Tag Archives: Goldschmidt, Shupe, PLLC

Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. v. Randall & Gisela White

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H042-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-09
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The HOA's petition was granted. Respondents were found to have violated CC&Rs Section 3(j) by installing tile without approval and were ordered to comply with the CC&Rs, reimburse the $500 filing fee, and pay a $100 civil penalty.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $100.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. Counsel Michael Shupe, Esq.
Respondent Randall & Gisela White Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 3(j)

Outcome Summary

The HOA's petition was granted. Respondents were found to have violated CC&Rs Section 3(j) by installing tile without approval and were ordered to comply with the CC&Rs, reimburse the $500 filing fee, and pay a $100 civil penalty.

Why this result: Respondents admitted to the alleged conduct and failed to establish a sufficient affirmative defense (incomplete CC&Rs) against the violation, as the recorded CC&Rs provided constructive notice of all provisions. Respondents' conduct during testimony was also considered a factor in aggravation.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized exterior modification (tile installation)

Respondents permanently installed tile on their front porch entryway without obtaining prior written approval. The ALJ rejected the Respondents' defense regarding missing CC&R pages, noting the HOA sustained its burden of proving a community document violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Orders: Respondents must henceforth abide by CC&Rs Section 3(j), reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee, and pay a $100.00 civil penalty to the Department.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $100.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co., 166 Ariz. 393 (1990)
  • Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser, 115 Ariz. 330 (App. 1977)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Flying Diamond Air Park LLC v. Minenberg, 215 Ariz. 44 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&R violation, Architectural Review Committee (ALC), exterior modification, tile installation, constructive notice, affirmative defense, HOA maintenance
Additional Citations:

  • 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. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • U.S. Parking v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 772 P.2d 33 (App. 1989)
  • Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)
  • Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co., 166 Ariz. 393 (1990)
  • Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser, 115 Ariz. 330 (App. 1977)
  • Flying Diamond Air Park LLC v. Minenberg, 215 Ariz. 44 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1048063.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:07:08 (55.7 KB)

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1055060.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:07:25 (219.4 KB)

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1048063.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:08 (55.7 KB)

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1055060.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:11 (219.4 KB)

This summary addresses the legal case hearing concerning the Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. (Petitioner) versus Randall and Gisela White (Respondents) regarding compliance with community documents, held remotely before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark on April 27, 2023, under Docket No. 23F-H042-REL.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The central issue was whether the Respondents violated Section 3(j) of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by installing permanent tile on their front porch entryway without prior written approval from the Association's Board of Directors. The Petitioner sought an order confirming the violation, requiring compliance, and imposing a civil penalty.

The key facts were largely undisputed:

  1. Respondents installed large, permanent tile squares in their entryway around May/June 2022.
  2. The Association’s management (Cadden Community Management) advised Mr. White in May 2022 that an Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC) form was required for any exterior modifications.
  3. The Association has a duty to maintain the structural integrity of the concrete, which the Board contended the permanent tile placement compromised, increasing maintenance costs and creating a potential trip hazard.
  4. The Association provided multiple violation notices and extended the compliance deadline from August 2022 to January 31, 2023.

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Arguments (HOA):

Petitioner argued that the Respondents acted in knowing disregard of their obligation to seek approval for exterior modifications, thereby violating the CC&Rs. They asserted that the recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions to all purchasers as a matter of Arizona law, regardless of any perceived defect in the documents provided at closing.

Respondents' Defense (Owners):

Mr. White acknowledged installing the tile but maintained an affirmative defense that the CC&Rs set provided during his closing was "flawed," missing pages 4 and 6, which included the foundational Section 3(j). He claimed that he had no duty to comply with documents he had not received. Mr. White also argued that the tile was not visible (covered by a rug) and that its removal, based on his engineering knowledge, would cause severe damage to the underlying post-tension concrete slab, making enforcement punitive.

