Jay A. Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners

Posted on March 20, 2019 by [email protected]

Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918001-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-03-25
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	total
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$250.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jay A. Janicek	Counsel	Jake Kubert
Respondent	Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association	Counsel	Evan Thompson

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B); Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4; Association Bylaws Article VIII, Section 1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the petition, concluding that the HOA Board’s unilateral amendment of the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, was an invalid action taken without the required vote of the Association members and without statutory notice, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and the Association’s governing documents. The amendment was invalidated, and the Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's filing fee and pay a $250.00 civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.

The Board of Directors attempted a third amendment to the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, specifically changing the requirements for the Association's financial review (audit, review, or compilation). The ALJ concluded that this action was invalid because it was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the amendment, violating both the Bylaws and statutory notice requirements.

Orders: The petition was granted. The third amendment to the Association Bylaws taken on November 20, 2017, was invalidated. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 and pay a civil penalty of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $250.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)
Association Bylaws Article III

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Governance, Bylaws Amendment, Open Meeting Law, ARS 33-1804, Membership Vote, Filing Fee Refund

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Powell v. Washburn, 125 P.3d 373 (Ariz. 2006)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918001-REL-RHG Decision – 696205.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:15 (169.8 KB)

19F-H1918001-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918001-REL/661797.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:48:23 (143.2 KB)

Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG

Briefing Document: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from the administrative hearings regarding a dispute between Jay A. Janicek (“Petitioner”) and the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (“Respondent” or “the Association”). The central issue was whether the Association’s Board of Directors acted outside its authority by unilaterally amending the Association’s Bylaws during a Board meeting on November 20, 2017, without a vote from the general membership.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Board’s action violated both the Association’s governing documents and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1804). The ruling emphasized that the term “members” in the Bylaws refers specifically to the body of property owners, not the Board of Directors. Consequently, the third amendment to the Bylaws was invalidated, and the Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty and refund the Petitioner’s filing fees. A rehearing in March 2019 reconfirmed these findings, underscoring the necessity of transparency and membership participation in homeowners’ association governance.

Case Overview and Procedural History

Key Fact

Detail

Case Number

19F-H1918001-REL; 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG (Rehearing)

Petitioner

Jay A. Janicek (Sycamore Vista property owner)

Respondent

Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association

Initial Hearing Date

September 05, 2018

Initial Decision Date

September 24, 2018

Rehearing Date

March 05, 2019

Final Order Date

March 25, 2019

The Department of Real Estate referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) following a petition filed by Mr. Janicek on July 25, 2018. The Respondent initially declined to present witnesses or exhibits, choosing to rely on a dispute over textual interpretation. Following an initial ruling in favor of the Petitioner, the Respondent requested a rehearing, which was granted but ultimately resulted in the same conclusion.

The Core Dispute: Bylaw Amendment Authority

The conflict arose from a Board meeting held on November 20, 2017. During this meeting, the Board voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws.

The Specific Amendment

The Board modified Article VIII, Section 6(d). The original text required the Board to:

• “…cause an annual audit of the Association books to be made by a public accountant at the completion of each fiscal year.”

The Board replaced this with language allowing for:

• “…an annual audit, review, or compilation of the Associations financial records to be made by a public accountant within 180 days after the end of the HOA’s fiscal year.”

Conflicting Interpretations of “Members”

The primary legal dispute centered on the interpretation of Bylaws Article XIII, Section 1, which states:

“These Bylaws may be amended at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Association by a vote of a majority of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy.” (Emphasis added).

• Petitioner’s Position: “Members” refers to the general membership of the Association (property owners), as defined in Article II, Section 7 and the Declaration. Petitioner argued that the use of “proxy” in this section further proves it refers to members, as Board Directors are not permitted to vote by proxy.

• Respondent’s Position: “Members” refers to the members of the Board of Directors. The Association argued that because the word was not capitalized in Article XIII, it authorized the Board to amend Bylaws at their own meetings, provided a quorum of Directors was present.

Legal Analysis and Evidence

Governing Statutes and Case Law

The ALJ’s decision was informed by Arizona law and established legal principles:

• A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law): This statute requires that notice of any meeting where a bylaw amendment is proposed must be sent to all members 10 to 50 days in advance. It also mandates that meetings of the board and association be open to all members.

• A.R.S. § 33-1804(F): The legislative intent of the Open Meeting Law is to promote transparency. Petitioner cited a message from Governor Ducey stating that such laws “provide residents the opportunity to resolve issues as a community rather than seek government intervention.”

• Powell v. Washburn (2006): The Arizona Supreme Court held that restrictive covenants (including Bylaws) must be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties based on the document in its entirety.

Findings of Fact regarding Authority

The ALJ identified several factors that invalidated the Board’s unilateral action:

1. Differentiated Terminology: The Bylaws consistently use “Directors” when referring to the Board and “Members” when referring to the homeowners. Article VI, Section 3 explicitly uses “Directors” to define a quorum for the Board, while Article XIII uses “members.”

2. Absence of Express Power: Article VII, which outlines the “Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors,” does not expressly grant the Board the authority to amend Bylaws. This power is reserved for the membership.

3. Lack of Notice: No Association members were present at the November 20, 2017, meeting, and no notice was provided to the general membership regarding a proposed amendment to the Bylaws as required by A.R.S. § 33-1804(B).

Conclusions of Law

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner sustained the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The final legal determinations were:

• Avoidance of Absurdity: Bylaws must be construed to avoid an absurdity. The ALJ stated, “The voices of few cannot speak for all, unless all have bestowed those few with the power and authority to speak on their behalf.”

• Violation of Statute: The Board’s action violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) due to the lack of transparency and failure to provide notice of a bylaw amendment.

• Violation of Governing Documents: The Board acted outside the authority granted to it by the Bylaws, specifically Article III and Article XIII.

Final Order and Penalties

The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:

1. Invalidation: The third amendment to the Association Bylaws, enacted on November 20, 2017, is null and void.

2. Restitution of Fees: The Respondent must pay the Petitioner the cost of his filing fee.

3. Civil Penalty: The Respondent was ordered to pay a sum of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund as a penalty for the violations.

4. Binding Nature: Following the rehearing, the order became binding, with the only further recourse being judicial review in the Superior Court within 35 days.

Study Guide – 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG

Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the legal proceedings between Jay A. Janicek and the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association. It examines the interpretation of governing documents, the application of Arizona Revised Statutes regarding homeowners’ associations, and the limits of a Board of Directors’ authority to amend bylaws.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided legal documents.

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what is their relationship?

2. What specific action taken by the Board of Directors on November 20, 2017, triggered this dispute?

3. How did the Petitioner define the term “member” according to the Association’s governing documents?

4. What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the interpretation of Article XIII, Section 1 of the Bylaws?

5. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), what must a notice of a membership meeting include if a bylaw amendment is proposed?

