit Owner

An individual who holds legal title to a condominium within the Cortez Canyon development and is a member of the Association.

Blog Post – 19F-H1919060-REL

He Gathered 36 Signatures to Oust His HOA Board. Here’s Why Only 13 Counted.

Introduction: The Power and Pitfalls of Community Action

Many homeowners have felt the frustration of trying to enact change within their community, especially when it involves challenging the decisions of a Homeowners Association (HOA) board. It can feel like an uphill battle, but the right to petition and call for special meetings is a cornerstone of community governance.

However, a real-world case involving homeowner John H. Kelly and the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association serves as a critical cautionary tale. Mr. Kelly gathered what he believed were more than enough signatures to force a special meeting to remove a board member. Despite his significant effort, his petition failed spectacularly. This article breaks down the key legal and procedural reasons why, offering essential lessons for every homeowner.

1. Not All Signatures Are Created Equal: The Validity Gauntlet

The core of the issue began with a simple numbers game. The Cortez Canyon HOA has 84 units, meaning a petition required signatures from 25%, or 21, of the unit owners to compel a special meeting. Mr. Kelly successfully collected 36 signatures—a number that seemed to guarantee his success.

In a moment of false victory, the association’s property management company at the time, Golden Valley, informed Mr. Kelly that he had indeed secured enough signatures. But this assurance was short-lived. A new management company took over, and after a formal review, the association delivered devastating news: only 13 of the 36 signatures were valid. The petition was dead on arrival.

The association disqualified 23 signatures for specific, documented reasons:

• Non-Owners: Eleven signatures were from renters or other residential occupants who were not the legal owners of the unit.

• Duplicate Units: Six signatures were removed because another signature had already been collected from the same unit, upholding the “one vote per unit” principle.

• Ineligible Owners: Six signatures were from homeowners who were technically owners but were found to be ineligible to vote at the time they signed.

This reveals the petitioner’s first critical, and ultimately fatal, assumption: that the HOA would do the work of verifying his supporters. In reality, the burden of proof was his alone. The legal findings state it plainly: “Neither Petitioner nor his assistants verified if the signatures that were collected belonged to Unit Owners eligible to vote.” From a governance perspective, this initial culling of signatures is where most grassroots community efforts fail.

2. The Fine Print That Disenfranchises: “Good Standing” and Your Right to Vote

Here, we find the kind of boilerplate legal language that is often ignored by homeowners but wielded with immense power by boards. The ineligibility of six homeowners stemmed from a specific clause in the association’s bylaws related to financial standing.

The bylaw states:

“In the event any Unit Owner is in arrears in the payment of any Assessment, monetary penalties or other fees and charges due under the terms of the Condominium Documents for a period of fifteen (15) days, the Unit Owner’s right to vote as a member of the Association shall be automatically suspended…”

This single provision had a profound impact. Six of the signatures Mr. Kelly collected were from homeowners who were more than 15 days late on their dues or fines. Their voting rights were suspended, and their signatures were rendered invalid. This highlights a crucial preparatory step for any petitioner: confidentially requesting a list of members in good standing from the association before collecting signatures, if the governing documents allow, or at minimum, reminding potential signatories to ensure their accounts are current.

3. Process is Paramount: The Signature That Never Was

Facing a losing battle at the administrative hearing, the petitioner made a final argument to salvage his petition. He contended that he had also secured the signature of a member named Jeffrey Law, who owned six separate units. Mr. Kelly argued this single signature should count as six votes, which would have put him over the required threshold.

However, this argument failed due to a simple but fatal procedural error. According to the court’s findings, the signature from Mr. Law was never actually submitted with the petition to the association.

The Administrative Law Judge’s finding was unambiguous: “The signature Petitioner collected from the multiple unit owner, Jeffrey Law, was not a part of the petition received by the Association and therefore was not counted.” This procedural error, while seemingly minor, is an absolute bar to success in administrative law. Unlike a casual disagreement, there is no room for “I meant to” or “I thought I had.”

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power in an HOA

Because the petitioner could only provide 13 valid signatures instead of the required 21, the Administrative Law Judge denied his petition. The HOA was not required to call the special meeting, and the board member remained in place. Mr. Kelly’s story is a powerful reminder that enthusiasm and effort are not enough to navigate the complexities of community governance. The case provides three clear takeaways for any homeowner:

1. Quality Over Quantity: A short, verified list of eligible voters is infinitely more powerful than a long list of unverified names.

2. Bylaws are Your Battlefield: The governing documents contain the rules of engagement. Ignoring them—especially clauses on voter eligibility—is a unilateral surrender.

3. Documentation is Everything: If it wasn’t formally submitted to the correct party, it legally never happened. Your ability to prove submission is as important as the submission itself.

This case is a powerful reminder that enthusiasm and effort aren’t enough. The real question every homeowner should ask is: Do you truly know the rules that govern your rights in your own community?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John H. Kelly (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Jonathan A. Dessaules (attorney)
Dessaules Law Group
Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Saundra Garcia (board member)
Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association
Called as a witness and testified as Board President
Jacob A. Kubert (attorney)
Dessaules Law Group
Counsel receiving notice of decision

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Decision transmitted to Commissioner

Other Participants

Jeffery Law (owner)
Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association
Unit owner whose signature Petitioner secured but was not submitted to the Association

John H. Kelly v. Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association

Posted on September 13, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919060-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-09-13
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John H. Kelly	Counsel	—
Respondent	Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association	Counsel	Jonathan A. Dessaules

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243

Outcome Summary

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide the minimum required 21 valid signatures from eligible unit owners (only 13 were valid) as required by the Association's Bylaws and state statute.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of failure to call a special meeting to remove a board member.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium, Special Meeting, Board Member Removal, Petition Signature Validity, Voting Rights, Delinquency

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919060-REL Decision – 737890.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:30 (142.6 KB)