Final Decision and Legal Outcome

The ALJ found that the Petitioner established a community document violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Focus on Legal Points:

The ALJ concluded that the Respondents’ defense regarding the missing CC&Rs pages was insufficient because the Pima County recorded CC&Rs provided constructive notice of all provisions, and the CC&Rs constitute a contract binding upon the owners. Furthermore, Mr. White’s own communications referenced Section 3(j) prior to the permanent installation, confirming actual knowledge of the approval requirement. The ALJ found that allowing the tile to remain would violate the CC&Rs requirements for architectural approval and compatibility/uniformity within the Villas Property.

Outcome and Order:

The ALJ Decision, dated May 9, 2023, granted the petition. The final order mandates that Respondents:

  1. Abide by CC&Rs Section 3(j) henceforth.
  2. Reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for its filing fee.
  3. Pay a $100.00 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Questions

Question

Am I excused from HOA rules if pages were missing from the copy of the CC&Rs I received at closing?

Short Answer

No. Recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions to homeowners, regardless of errors in the specific copy provided at closing.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that missing pages in the document package provided by a disclosure company or previous owner do not excuse a homeowner from compliance. Because CC&Rs are recorded public documents, homeowners are deemed to have 'constructive notice' of all rules contained within the recorded version.

Alj Quote

The Tribunal is not swayed by Mr. White’s incorrect legal interpretations regarding the annotated CC&Rs received by HomeWise, as the Pima County recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions contained within the community documents

Legal Basis

Constructive Notice

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • disclosure
  • compliance

Question

Can the HOA regulate changes to my property even if they aren't visible from the street or neighboring properties?

Short Answer

Yes, especially if the HOA is responsible for maintaining the exterior surfaces.

Detailed Answer

The decision upheld the HOA's authority to regulate exterior modifications regardless of visibility, particularly noting that when an owner acquires a lot where the HOA performs maintenance, they may give up rights to control the appearance of those areas.

Alj Quote

Each Owner of a Villas Lot understands, acknowledges and agrees that by acquiring an interest in a Lot in which landscaping and exterior maintenance is performed or arranged by the Villas Association, such Owner is giving up rights to control the appearance and use of the outside areas of such Owner’s Villas Lot.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Contractual Obligations

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • maintenance
  • visibility

Question

Can I fix a violation for unapproved flooring by simply covering it with a rug?

Short Answer

No. Covering an unapproved permanent installation with a removable item like a rug does not cure the underlying violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the homeowner's argument that placing a custom rug over unapproved tiles resolved the issue. The violation (the unapproved installation) persisted despite being hidden from view.

Alj Quote

The Tribunal is not swayed… by Mr. White’s placement of a custom cut rug in lieu of paying the fine to the Association.

Legal Basis

Remedy of Violation

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • remedies
  • architectural control

Question

Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the party bringing the case) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The Petitioner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence' (meaning it is more likely true than not). Conversely, if the Respondent claims an affirmative defense (a legal excuse), they bear the burden of proving that defense.

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. Respondents bear the burden of establishing any affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary burden.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • procedural
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Question

If I lose the hearing, do I have to reimburse the HOA for their filing fee?

Short Answer

Yes. The prevailing party is typically entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered the losing homeowner to reimburse the HOA for the $500 filing fee they paid to bring the case. This is a statutory requirement under Arizona law.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall reimburse Petitioner its filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this ORDER, as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • costs
  • penalties

Question

Can the ALJ order me to pay a penalty to the state in addition to reimbursing the HOA?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ has the authority to impose a civil penalty payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, in addition to ordering compliance and fee reimbursement to the HOA, the ALJ ordered the homeowner to pay a $100 civil penalty directly to the Department of Real Estate.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall pay a $100.00 civil penalty in certified funds to the Department within thirty (30) days of this ORDER, as authorized by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • civil penalty
  • fines
  • ADRE

Question

Does my behavior during the dispute process affect the judge's decision?

Short Answer

Yes. Obfuscating or evasive conduct can be considered an aggravating factor against you.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ specifically noted that the homeowner's conduct during testimony was 'obfuscating' (confusing or unclear) and weighed this as a factor in aggravation when making the final ruling.

Alj Quote

Moreover, Mr. White’s conduct during the testimony was obfuscating, and is considered a factor in aggravation.