6. Why did the Petitioner argue that the use of the word “proxy” in the Bylaws supported his interpretation that only general members could amend the Bylaws?

7. What is the legal significance of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in the context of the relationship between an HOA and a property owner?

8. What was the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used by the Administrative Law Judge to reach a decision?

9. What specific penalties and orders were issued against the Respondent in the final decision?

10. What reason did the Administrative Law Judge give for concluding that the Board’s interpretation of the Bylaws was incorrect?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what is their relationship? The Petitioner is Jay A. Janicek, a property owner and member of the Sycamore Vista subdivision. The Respondent is the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association, the entity responsible for governing the residential development where the Petitioner’s property is located.

2. What specific action taken by the Board of Directors on November 20, 2017, triggered this dispute? The Board voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws during a regular meeting. This amendment replaced a requirement for a full annual audit by a public accountant with a choice of an audit, review, or compilation to be completed within 180 days of the fiscal year-end.

3. How did the Petitioner define the term “member” according to the Association’s governing documents? The Petitioner asserted that “Member” refers to those persons entitled to membership as defined in the Declaration, specifically every lot owner. He argued that this definition distinguishes general property owners from the “Directors” who serve on the Board.

4. What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the interpretation of Article XIII, Section 1 of the Bylaws? The Respondent argued that the term “members” in Article XIII referred specifically to members of the Board of Directors rather than the general membership. They contended that since the word was not capitalized, it authorized the Board to amend Bylaws at any meeting where a quorum of directors was present.

5. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), what must a notice of a membership meeting include if a bylaw amendment is proposed? The statute requires that notice be sent to every owner 10 to 50 days in advance of the meeting, stating the date, time, and place. Crucially, the notice must also state the purpose of the meeting, including the general nature of any proposed amendments to the declaration or bylaws.

6. Why did the Petitioner argue that the use of the word “proxy” in the Bylaws supported his interpretation that only general members could amend the Bylaws? The Petitioner noted that the Bylaws allow for voting by “proxy,” a mechanism defined in Article III as applying to votes of the general membership. He argued that because Board members are legally prohibited from voting by proxy, the inclusion of the term in the amendment section proved the section applied to general members.

7. What is the legal significance of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in the context of the relationship between an HOA and a property owner? The CC&Rs constitute an enforceable contract between the Association and each individual property owner. By purchasing a residential unit within the development, the buyer agrees to be bound by the terms, powers, and restrictions outlined in these recorded documents.

8. What was the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used by the Administrative Law Judge to reach a decision? This standard requires the Petitioner to prove that his contention is “more probably true than not.” It is defined as the greater weight of the evidence or evidence that possesses the most convincing force, rather than the absolute removal of all doubt.

9. What specific penalties and orders were issued against the Respondent in the final decision? The Administrative Law Judge invalidated the third amendment to the Bylaws and ordered the Respondent to pay a $250.00 civil penalty to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner for his initial filing fee.

10. What reason did the Administrative Law Judge give for concluding that the Board’s interpretation of the Bylaws was incorrect? The Judge ruled that bylaws must be construed to avoid “absurdity” and that the “voices of few cannot speak for all” without express authority. The governing documents clearly differentiated between “members” (owners) and “directors,” and the Board lacked the power to act where authority was reserved for the membership.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the provided source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Distinction Between “Members” and “Directors”: Analyze how the specific terminology used in the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Bylaws (Articles II, III, VI, and XIII) influenced the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. How does the consistent use of these terms throughout the document prevent the Board from claiming the powers of the general membership?

2. Statutory Compliance and Transparency: Discuss the importance of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (the Open Meeting Law) as it relates to this case. Use Governor Ducey’s message regarding H.B. 2411 to explain the legislative intent behind ensuring transparency and participation in HOA governance.

3. The Role of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH): Explain the procedural path of this dispute, from the initial petition to the Department of Real Estate to the final rehearing. What is the scope of the OAH’s authority in interpreting contracts between homeowners and associations?

4. Contractual Interpretation and the “Powell v. Washburn” Precedent: Discuss the significance of the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding in Powell v. Washburn regarding restrictive covenants. How does the requirement to give effect to the “intention of the parties” apply to the interpretation of HOA Bylaws?

5. Limits of Board Authority: Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, evaluate the boundaries of a Board of Directors’ power. Under what circumstances can a Board exercise “all powers, duties, and authority” of the Association, and what serves as the definitive limit to that power?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding officer who hears evidence and issues decisions in contested cases involving state agencies.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The Arizona statute governing open meetings, notice requirements, and transparency for planned community associations.

Bylaws

The internal rules and regulations that govern the administration and management of an association.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the recorded legal documents that establish the rules for a planned community and create a contract between owners and the HOA.

Civil Penalty

A financial fine imposed by a government agency or tribunal as a punishment for a violation of statutes or regulations.

Declarant

The original developer or entity that established the residential subdivision and its governing documents.

Declaration

The primary governing document that defines membership and property rights within a homeowners’ association.

Member

Defined in the source context as a property owner within the Sycamore Vista subdivision who is entitled to membership in the Association.

The Office of Administrative Hearings; an independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for contested cases.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, Jay A. Janicek).

Preponderance of the Evidence

The legal standard of proof required in this case, meaning a contention is “more probably true than not.”

A written authorization allowing one person to act or vote on behalf of another, specifically used by Association members.

Quorum

The minimum number of members or directors required to be present at a meeting to legally transact business.

Respondent

The party against whom a legal action or petition is filed (in this case, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA).

Restrictive Covenants

Provisions in a deed or other recorded document that limit the use of property and are interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties.

Blog Post – 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “19F-H1918001-REL”, “case_title”: “Jay A. Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2019-03-25”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “individuals”: [ { “name”: “Jay A. Janicek”, “role”: “petitioner”, “side”: “petitioner”, “affiliation”: null, “notes”: “Appeared on his own behalf at initial hearing; Observed rehearing” }, { “name”: “Jake Kubert”, “role”: “petitioner attorney”, “side”: “petitioner”, “affiliation”: “Dessaules Law Group”, “notes”: “Appeared at rehearing” }, { “name”: “Evan Thompson”, “role”: “HOA attorney”, “side”: “respondent”, “affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”, “notes”: null }, { “name”: “Maxwell T. Riddiough”, “role”: “HOA attorney”, “side”: “respondent”, “affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”, “notes”: null }, { “name”: “Andrew F. Vizcarra”, “role”: “property manager”, “side”: “respondent”, “affiliation”: “Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management”, “notes”: “Recipient of correspondence for Respondent HOA” }, { “name”: “Jenna Clark”, “role”: “ALJ”, “side”: “neutral”, “affiliation”: null, “notes”: null }, { “name”: “Judy Lowe”, “role”: “Commissioner”, “side”: “neutral”, “affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”, “notes”: null }, { “name”: “Dennis Legere”, “role”: “observer”, “side”: “unknown”, “affiliation”: null, “notes”: “Present at initial hearing” }, { “name”: “Becky Nutt”, “role”: “observer”, “side”: “unknown”, “affiliation”: null, “notes”: “Present at initial hearing” }, { “name”: “Caleb Rhodes”, “role”: “observer”, “side”: “unknown”, “affiliation”: null, “notes”: “Present at initial hearing” } ] }

