**Case Title:** *Suzanne Sallus v. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212008-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

### **Proceedings and Key Facts**
On September 12, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer presided over a hearing regarding a petition filed by Suzanne Sallus (Petitioner) against the Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association (Respondent). The dispute arose from Petitioner's purchase of a property within the community in early 2011.

Petitioner alleged that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1806 by failing to provide required disclosure documents within ten days of receiving notice of the pending sale,. On March 12, 2011, Petitioner's title agency contacted Respondent requesting information on fees and assessments. Respondent replied by email providing assessment figures and directing the agent to the association's website for the CC&Rs and Bylaws. Escrow closed on April 2, 2011, without Petitioner receiving the full statutory disclosures,.

### **Main Legal Issues and Arguments**
The central legal question was whether Respondent’s actions satisfied the disclosure requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1806.

* **Adequacy of Electronic Delivery:** Respondent argued that directing Petitioner’s agent to the association's website satisfied the requirement to provide documents in "paper or electronic format". The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected this argument because the website did not contain all required documents. Specifically, the website's "Financials" page merely stated that reports were available "on request," which did not meet the statutory obligation to deliver the current operating budget and most recent annual financial report.

* **Missing Statements:** Respondent admitted it failed to provide a dated statement containing mandatory disclosures, including insurance coverage details, reserve amounts, and a statement regarding alteration violations.

* **Pending Litigation Disclosure:** A.R.S. § 33-1806 requires associations to summarize pending lawsuits. Respondent argued that two lawsuits (*Violette* and *Given*) did not need to be disclosed because settlement agreements were signed in February 2011. However, the ALJ determined that because the official dismissals for these cases were not entered by the Superior Court until March 16 and March 21, 2011—after Respondent received notice of the sale—the lawsuits were legally "pending" and should have been disclosed.

### **Final Decision and Outcome**
The ALJ ruled in favor of Petitioner, concluding that she established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1806,.

**The Order required Respondent to:**
1. Comply with the statute and provide Petitioner with copies of all required documents within ten days.
2. Reimburse Petitioner the $550.00 filing fee within 30 days.

The decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on November 8, 2012, after the Department took no action to reject or modify the ALJ's ruling,.