Legal Basis

Judicial Discretion

Topic Tags

  • conduct
  • hearing process
  • aggravating factors

Case

Docket No
23F-H042-REL
Case Title
Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. vs. Randall & Gisela White
Decision Date
2023-05-09
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Am I excused from HOA rules if pages were missing from the copy of the CC&Rs I received at closing?

Short Answer

No. Recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions to homeowners, regardless of errors in the specific copy provided at closing.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that missing pages in the document package provided by a disclosure company or previous owner do not excuse a homeowner from compliance. Because CC&Rs are recorded public documents, homeowners are deemed to have 'constructive notice' of all rules contained within the recorded version.

Alj Quote

The Tribunal is not swayed by Mr. White’s incorrect legal interpretations regarding the annotated CC&Rs received by HomeWise, as the Pima County recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions contained within the community documents

Legal Basis

Constructive Notice

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • disclosure
  • compliance

Question

Can the HOA regulate changes to my property even if they aren't visible from the street or neighboring properties?

Short Answer

Yes, especially if the HOA is responsible for maintaining the exterior surfaces.

Detailed Answer

The decision upheld the HOA's authority to regulate exterior modifications regardless of visibility, particularly noting that when an owner acquires a lot where the HOA performs maintenance, they may give up rights to control the appearance of those areas.

Alj Quote

Each Owner of a Villas Lot understands, acknowledges and agrees that by acquiring an interest in a Lot in which landscaping and exterior maintenance is performed or arranged by the Villas Association, such Owner is giving up rights to control the appearance and use of the outside areas of such Owner’s Villas Lot.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Contractual Obligations

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • maintenance
  • visibility

Question

Can I fix a violation for unapproved flooring by simply covering it with a rug?

Short Answer

No. Covering an unapproved permanent installation with a removable item like a rug does not cure the underlying violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the homeowner's argument that placing a custom rug over unapproved tiles resolved the issue. The violation (the unapproved installation) persisted despite being hidden from view.

Alj Quote

The Tribunal is not swayed… by Mr. White’s placement of a custom cut rug in lieu of paying the fine to the Association.

Legal Basis

Remedy of Violation

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • remedies
  • architectural control

Question

Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the party bringing the case) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The Petitioner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence' (meaning it is more likely true than not). Conversely, if the Respondent claims an affirmative defense (a legal excuse), they bear the burden of proving that defense.

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. Respondents bear the burden of establishing any affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary burden.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • procedural
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Question

If I lose the hearing, do I have to reimburse the HOA for their filing fee?

Short Answer

Yes. The prevailing party is typically entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered the losing homeowner to reimburse the HOA for the $500 filing fee they paid to bring the case. This is a statutory requirement under Arizona law.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall reimburse Petitioner its filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this ORDER, as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • costs
  • penalties

Question

Can the ALJ order me to pay a penalty to the state in addition to reimbursing the HOA?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ has the authority to impose a civil penalty payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, in addition to ordering compliance and fee reimbursement to the HOA, the ALJ ordered the homeowner to pay a $100 civil penalty directly to the Department of Real Estate.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall pay a $100.00 civil penalty in certified funds to the Department within thirty (30) days of this ORDER, as authorized by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • civil penalty
  • fines
  • ADRE

Question

Does my behavior during the dispute process affect the judge's decision?

Short Answer

Yes. Obfuscating or evasive conduct can be considered an aggravating factor against you.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ specifically noted that the homeowner's conduct during testimony was 'obfuscating' (confusing or unclear) and weighed this as a factor in aggravation when making the final ruling.

Alj Quote

Moreover, Mr. White’s conduct during the testimony was obfuscating, and is considered a factor in aggravation.