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “19F-H1918001-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Jay A. Janicek, Petitioner, vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (FKA New Tucson Unit No. 8 Homeowners Association, Inc.), Respondent.”,
“decision_date”: “March 25, 2019”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Jay A. Janicek”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Appeared on his own behalf at initial hearing; observed rehearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Jenna Clark”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Evan Thompson”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Dennis Legere”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Becky Nutt”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Caleb Rhodes”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Jake Kubert”,
“role”: “petitioner attorney”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Dessaules Law Group”,
“notes”: “Appeared on behalf of Petitioner at rehearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Andrew F. Vizcarra”,
“role”: “property manager”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management”,
“notes”: “Listed as representative for service of process for Respondent HOA.”
},
{
“name”: “Maxwell T. Riddiough”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”,
“notes”: null
}
]
}

{ “case”: { “agency”: “ADRE”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “docket_no”: “19F-H1918001-REL”, “case_title”: “Jay A. Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2019-03-25”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark” }, “parties”: [ { “party_id”: “P1”, “role”: “petitioner”, “name”: “Jay A. Janicek”, “party_type”: “homeowner”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “Jake Kubert”, “attorney_firm”: “Dessaules Law Group”, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null }, { “party_id”: “R1”, “role”: “respondent”, “name”: “Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association”, “party_type”: “HOA”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “Evan Thompson”, “attorney_firm”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null } ], “issues”: [ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “type”: “statute_and_bylaws”, “citation”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B); Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4; Association Bylaws Article VIII, Section 1”, “caption”: “Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.”, “violation(s)”: “Violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Association Bylaws Article III by amending the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, without proper notice and a vote of the Association membership.”, “summary”: “The Board of Directors attempted a third amendment to the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, specifically changing the requirements for the Association’s financial review (audit, review, or compilation)12. The ALJ concluded that this action was invalid because it was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the amendment, violating both the Bylaws and statutory notice requirements34.”, “outcome”: “petitioner_win”, “filing_fee_paid”: 500.0, “filing_fee_refunded”: true, “civil_penalty_amount”: 250.0, “orders_summary”: “The petition was granted. The third amendment to the Association Bylaws taken on November 20, 2017, was invalidated. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 and pay a civil penalty of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund56.”, “why_the_loss”: null, “cited”: [ “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)”, “Association Bylaws Article III” ] } ], “money_summary”: { “issues_count”: 1, “total_filing_fees_paid”: 500.0, “total_filing_fees_refunded”: 500.0, “total_civil_penalties”: 250.0 }, “outcomes”: { “petitioner_is_hoa”: false, “petitioner_win”: “total”, “summarize_judgement”: “The ALJ granted the petition, concluding that the HOA Board’s unilateral amendment of the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, was an invalid action taken without the required vote of the Association members and without statutory notice, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and the Association’s governing documents47. The amendment was invalidated, and the Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner’s filing fee and pay a $250.00 civil penalty56.”, “why_the_loss”: null }, “analytics”: { “cited”: [ “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)”, “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05”, “Powell v. Washburn, 125 P.3d 373 (Ariz. 2006)”, “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)” ], “tags”: [ “HOA Governance”, “Bylaws Amendment”, “Open Meeting Law”, “ARS 33-1804”, “Membership Vote”, “Filing Fee Refund” ] } }

{ “rehearing”:{ “is_rehearing”:true, “base_case_id”:”19F-H1918001-REL”, “original_decision_status”:”affirmed”, “original_decision_summary”:”The original ALJ decision, issued on September 25, 2018, granted the Petitioner’s request, finding that the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Association Bylaws by unilaterally amending the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, without first calling for a vote by the Association members1,2,3. The order invalidated the amendment, required the Respondent to refund the Petitioner’s filing fee, and imposed a civil penalty of $250.004,5.”, “rehearing_decision_summary”:”The Department granted Respondent’s request for a rehearing, which was held on March 5, 20196,7. The ALJ affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Board’s action on November 20, 2017, violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Article III of the Association Bylaws because the action was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the proposed amendment8. The rehearing order re-granted the petition, invalidated the third amendment, and reaffirmed the orders for the filing fee refund and the $250.00 civil penalty8,9.”, “issues_challenged”:[ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “summary”: “Whether the HOA Board violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1, and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) in an action taken to amend the Bylaws on November 20, 201710.”, “outcome”: “affirmed_petitioner_win” } ] } }

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “19F-H1918001-REL”,
“case_title”: “Jay A. Janicek, Petitioner, vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (FKA New Tucson Unit No. 8 Homeowners Association, Inc.), Respondent.”,
“decision_date”: “2019-03-25”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Jay A. Janicek”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Appeared on own behalf at initial hearing; Observed at rehearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Jenna Clark”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Evan Thompson”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Jake Kubert”,
“role”: “petitioner attorney”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Dessaules Law Group”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Maxwell T. Riddiough”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Andrew F. Vizcarra”,
“role”: “property manager”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management”,
“notes”: “Listed as contact for Respondent HOA”
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Dennis Legere”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Becky Nutt”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Caleb Rhodes”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
}
]
}

The matter, Jay A. Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG), involves a dispute over the validity of a Bylaw amendment passed by the homeowners’ association (HOA) Board of Directors12. The inclusion of ‘RHG’ in the case number confirms that the final decision resulted from a rehearing requested by the Respondent Association23.

Procedural History: The initial evidentiary hearing was held on September 5, 201824. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on September 24, 2018, granting the Petitioner’s request35. The Respondent requested and was granted a rehearing by the Department of Real Estate on November 7, 201836. The rehearing was held on March 5, 2019, where no new evidence was introduced, and the parties presented legal briefs and closing arguments2….

Key Facts and Core Issue: The dispute centered on the validity of the Board’s third amendment to the Association Bylaws, approved on November 20, 2017910. This amendment changed the financial oversight requirement from an annual audit by a public accountant to an annual audit, review, or compilation of financial records1112.

The main legal issue was whether the Board had the authority to unilaterally amend the Bylaws without a vote of the general membership and whether the Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), concerning notice requirements for member meetings3…. The determination hinged on the interpretation of Bylaws Article XIII, Section 1, which permits amendments “by a vote of a majority of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy”1617.

Key Arguments: Petitioner Jay Janicek argued that the term “members” in Article XIII referred exclusively to the Association owners, as supported by the Bylaws’ definition of “Member” and the use of the term “proxy” (which applies to owners, not directors)14…. Petitioner asserted that since the Board acted without calling for a member vote and without statutory notice of the proposed amendment, the action was invalid and violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)14….

The Association argued that, based on reading the Bylaws in their entirety, the term “members” in Article XIII referred to the Board of Directors, particularly since the amendment was to occur at a meeting of the Board of Directors24….

Rehearing Decision and Outcome: In both the original decision and the rehearing decision, the ALJ reached the same conclusion, finding that the Petitioner sustained the burden of proof2728. The ALJ determined that the Association’s governing documents clearly differentiate between “members” (the body of owners) and “directors” (the elected Board)28…. The Board lacked the power to amend the Bylaws when that authority was delegated to the membership2930.

The ALJ concluded that the Board’s action on November 20, 2017, violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Article III of the Association Bylaws because the amendment was adopted in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor3132.

The final outcome of the rehearing was that the Petitioner’s petition was granted32. The Board’s third amendment to the Bylaws was invalidated532. Additionally, the Respondent Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee and a civil penalty of $250.00 for the violation533.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jay A. Janicek (petitioner)
Appeared on own behalf at initial hearing; Observed at rehearing.
Jake Kubert (petitioner attorney)
Dessaules Law Group

Respondent Side

Evan Thompson (HOA attorney)
Thompson Krone, P.L.C.
Maxwell T. Riddiough (HOA attorney)
Thompson Krone, P.L.C.
Andrew F. Vizcarra (property manager)
Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management
Listed as contact for Respondent HOA

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

Dennis Legere (observer)
Becky Nutt (observer)
Caleb Rhodes (observer)

Jay A. Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista NO. 8 Homeowners Association

Posted on September 25, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918001-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-03-25
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	total
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$250.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jay A. Janicek	Counsel	Jake Kubert
Respondent	Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association	Counsel	Evan Thompson

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B); Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4; Association Bylaws Article VIII, Section 1

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $250.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)
Association Bylaws Article III

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Governance, Bylaws Amendment, Open Meeting Law, ARS 33-1804, Membership Vote, Filing Fee Refund

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Powell v. Washburn, 125 P.3d 373 (Ariz. 2006)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918001-REL Decision – 661797.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:25:37 (143.2 KB)

19F-H1918001-REL Decision – 696205.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:25:40 (169.8 KB)

Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918001-REL

Briefing Document: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Jay A. Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG). The central issue was the validity of a bylaw amendment enacted by the Association’s Board of Directors on November 20, 2017, without a vote of the general homeowner membership.

The ALJ ruled decisively in favor of the Petitioner, Jay Janicek, finding that the Board’s action was invalid. The decision hinged on a critical interpretation of the Association’s governing documents, concluding that the term “members” in the context of bylaw amendments unambiguously refers to the homeowner membership, not the Board of Directors. The ruling established that the Board does not have the authority to amend bylaws where that power is reserved for the membership.

Furthermore, the ALJ concluded that the Board’s action violated Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) by failing to provide the required notice to homeowners for a meeting concerning a proposed bylaw amendment. As a result, the amendment was invalidated, and the Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee and a civil penalty of $250.

Case Background and Procedural History

Parties and Jurisdiction

• Petitioner: Jay A. Janicek, a property owner within the Sycamore Vista subdivision and a member of the Respondent Association.

• Respondent: Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (“the Association”), a homeowners’ association in Tucson, Arizona, governed by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and overseen by a Board of Directors.

• Adjudicating Body: The Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an independent state agency, which received the case on referral from the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

The Central Dispute

The core of the dispute was an action taken by the Association’s Board of Directors during a regular meeting on November 20, 2017. At this meeting, the Board, with three of five directors present, voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws. The amendment altered Article VIII Section 6(d), changing the requirement for an annual financial check from:

“cause an annual audit of the Association books to be made by a public accountant at the completion of each fiscal year”

“cause an annual audit, review, or compilation of the Associations financial records to be made by a public accountant within 180 days after the end of the HOA’s fiscal year.”

The Petitioner contended this action was invalid because it was undertaken without a vote of the general Association membership, as he believed the governing documents required.

Timeline of Adjudication

1. July 25, 2018: Petitioner files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

2. September 05, 2018: An initial evidentiary hearing is held before the OAH.

3. September 25, 2018: The OAH issues an ALJ Decision in the Petitioner’s favor.

4. October 23, 2018: The Respondent submits a Request for Rehearing.

5. November 07, 2018: The Department grants the rehearing request and refers the matter back to the OAH.

6. March 05, 2019: A rehearing is conducted, based on legal briefs and closing arguments without new evidence.

7. March 25, 2019: The final ALJ Decision is issued, reaffirming the initial ruling in favor of the Petitioner.

Analysis of Governing Documents and Statutes

The case decision rested on the interpretation of specific articles within the Association’s Bylaws and relevant Arizona state statutes.

Key Bylaw Provisions

Article

Section

Description

Article IV

Section 1

States that the “affairs of this Association shall be managed by a Board of not less than three (3) nor more than five (5) directors.”

Article VI

Section 1

Establishes that regular meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held monthly without notice.

Article VI

Section 2

Governs special meetings of the Board, requiring not less than three days’ notice to each Director.

Article VI

Section 3

Defines a quorum for Board meetings as “a majority of the number of Directors.”

Article VII

Section 1

Outlines the Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors. This section does not explicitly grant the Board the power to amend the Bylaws.

Article XIII

Section 1

(The central provision in the dispute) States: “These Bylaws may be amended at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Association by a vote of a majority of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy.”

Relevant Arizona Statutes

• A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law): This statute was central to the Petitioner’s argument and the ALJ’s final decision.

◦ Subsection (A): Requires that all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors be open to all members of the association.

◦ Subsection (B): Mandates specific notice requirements for any meeting of the members, stating that notice “shall also state the purpose for which the meeting is called, including the general nature of any proposed amendment to the declaration or bylaws.”

◦ Subsection (F): The ALJ noted that this section codifies the legislative intent of the statute, which, as cited from a Governor’s message, is to “promote transparency and participation for all residents in homeowners’ association governance.”

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Position (Jay Janicek)

The Petitioner’s case was built on a textual interpretation of the Bylaws and adherence to state law.

• Interpretation of “Members”: The Petitioner argued that the word “members” in Article XIII, Section 1 refers to the general homeowner membership of the Association, not the members of the Board of Directors.

• Textual Differentiation: The drafters of the Bylaws intentionally used the words “members” and “directors” distinctly throughout the document. Where the intent was to refer to the Board, the word “Director” was specifically used (e.g., Article VI).