Legal Basis

Judicial Discretion

Topic Tags

  • conduct
  • hearing process
  • aggravating factors

Case

Docket No
23F-H042-REL
Case Title
Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. vs. Randall & Gisela White
Decision Date
2023-05-09
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael Shupe (HOA attorney)
    Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC
    Appeared as counsel for Petitioner
  • Carolyn B. Goldschmidt (HOA attorney)
    Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC
    Legal counsel for the Association; communication contact listed
  • Lori Don Woullet (Property Manager/Witness)
    Cadden Community Management
    Senior Community Association Manager
  • Diane Patricia Weber (Former Board Member/Witness)
    Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc.
    Former Board Treasurer
  • Lynn Birleffi (Witness)
    Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc.
    Called as a witness for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Randall White (Respondent)
    Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc.
    Appeared pro se and testified
  • Gisela White (Respondent)
    Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc.
    Appearance waived

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding Administrative Law Judge
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

David G. Iadevavia v. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222044-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-07-29
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The HOA did not violate its duties by selectively enforcing CC&R Section 2.16 against Petitioner regarding his mobile observatory.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David G. Iadevavia Counsel —
Respondent Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Carolyn B. Goldschmidt, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 2.16

Outcome Summary

The HOA did not violate its duties by selectively enforcing CC&R Section 2.16 against Petitioner regarding his mobile observatory.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove that the mobile observatory was not a trailer under the plain and obvious meaning of CC&R Section 2.16, or that the HOA's enforcement constituted illegal selective enforcement.

Key Issues & Findings

Selective enforcement of CC&R Section 2.16 regarding vehicles/trailers.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA selectively enforced CC&R Section 2.16 (regarding parking/vehicles/trailers) against him concerning his 'mobile observatory' while failing to enforce the rule or similar rules against other homeowners (sheds).

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge determined that the HOA did not violate its duties by selectively enforcing CC&R Section 2.16 against the Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC, 868 T2 1030
  • Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC, 177 Arizona 47
  • Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation, 87P381
  • Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation, 207 Arizona 393
  • Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13(1)(b),(c) (2000)
  • A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • A.R.S. 41-1092.07
  • A.A.C. R2-19-106(D)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-116

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Selective Enforcement, Trailer, Mobile Observatory, Parking
Additional Citations:

  • CC&R Section 2.16
  • Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes
  • Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC
  • Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 973802.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:26 (46.0 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 974694.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:28 (48.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 975118.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:30 (40.9 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977059.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:33 (52.0 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977202.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:35 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977294.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:40 (6.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978417.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:42 (50.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978990.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:44 (44.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978991.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:46 (42.3 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 979005.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:49 (50.4 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 982403.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:51 (55.2 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 993469.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:53 (55.5 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 973802.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:05 (46.0 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 974694.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:08 (48.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 975118.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:12 (40.9 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977059.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:15 (52.0 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977202.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:20 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977294.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:23 (6.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978417.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:26 (50.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978990.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:31 (44.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978991.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:34 (42.3 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 979005.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:38 (50.4 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 982403.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:42 (55.2 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 993469.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:44 (55.5 KB)

This summary addresses the hearing proceedings, key facts, main issues, and the status of the final decision in the matter of *David G. Iadevavia v. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.* (No. 22F-H2222044-REL) before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Summary of Hearing Proceedings

Key Facts & Procedural History

The Petitioner, David G. Iadevavia, proceeded *pro se* following the grant of his prior counsel's withdrawal. The Respondent, Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc. (HOA), was represented by Carolyn Goldmith. The hearing was conducted virtually on June 27, 2022, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson.

The ALJ initially identified three potential issues based on Iadevavia’s petition (CCNR 2.16, ARS 33-1803, ARS 33-1804), requiring $1,500 in fees, but since only $500 was paid, the matter was narrowed to a single issue. The final issue for determination, established after a pre-hearing conference and subsequent amendment, was: Whether the Respondent Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc. selectively enforced section 2.16 of the CC&Rs against Petitioner David G. Iadevavia while at the same time not enforcing it against other homeowners, including homeowners who currently serve on the board.

The ALJ denied Iadevavia's subsequent motion to amend the hearing issue further, citing lack of jurisdiction. The ALJ also denied Iadevavia's request for a subpoena because it did not satisfy the requirements of Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4).

Key Arguments and Legal Points

Petitioner's Argument (Iadevavia): Selective Enforcement and Ambiguity

Iadevavia, a retired professor of astronomy and physics, argued that the HOA selectively enforced the restrictive covenant, specifically CCNR 2.16, against him.