• Proxy Voting: The inclusion of the term “proxy” in Article XIII supports the argument that the vote is for the general membership, as Board members are not permitted to vote by proxy.

• Lack of Explicit Power: Article VII, which details the Board’s powers, does not grant the authority to amend the Bylaws, implying such power is reserved for the membership.

• Statutory Violation: The Board’s action violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 because the required notice for a meeting concerning a bylaw amendment was not provided to the general membership.

• Legal Precedent: The Petitioner cited Powell v. Washburn, an Arizona Supreme Court case holding that restrictive covenants (which he argued include the Bylaws) should be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties as determined from the entire document.

Respondent’s Position (Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA)

The Association argued that its actions were a valid exercise of the Board’s authority.

• Broad Authority: The Respondent cited Article IV, which states the “affairs of this Association shall be managed by a Board,” to assert its general authority.

• Valid Board Meeting: The amendment occurred at a regular monthly Board meeting as allowed by Article VI. The meeting had three directors present, which constituted a valid quorum for transacting business.

• Interpretation of Article XIII: The Respondent argued that the phrase “at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors” in Article XIII indicates that the Board is the body empowered to make the amendment, and the word “members” in that context refers to the members of the Board.

• No Open Meeting Law Violation: The Respondent contended its conduct was not a violation because the action occurred during a regular Board meeting with a proper quorum of directors.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s conclusions were unequivocal, fully adopting the Petitioner’s interpretation of the governing documents and state law.

Conclusions of Law

• Burden of Proof: The ALJ found that the Petitioner successfully sustained his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.

• Interpretation of “Members” vs. “Directors”: The decision states that the governing documents are clear: “‘members’ refers to the body of owners who make up the membership of the Association, and ‘directors’ refers to the few who are elected to the membership’s Board.” The ALJ found the differentiation to be intentional by the drafters.

• Avoiding Absurdity: The decision holds that construing the Bylaws to allow the Board to amend them would create an absurdity. The ALJ wrote, “The voices of few cannot speak for all, unless all have bestowed those few with the power and authority to speak on their behalf.”

• Violation of Statute and Bylaws: The ALJ concluded that the Board’s action on November 20, 2017, violated both A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) due to a lack of notice and Article III of the Association Bylaws.

• Rejection of Respondent’s Argument: The decision explicitly states, “The Tribunal is not swayed by Respondent’s closing arguments.”

Final Order

Based on the findings and conclusions, the ALJ issued the following binding order:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was officially granted.

2. Amendment Invalidated: The third amendment to the Association Bylaws, as enacted on November 20, 2017, was invalidated.

3. Fees and Penalties: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee and a civil penalty of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund.

Study Guide – 19F-H1918001-REL

Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association

Short-Answer Quiz

1. Who were the primary parties in the case No. 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG, and what were their respective roles?

2. What specific action taken by the Respondent on November 20, 2017, prompted the Petitioner to file a complaint?

3. According to the Petitioner, what was the crucial difference in meaning between the terms “members” and “directors” as used in the Association’s Bylaws?

4. What was the Respondent’s central argument for why the Board of Directors had the authority to amend the Bylaws at its regular meeting?

5. What is Arizona’s Open Meeting Law, and how did the Petitioner argue that the Respondent violated it?

6. What was the financial concern that the Petitioner argued could potentially impact him as a homeowner due to the Board’s amendment?

7. Describe the procedural history of this case after the initial Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision on September 25, 2018.

8. What case did the Petitioner cite regarding the interpretation of restrictive covenants, and what principle did it establish?

9. What is the legal standard of proof required in this proceeding, and how is it defined in the document?

10. What was the final outcome of the case, including the specific orders issued by the Administrative Law Judge?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Jay A. Janicek, the Petitioner, and the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association, the Respondent. The Petitioner is a property owner and member of the Association who brought the legal action, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association governed by a Board of Directors.

2. On November 20, 2017, the Respondent’s Board of Directors held a regular meeting where they voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws. This amendment changed the requirement for an “annual audit…by a public accountant” to an “annual audit, review, or compilation” of financial records.

3. The Petitioner argued that the term “members” in Article XIII of the Bylaws refers to the entire body of property owners in the Association, not the Board of Directors. He contended that if the drafter had intended to give amendment power to the Board, the specific word “directors” would have been used, as it was in other sections of the Bylaws.

4. The Respondent argued that its actions were proper because the Bylaws empower the Board to manage the Association’s affairs at regular monthly meetings. They contended that since a quorum of three directors was present at the November 20, 2017 meeting, the Board was empowered to transact business, which they interpreted to include amending the bylaws as described in Article XIII.

5. Arizona’s Open Meeting Law is ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804, which requires meetings of a homeowners’ association’s board and members to be open to all members. The Petitioner argued the Respondent violated this by amending a bylaw without proper notice to the full membership, which is required for any proposed bylaw amendment, thus undermining the law’s legislative intent of transparency.

6. The Petitioner was concerned that the amendment weakened the financial oversight of the Association. It modified a requirement for a third-party audit to a less stringent “review, or compilation,” creating a risk that the Association could perform its own financial checks, and as a homeowner, he had an interest in ensuring the Association’s financials were correct.

7. After the initial decision in the Petitioner’s favor on September 25, 2018, the Respondent submitted a Request for Rehearing on October 23, 2018. The Department of Real Estate granted this request on November 7, 2018, and the matter was referred back to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a rehearing, which ultimately took place on March 5, 2019.

8. The Petitioner cited Powell v. Washburn. This case established the principle that restrictive covenants should be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties, as determined from the language of the entire document and the purpose for which the covenants were created.

9. The legal standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The document defines this as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with the most “convincing force” that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue.

10. The final outcome was a ruling in favor of the Petitioner. The ALJ granted the petition, invalidated the third amendment to the Bylaws that was passed on November 20, 2017, and ordered the Respondent to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee and a civil penalty of $250.00.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning in differentiating between the terms “members” and “directors.” How did the principle of avoiding absurdity and considering the drafter’s intent, as seen throughout the Bylaws, contribute to the final decision?

2. Discuss the interplay between the Association’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws) and state law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804). Explain which authority took precedence in this case and why the Board’s actions were found to violate both.

3. Evaluate the legal strategy employed by the Petitioner, Jay A. Janicek. Consider his use of specific Bylaw articles, the citation of Powell v. Washburn, and his argument regarding the legislative intent of the Open Meeting Law.

4. Examine the arguments presented by the Respondent, Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association. Why did the Judge find their interpretation of the Bylaws unconvincing, despite their claims that the Board was empowered to transact business with a quorum present?