  1. Object Identification: He contended that his "mobile observatory" was factually a storage shed on a trailer, not a trailer or recreational vehicle. He presented photos showing that the HOA had seemingly "grandfathered" numerous storage sheds owned by other residents, including board members, that were visible above walls. Since "storage shed" was not defined in the CCNRs, he argued the board failed to act reasonably by not grandfathering his structure.
  2. CCNR Ambiguity: Iadevavia emphasized that the CCNRs lacked clear definitions for key terms like "trailer," "storage shed," "garage," or "driveway". He asserted that without unambiguous definitions, the board relied on subjectivity, leading to selective enforcement.
  3. Inconsistent Application: He noted the board's delay of 270 days in denying his Architectural Review Committee (ARC) request to shield the object, despite a 30-day requirement, demonstrating that the board does not follow its own rules.

Respondent's Argument (HOA): Plain Meaning and Contract Law

The HOA focused on the plain meaning of the CCNRs and legal standards governing restrictive covenants.

  1. Plain Meaning of "Trailer": The HOA asserted that Iadevavia’s object was commonly understood to be a trailer (utility trailer or RV). Witnesses confirmed the structure had features like axles, wheels, and a license plate.
  2. Contractual Interpretation: The HOA argued that CCNRs are considered a contract under Arizona law, and a term is only ambiguous if it defeats the plain and obvious meaning of the restriction. They cited case law (*Arizona Builtmore Estates v. TZAK*; *Burke v. Voice Screen Wireless Corporation*) to support the reliance on commonly accepted meanings when terms are undefined.
  3. Applicability of 2.16: CCNR 2.16.2 requires that vehicles like trailers must be stored in an enclosed garage or screened from view. The HOA noted that the specific violation regarding visibility was resolved when Iadevavia erected a wooden structure in early 2021. The HOA distinguished Iadevavia’s mobile trailer from stationary, constructed sheds, arguing that equating the two makes "no sense" und

Questions

Question

Can I claim that my HOA violated a CC&R provision meant to regulate homeowner behavior, such as parking rules?

Short Answer

No. CC&R provisions regulating conduct like parking are rules for homeowners to follow, not the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ clarified that a homeowner cannot successfully argue that the HOA violated a CC&R section designed to regulate homeowner conduct (e.g., parking restrictions). Such sections govern what a homeowner can or cannot do, but do not impose a direct duty on the HOA itself that can be violated in the manner described.

Alj Quote

This is a CC&R that regulates the homeowners. A homeowner may violate this section, but not the HOA… This is not a section that the HOA would violate in and of itself.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • CC&R Violations
  • HOA Obligations
  • Legal Standards

Question

Am I entitled to a rebuttal closing argument after the hearing record closes?

Short Answer

No. Rebuttal closing arguments are generally not permitted under OAH rules.

Detailed Answer

Homeowners should make all necessary arguments during the hearing. The procedural rules for the Office of Administrative Hearings do not entitle a petitioner to a rebuttal closing argument, especially if one was not requested during the hearing itself.

Alj Quote

Petitioner is not entitled to a rebuttal closing argument pursuant to the rules that govern hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings. … Furthermore, Petitioner did not request a rebuttal closing at the time of the hearing.

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-116

Topic Tags

  • Hearing Procedures
  • Homeowner Rights
  • Closing Arguments

Question

Can I amend the hearing issue to include general claims about the HOA's duty to treat members fairly?

Short Answer

The tribunal may deny such amendments if it lacks jurisdiction over broad common law claims.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a motion to amend the hearing issue to include violations of duties to 'treat members fairly' and 'act reasonably' (citing the Restatement of Property) was denied by the ALJ specifically due to a lack of jurisdiction.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to amend the hearing issue is denied due to lack of jurisdiction.

Legal Basis

Jurisdiction

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Amending Claims
  • Fairness

Question

Will my request for a subpoena automatically be granted?

Short Answer

No. Subpoena requests must strictly follow the Arizona Administrative Code requirements.

Detailed Answer

A homeowner's request for a subpoena will be denied if it fails to satisfy the specific requirements outlined in the administrative rules (R2-19-113). It is not automatic; the correct form and substance are required.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that the request for subpoena is denied. The request does not satisfy the requirements of Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4).

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Subpoenas
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Does the filing fee cover multiple unrelated issues in my petition?