5. Based on the text, discuss the broader implications of this ruling for homeowners’ associations in Arizona. How does this decision reinforce the principles of transparency and the limitations of a Board’s power relative to the association’s general membership?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over administrative hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

A section of the Arizona Revised Statutes, also known as Arizona’s Open Meeting Law, which mandates that meetings of an HOA’s members and board of directors must be open to all members and requires specific notice for meetings where bylaw amendments will be considered.

Bylaws

A set of rules that govern the internal operations of the homeowners’ association. In this case, key articles discussed include Article VI (Meeting of Directors), Article VII (Powers of the Board), and Article XIII (Amendments).

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are governing documents that form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, empowering the Association to control certain aspects of property use.

Member

As defined in the Association’s documents, a person entitled to membership by virtue of being a property owner within the Sycamore Vista subdivision. The Judge concluded this term refers to the body of owners, not the Board of Directors.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona, unaffiliated with the parties, responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings and making legal decisions in disputes like this one.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was Jay A. Janicek, a homeowner in the Association.

Preponderance of the evidence

The burden of proof in this case. It is defined as evidence that is more likely true than not and has the most convincing force, sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue.

The authority to represent someone else, especially in voting. The document notes that the term “proxy” applies to votes of the members, as members of the Board are not permitted to vote by proxy.

Quorum

The minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly necessary to conduct the business of that group. For the Respondent’s Board of Directors, a quorum is defined as a majority of the number of Directors.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association.

Restrictive Covenants

Legal obligations imposed in a deed to real property to do or not do something. The Petitioner argued this term included the CC&Rs, Bylaws, and rules of the Association.

Tribunal

A body established to settle certain types of dispute. In this document, it refers to the Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Blog Post – 19F-H1918001-REL

Select all sources

696205.pdf

Case ID	19F-H1918001-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-03-25
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	full
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$250.00

Petitioner	Jay A. Janicek	Counsel	Jake Kubert, Esq.
Respondent	Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association	Counsel	Evan Thompson, Esq.

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717029-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-06-18
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	total
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Linda Haderli	Counsel	Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent	Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.	Counsel	Samuel E. Arrowsmith

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The HOA (Respondent) was found to have acted beyond the scope of its authority under its governing documents by removing the Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and banning her from holding office for 24 months. The imposed discipline was quashed, and the HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA lacked authority to impose discipline (removal as club president and 24-month ban on holding office) under governing documents.

Petitioner alleged Respondent lacked authority pursuant to governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and preclude her from serving as any officer for 24 months as purported discipline. The Tribunal concluded the Board’s decision was in excess of its authority because Respondent did not establish that removal and the prohibition on holding office were remedies available under the governing documents.

Orders: Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party; Respondent's imposed discipline was quashed; Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
CC&R’s Section 14.2
CC&R’s Section 15.2B
CC&R’s Section 12.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: discipline, governing documents, authority, club officer removal, homeowner vs HOA

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
CC&R’s Section 14.2
CC&R’s Section 15.2B
CC&R’s Section 12.2

Video Overview

https://youtu.be/Cq8AgIpY6YI

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 570378.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:59 (84.2 KB)

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 575026.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:04 (700.9 KB)

Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717029-REL

Briefing Document: Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between resident Linda Haderli (Petitioner) and the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s decision to remove Ms. Haderli from her position as President of the Pickleball Club and to bar her from holding any club office for 24 months as a disciplinary measure.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of Ms. Haderli. The central finding was that the disciplinary action imposed by the Association was in excess of the authority granted by its own governing documents (CC&Rs). While the Association’s rules allowed for remedies such as financial assessments up to $500 or the suspension of common area use rights for violations, they did not provide for the removal of a resident from an elected club office. Consequently, the ALJ ordered that Ms. Haderli be deemed the prevailing party, the Association’s disciplinary action be quashed, and the Association reimburse Ms. Haderli’s $500 filing fee. This decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, making it a final administrative order.

Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Linda Haderli

◦ Respondent: Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc., a homeowners association in Mesa, Arizona.

• Legal Venue: The Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona.

• Case Number: 17F-H1717029-REL

• Hearing Date: May 30, 2017

• Core Issue: On March 28, 2017, Ms. Haderli filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. She alleged that the Association lacked the authority under its governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and to prohibit her from serving in any club officer position for two years as a form of discipline.

The Association’s Disciplinary Action and Justification

The Association took disciplinary action against Ms. Haderli and provided three specific reasons for its decision in a formal letter:

1. Challenging Board Policies: The letter accused Ms. Haderli of harassing Association employees and circumventing established systems designed to implement Association policies.

2. Improper Officer Representation: The Association stated that Ms. Haderli had permitted Ms. Joyce Wooton to represent herself as an “Advisor” to the Pickleball Club, a position not recognized as an official Officer position in the Pickleball By-Laws.

3. Unauthorized Representation to External Entities: The Association claimed Ms. Haderli had represented herself to the City of Mesa and SRP (Salt River Project) as having the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Association, which had not been granted by the Board of Directors.

Analysis of Allegations and Testimony

During the May 30, 2017 hearing, testimony was presented by both parties regarding the three justifications for the disciplinary action.

Allegation 1: Harassment of an Association Employee

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria testified that on January 4, 2017, Ms. Haderli had a “contentious interaction” with an employee, Barb Putnam. According to some observers, Ms. Haderli was yelling. The following day, Ms. Putnam was hospitalized with a hemorrhage in her eye. Ms. Candelaria “theorized” that the stress from the encounter caused the medical issue. She collected written statements from observers but did not speak with Ms. Haderli about the incident, citing confidentiality concerns.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied yelling at Ms. Putnam, explaining that her hearing loss sometimes causes her to speak louder than intended, which can be misinterpreted as yelling. She stated she was attempting to reserve dates for Pickleball Club fundraising events and that Ms. Putnam was uncooperative. Ms. Haderli testified she was unaware of the harassment accusation until reviewing exhibits for the hearing with her attorney.

Allegation 2: Improper Officer Representation (Joyce Wooton)

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli testified that Ms. Wooton was already serving as an advisor to the Pickleball Club when Ms. Haderli was elected Vice President, a full year before she became President on March 1, 2016.

Allegation 3: Unauthorized Representation to External Entities

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria stated that while the Pickleball Club was exploring a project to build a small structure, Ms. Haderli contacted the City of Mesa and SRP directly, representing herself as acting on behalf of the Association. This continued even after Ms. Haderli was advised to work through the project’s architect for technical questions.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied representing herself as having authority to act for the Association. She testified that her intent was merely to gather background information to be better informed about the project. She initially did not want to provide her name or address to the entities for fear of appearing to act in an official capacity, only providing the address when required because regulations differ by city area.

Governing Documents and Permitted Remedies

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the specific remedies available to the Association as outlined in its governing documents, the CC&Rs. The Association clarified that the discipline was imposed on Ms. Haderli in her capacity as a resident who violated community rules, not as a disciplinary action against the Pickleball Club itself.