Short Answer

No. The filing fee is tied to the number of issues; additional issues require additional payment.

Detailed Answer

If a petition includes multiple distinct issues (e.g., CC&R violation, notice violation, open meeting violation), the homeowner may be required to pay a higher fee. In this case, three issues required a total of $1,500, whereas a single issue was $500.

Alj Quote

With the violation of CC&R 2.16 and also 33-1803 and 33-1804. Those would be three separate issues and that would require a total payment of $1,500.

Legal Basis

Filing Fees

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Petition Process
  • Costs

Question

Can the hearing be conducted virtually instead of in person?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ can order the hearing to be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.

Detailed Answer

The Office of Administrative Hearings utilizes platforms like Google Meet to allow parties to appear virtually for hearings.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that the hearing in this matter will be conducted either by video conferencing or telephone participation through Google Meet

Legal Basis

Hearing Procedures

Topic Tags

  • Virtual Hearing
  • Accessibility
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222044-REL
Case Title
David G. Iadevavia vs. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-07-08
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I claim that my HOA violated a CC&R provision meant to regulate homeowner behavior, such as parking rules?

Short Answer

No. CC&R provisions regulating conduct like parking are rules for homeowners to follow, not the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ clarified that a homeowner cannot successfully argue that the HOA violated a CC&R section designed to regulate homeowner conduct (e.g., parking restrictions). Such sections govern what a homeowner can or cannot do, but do not impose a direct duty on the HOA itself that can be violated in the manner described.

Alj Quote

This is a CC&R that regulates the homeowners. A homeowner may violate this section, but not the HOA… This is not a section that the HOA would violate in and of itself.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • CC&R Violations
  • HOA Obligations
  • Legal Standards

Question

Am I entitled to a rebuttal closing argument after the hearing record closes?

Short Answer

No. Rebuttal closing arguments are generally not permitted under OAH rules.

Detailed Answer

Homeowners should make all necessary arguments during the hearing. The procedural rules for the Office of Administrative Hearings do not entitle a petitioner to a rebuttal closing argument, especially if one was not requested during the hearing itself.

Alj Quote

Petitioner is not entitled to a rebuttal closing argument pursuant to the rules that govern hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings. … Furthermore, Petitioner did not request a rebuttal closing at the time of the hearing.

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-116

Topic Tags

  • Hearing Procedures
  • Homeowner Rights
  • Closing Arguments

Question

Can I amend the hearing issue to include general claims about the HOA's duty to treat members fairly?

Short Answer

The tribunal may deny such amendments if it lacks jurisdiction over broad common law claims.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a motion to amend the hearing issue to include violations of duties to 'treat members fairly' and 'act reasonably' (citing the Restatement of Property) was denied by the ALJ specifically due to a lack of jurisdiction.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to amend the hearing issue is denied due to lack of jurisdiction.

Legal Basis

Jurisdiction

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Amending Claims
  • Fairness

Question

Will my request for a subpoena automatically be granted?

Short Answer

No. Subpoena requests must strictly follow the Arizona Administrative Code requirements.

Detailed Answer

A homeowner's request for a subpoena will be denied if it fails to satisfy the specific requirements outlined in the administrative rules (R2-19-113). It is not automatic; the correct form and substance are required.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that the request for subpoena is denied. The request does not satisfy the requirements of Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4).

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Subpoenas
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Does the filing fee cover multiple unrelated issues in my petition?

Short Answer

No. The filing fee is tied to the number of issues; additional issues require additional payment.

Detailed Answer

If a petition includes multiple distinct issues (e.g., CC&R violation, notice violation, open meeting violation), the homeowner may be required to pay a higher fee. In this case, three issues required a total of $1,500, whereas a single issue was $500.

Alj Quote

With the violation of CC&R 2.16 and also 33-1803 and 33-1804. Those would be three separate issues and that would require a total payment of $1,500.

Legal Basis

Filing Fees

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Petition Process
  • Costs

Question

Can the hearing be conducted virtually instead of in person?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ can order the hearing to be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.

Detailed Answer

The Office of Administrative Hearings utilizes platforms like Google Meet to allow parties to appear virtually for hearings.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that the hearing in this matter will be conducted either by video conferencing or telephone participation through Google Meet

Legal Basis

Hearing Procedures

Topic Tags

  • Virtual Hearing
  • Accessibility
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222044-REL
Case Title
David G. Iadevavia vs. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-07-08
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • David G. Iadevavia (petitioner)
  • Jill H. Perrella (attorney)
    Snell & Wilmer LLP

Respondent Side

  • Carolyn B. Goldschmidt (HOA attorney)
    Goldschmidt | Shupe, PLLC
  • Bill Borg (witness/board member)
  • Jason Bader (witness/board member)

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (OAH staff)
  • M Alvarez (OAH staff)
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Rick Abbott (spectator)

Donald S Fern & Judith A. Hedges vs.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120005-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-11-20
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome Petitioners were the prevailing party because the Respondent acknowledged violating the CC&Rs by approving the pergola. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee, but the request for a civil penalty was denied.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Donald S Fern & Judith A. Hedges Counsel Lance Leslie
Respondent San Ignacio Heights, Inc. Counsel Michael S. Shupe

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article VI(D)

Outcome Summary

Petitioners were the prevailing party because the Respondent acknowledged violating the CC&Rs by approving the pergola. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee, but the request for a civil penalty was denied.

Key Issues & Findings

View Obstruction by Pergola Approval

Petitioners alleged that Respondent, by granting approval in February 2018 for the construction of a pergola on lot 47, violated the CC&Rs requirement that an unobstructed view of the Santa Rita Mountains be maintained for owners of View Lots (Lot 46) and sought a civil penalty.

Orders: Respondent acknowledged the violation, rescinded the pergola approval prior to the Notice of Hearing, and was ordered to pay Petitioners the $500.00 filing fee. A civil penalty was sought but denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&R Violation, View Obstruction, Architectural Review Committee, Filing Fee Refund, Civil Penalty Denial
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120005-REL Decision – 838563.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:29:42 (90.6 KB)

21F-H2120005-REL Decision – 838563.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:50 (90.6 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Fern & Hedges v. San Ignacio Heights, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Donald S. Fern & Judith A. Hedges v. San Ignacio Heights, Inc. (No. 21F-H2120005-REL). The central conflict involved an allegation by Petitioners that the Respondent, their homeowners’ association, violated its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by approving a pergola on an adjacent property that obstructed their mountain view.

The Respondent initially defended its approval but, after the Petitioners filed a formal complaint, reversed its position, admitted the approval was an error, and rescinded it. Despite this corrective action, the hearing proceeded. The ALJ’s final decision declared the Petitioners the “prevailing party,” as their legal action prompted the resolution. Consequently, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners’ $500 filing fee. However, the ALJ denied the Petitioners’ request for an additional civil penalty, stating they had not met the burden of proof for such an assessment. The decision effectively resolved the core dispute in the Petitioners’ favor while limiting the financial penalty on the Respondent.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

This matter was brought before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings concerning a dispute over view obstruction within a planned community.

Case Detail

Information

Case Name

Donald S. Fern & Judith A. Hedges, Petitioner, vs. San Ignacio Heights, Inc., Respondent.

Case Number

21F-H2120005-REL

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden

Hearing Date

November 3, 2020

Decision Date

November 20, 2020

Core Allegation

Respondent violated its own CC&Rs, specifically Article VI (D) “View Obstructions,” which mandates that “An unobstructed view of the Santa Rita Mountains shall be maintained for Owners of View Lots.”

Petitioners’ Property

Lot 46, located at 1546 West Acala Street in Green Valley, a designated “view lot.”

Disputed Structure

A pergola constructed on the neighboring Lot 47.

The hearing was conducted without testimony, with the decision based on the administrative record and closing arguments from both parties.

Chronology of Key Events

The dispute unfolded over a period of more than two years, marked by the Respondent’s significant change in position after formal legal action was initiated.

• February 2018: The Respondent’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) grants approval to the owners of Lot 47 to construct a pergola.

• On or Before July 30, 2018: Petitioners purchase Lot 46. They contend the pergola was built after the previous owners of their lot had moved but before their purchase was finalized.