The following sections of the CC&Rs were cited as relevant:

CC&R Section

Description

Authorized Remedy

Section 14.2

Employee Abuse: Prohibits physical or verbal harassment of employees by residents.

Enforcement as an “Other Violation” under Section 15.2B.

Section 15.2B

Other Violations: Stipulates that such violations are subject to a financial penalty.

An assessment set by the Board of Directors, not to exceed $500.00.

Section 12.2

Suspension of Rights: Grants the Association the right to suspend an Owner’s rights for infractions.

Suspension of an Owner’s voting rights and Common Areas use rights.

Legal Conclusions and Final Ruling

The Administrative Law Judge reached several key conclusions of law that led to the final order.

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner, Linda Haderli, bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association acted without the authority granted by its governing documents.

• Excess of Authority: The Respondent (the Association) “did not establish that removal as the Pickleball Club President and/or a prohibition of holding any other officer position for a period of 24 months is a remedy available under the governing documents.”

• Final Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Board of Directors’ decision to impose this specific discipline was in excess of its authority.

Recommended and Final Order

Based on these conclusions, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a recommended order on June 18, 2017:

1. Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party: Linda Haderli was declared the prevailing party in the matter.

2. Discipline Quashed: The disciplinary action imposed by the Association against Ms. Haderli was ordered to be quashed.

3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to pay Ms. Haderli her $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.

On June 21, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in its entirety. This order became a final administrative action, effective immediately.

Study Guide – 17F-H1717029-REL

Study Guide: Haderli v. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided case documents.

1. Who are the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what are their respective roles?

2. What was the central violation alleged by the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, in her petition?

3. What specific disciplinary action did the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. impose on Linda Haderli?

4. List the three reasons the Association provided to justify its disciplinary action against the Petitioner.

5. How did Linda Haderli explain her interaction with the Association employee, Barb Putnam, which the Association characterized as harassment?

6. What was the Petitioner’s explanation for contacting the City of Mesa and SRP regarding the Pickleball Club’s building project?

7. According to the Association’s governing documents (CC&R’s), what specific remedies are available for non-monetary infractions and “Other Violations”?

8. What is the legal standard of proof that the Petitioner was required to meet in this case, and how is it defined in the document?

9. What was the final conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Association’s authority to impose its chosen discipline?

10. What were the three components of the Recommended Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, which was later adopted as the Final Order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Linda Haderli, the Petitioner, and Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc., the Respondent. The Petitioner is the individual homeowner who filed the dispute, while the Respondent is the homeowners association (HOA) that took disciplinary action against her.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent did not have the authority under its own governing documents to take the disciplinary action it imposed. Specifically, she challenged her removal as President of the Pickleball Club and the subsequent ban from holding any officer position.

3. The Association removed Linda Haderli from her position as President of the Pickleball Club. Additionally, it precluded her from serving as any officer of the Pickleball Club for a period of 24 months.

4. The Association cited three reasons: (1) harassing Association employees and circumventing policies; (2) improperly permitting Ms. Joyce Wooton to represent herself as an “Advisor,” a non-existent officer position; and (3) representing herself to the City of Mesa and SRP as having authority to make decisions on behalf of the Association.

5. Ms. Haderli denied yelling at Ms. Putnam, attributing her loud voice to hearing loss which can be misinterpreted. She stated she was simply trying to reserve dates for Pickleball Club fundraising events and that the employee was not being cooperative in providing information.

6. The Petitioner testified that she approached the City of Mesa and SRP merely to gather background information to be more informed about the building project. She denied ever representing herself as having authority to act for the Association and was initially hesitant to even provide her name for fear of creating that impression.

7. For “Other Violations,” Section 15.2B of the CC&R’s allows for a monetary assessment up to $500.00. For non-monetary infractions, Section 12.2 allows the Association to suspend an Owner’s voting rights and Common Areas use rights until the infraction is cured.

8. The Petitioner was required to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. The document defines this as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Board’s decision to remove the Petitioner as Pickleball Club President and ban her from holding office for 24 months was in excess of its authority. The judge found that this specific penalty was not a remedy available to the Association under its governing documents.

10. The Order dictated that (1) the Petitioner be deemed the prevailing party in the matter, (2) the Respondent’s imposed discipline against the Petitioner be quashed (nullified), and (3) the Respondent pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Consider the following prompts for longer, essay-style responses. Use evidence and specific details from the case documents to construct your arguments.

1. Analyze the discrepancy between the disciplinary penalties available to the Association under its CC&R’s (Sections 12.2 and 15.2B) and the penalty it actually imposed on Linda Haderli. Explain why this discrepancy was the pivotal factor in the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.

2. Discuss the three allegations made by the Association against Linda Haderli. For each allegation, present the evidence and testimony offered by the Association (via Mary Candelaria) and the counter-evidence or explanation provided by the Petitioner.

3. Trace the procedural timeline of this case, starting from the filing of the Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition. Describe each key step, including the date of filing, the Notice of Hearing, the hearing itself, the Administrative Law Judge Decision, and the final adoption of that decision by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.

4. The Respondent stated that the discipline was against Linda Haderli in her capacity as a resident, not as a representative of the Pickleball Club. Evaluate this argument in the context of the specific penalties imposed. Did the nature of the discipline align with the Association’s claim?

5. Explain the legal concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. How did the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, successfully meet the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association acted outside its authority?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The judicial officer, Tammy L. Eigenheer, who presided over the administrative hearing, evaluated evidence, and issued a decision and recommended order.

Answer

The formal response filed by the Respondent (Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.) denying the violation alleged in the Petitioner’s petition.

CC&R’s

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are part of the Association’s governing documents that outline the rules for residents and the remedies available to the Association for violations.

Commissioner

The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, who has the authority to adopt the ALJ’s decision, making it a Final Order.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency with jurisdiction to hear disputes between homeowners and homeowners associations.

Final Order

The official, binding order issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate that adopts the ALJ’s decision. This order becomes effective immediately and is appealable through judicial review.

Governing Documents

The collection of rules, bylaws, and CC&R’s that legally govern the operation of the Homeowners Association and the conduct of its members.

Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition

The formal document filed by the Petitioner (Linda Haderli) with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about March 28, 2017, to initiate the legal dispute against the Association.

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, homeowner Linda Haderli.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Prevailing Party

The party that wins the legal dispute. The Administrative Law Judge’s order deemed the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, to be the prevailing party.

Quashed

A legal term meaning to nullify, void, or set aside. The Judge’s order quashed the disciplinary action that the Respondent had imposed on the Petitioner.

Respondent

The party against whom the petition is filed and who is responding to the allegations. In this case, Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

Blog Post – 17F-H1717029-REL

She Fought Her HOA Over Pickleball—And Won on a Technicality. Here Are 4 Surprising Lessons.

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath of Neighborhood Disputes

For many homeowners, a dispute with their Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like an unwinnable battle. The board holds what seems like absolute power, leaving residents feeling powerless. However, a recent administrative hearing in Arizona offers a powerful counter-narrative and a series of crucial lessons for anyone living in a planned community. The case involved Linda Haderli, the President of a community Pickleball Club, and her HOA, the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. What started as a disagreement over her conduct escalated into a formal disciplinary action that was ultimately overturned. The story of her victory reveals surprising truths about the limits of an HOA’s authority.

Takeaway 1: Your HOA’s Power Isn’t Unlimited—It’s Written in Black and White

An HOA Board Can’t Invent Punishments.

The core of the dispute was the punishment the HOA Board imposed on Linda Haderli. In response to alleged rule violations, the Board removed her from her elected position as President of the Pickleball Club and banned her from holding any club office for 24 months.

However, a close look at the Association’s own governing documents—the CC&Rs—revealed a critical flaw in the Board’s action. The documents specified exactly which remedies were available for violations. These included a monetary assessment not to exceed $500, or the suspension of an owner’s voting rights and their right to use common areas.

The punishment the Board chose—removal from an elected position and a ban from future office—was simply not on that list. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was unequivocal on this point:

Therefore, this Tribunal concludes that the Board’s decision to remove Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and to preclude her from holding any other officer position for a period of 24 months was in excess of its authority under the Association’s governing documents.

Ultimately, the HOA was bound by the rules it had created. Its failure to adhere to its own documents was the key to its defeat.

Takeaway 2: It Might Not Matter Who Was “Right”

The Case Can Hinge on Procedure, Not on the Facts of the Dispute.

The HOA levied three main accusations against Haderli: harassing an Association employee during a contentious interaction, improperly allowing an “Advisor” to participate in the club, and misrepresenting herself to the City of Mesa while researching a project. For her part, Haderli explained that her hearing loss can cause her to speak loudly, that the advisor had served in that capacity previously, and that she was only gathering information from the city and never claimed to have authority.

Here is the counter-intuitive twist: the judge never ruled on whether Haderli was actually guilty of any of these actions. The final decision did not weigh the evidence to determine who was “right” or “wrong” about the incidents. The entire case was decided on the grounds that the punishment itself was invalid because it was not authorized by the HOA’s governing documents, regardless of the alleged offenses that prompted it.

This procedural victory underscores the first lesson: it didn’t matter if the Board’s accusations were 100% true, because they attempted to enforce their judgment with a punishment they had no authority to invent. This is a crucial lesson. In an HOA dispute, winning isn’t always about proving your innocence regarding an incident. It can be about proving the board failed to follow its own established rules and procedures for discipline.

Takeaway 3: You May Have to Prove the HOA is Wrong

The Burden of Proof Can Fall on the Homeowner.

Many might assume that an HOA, as the governing body imposing discipline, would be required to prove it had the authority to do so. In this case, however, the legal burden was reversed. The administrative ruling states that the homeowner, referred to as the “Petitioner,” had the “burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence” that the HOA acted without authority. This is not unusual; in an administrative hearing, the person who files the petition is the one bringing the complaint, and it is standard procedure for them to carry the burden of proving their claim.

The court defined “preponderance of the evidence” as:

[E]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

This is a significant hurdle. It meant that Haderli couldn’t just question the Board’s power; she had to affirmatively prove, with more convincing evidence, that they didn’t have the authority they claimed. Despite this challenge, she successfully met that burden.

Takeaway 4: Victory Can Be Found in the Fine Print

Knowing Your Governing Documents is Your Greatest Weapon.

This case was not won through complex legal maneuvering or emotional arguments about who was to blame. Victory was found in a straightforward reading of the HOA’s own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The judge’s decision specifically cited Sections 14.2, 15.2B, and 12.2 of the CC&Rs as the foundation for what constituted authorized punishments—namely, fines and the suspension of privileges. By pointing out that the Board’s chosen discipline was absent from these sections, Haderli demonstrated that the Board had overstepped.

This reinforces the central lesson for every homeowner. The most powerful tool you have in a dispute with your association is a copy of your own governing documents. The answer to whether a board is overstepping its authority is often written right there in the text. Homeowners should treat their CC&Rs not as a dusty rulebook, but as a binding contract that holds their Board accountable.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

In the end, Linda Haderli was officially deemed the “prevailing party.” The judge ordered that the HOA’s imposed discipline be “quashed” and that her $500 filing fee be returned. This victory was possible for one primary reason: the HOA board exceeded the specific authority granted to it by its own rules. The case serves as a powerful reminder that an HOA’s power is not absolute; it is defined and limited by its documents.

The Board’s power ended where their documents said it did. Do you know where that line is drawn in your community?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Linda Haderli (petitioner)
Jonathan A. Dessaules (attorney)
Ashley C. Hill (attorney)

Respondent Side

Samuel E. Arrowsmith (attorney)
Ryan J. McCarthy (attorney)
Mary Candelaria (general manager)
Respondent's General Manager; testified
Barb Putnam (employee)
Association employee allegedly harassed by Petitioner

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)

Other Participants

Joyce Wooton (involved individual)
Individual associated with the Pickleball Club, subject of allegation

Case Summary

Parties & Counsel

Alleged Violations

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.

Analytics Highlights

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918001-REL-RHG Decision – 696205.pdf

19F-H1918001-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918001-REL/661797.pdf

Briefing Document: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

Case Overview and Procedural History

The Core Dispute: Bylaw Amendment Authority

The Specific Amendment

Conflicting Interpretations of “Members”

Legal Analysis and Evidence

Governing Statutes and Case Law

Findings of Fact regarding Authority

Conclusions of Law

Final Order and Penalties

Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Part II: Answer Key

Part III: Essay Questions

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Respondent Side

Neutral Parties

Other Participants

Case Summary

Parties & Counsel

Alleged Violations

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.

Analytics Highlights

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918001-REL Decision – 661797.pdf

19F-H1918001-REL Decision – 696205.pdf

Briefing Document: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

Case Background and Procedural History

Parties and Jurisdiction

The Central Dispute

Timeline of Adjudication

Analysis of Governing Documents and Statutes

Key Bylaw Provisions

Relevant Arizona Statutes

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Position (Jay Janicek)

Respondent’s Position (Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA)

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

Conclusions of Law

Final Order

Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer Key

Essay Questions

Glossary of Key Terms

19F-H1918001-REL-RHG

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Respondent Side

Neutral Parties

Other Participants

Case Summary

Parties & Counsel

Alleged Violations

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.

Analytics Highlights

Video Overview

Audio Overview