• December 2019: Petitioners attempt to resolve the issue directly with the owners of Lot 47 but are unsuccessful.

• January 15, 2020: In a letter, the Respondent’s Board informs the Petitioners that it is standing by its February 2018 decision to approve the pergola.

• July 24, 2020: Petitioners file a formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• August 20, 2020: The Respondent’s Board holds a special executive session and determines that the approval of the pergola was “made in error.” The Board rescinds the approval.

• August 25, 2020: The Respondent files its answer to the petition, stating the approval has been rescinded and requesting the Department dismiss the matter.

• October 5, 2020: The Department does not dismiss the matter and issues a Notice of Hearing.

• November 3, 2020: At the hearing, the Respondent’s counsel informs the tribunal that a contractor is scheduled to remove the pergola on the following day.

Central Arguments and Positions

Petitioners (Donald S. Fern & Judith A. Hedges)

• Violation: The pergola on Lot 47 constitutes a view obstruction in direct violation of CC&R Article VI(D).

• Relief Sought: The Petitioners initially sought the removal of the structure. After the Respondent rescinded its approval, the Petitioners argued that the Respondent should be assessed a civil penalty for the violation.

Respondent (San Ignacio Heights, Inc.)

• Initial Defense (Pre-Litigation): The Respondent offered two primary reasons for upholding its initial approval:

1. The previous owners of the Petitioners’ lot (Lot 46) were given notice of the pergola request and did not object at the time of its approval in February 2018.

2. The configuration of the nine lots on West Acala Street makes a “truly unobstructed view” impossible, and for the Petitioners, achieving such a view would require removing eight other houses.

• Post-Petition Position: After the formal petition was filed, the Respondent’s position shifted entirely.

1. Admission of Error: The Respondent formally acknowledged that the approval of the pergola was a mistake and rescinded it.

2. Mootness: The Respondent argued that because it had provided the relief the Petitioners requested (rescission of approval), the matter was resolved and should be dismissed.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision addressed the acknowledged violation, the status of the parties, and the appropriateness of financial penalties.

Findings on the Violation

• The Respondent explicitly acknowledged its violation of CC&R Article VI(D) by granting approval for the pergola.

• Because the Respondent had already rescinded its approval and the structure was scheduled for removal, the ALJ determined that an order compelling the Respondent to abide by the CC&Rs was unnecessary.

Prevailing Party Status

• Despite the Respondent’s admission of error and corrective actions occurring before the formal hearing, the ALJ designated the Petitioners as the prevailing party.

• The rationale is that the Petitioners’ legal action was the catalyst for the Respondent’s decision to rescind its approval and resolve the violation.

Financial Orders and Penalties

• Filing Fee: Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), the ALJ is required to order the respondent to pay the petitioner’s filing fee if the petitioner prevails. Consequently, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioners’ $500.00 filing fee.

• Civil Penalty: The Petitioners argued for the assessment of a civil penalty against the Respondent. The ALJ denied this request, stating in the Conclusions of Law that “Petitioners have not proven that the Respondent should be assessed a civil penalty.” The decision does not provide further detail on the reasoning for this conclusion.

Legal Framework

• Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate has authority over the matter under ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11, as the case involves alleged violations of community documents.

• Standard of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proof, which is a “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119.

Final Order

The decision, issued on November 20, 2020, concluded with the following binding orders:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners Donald S. Fern and Judith A. Hedges are the prevailing party in this matter.

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent San Ignacio Heights Inc. must pay to Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of receipt of the Order.

The order is final unless a party files for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of service.

Study Guide: Fern & Hedges v. San Ignacio Heights, Inc. (Case No. 21F-H2120005-REL)

This study guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter between Donald S. Fern & Judith A. Hedges (Petitioners) and San Ignacio Heights, Inc. (Respondent). It includes a quiz to test comprehension, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms.

——————————————————————————–

Short Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided source document.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what was their relationship?

2. What specific rule from the community’s governing documents was at the center of the dispute?

3. What physical structure caused the dispute, and where was it located relative to the Petitioners’ property?

4. What two arguments did the Respondent initially use to defend its decision to approve the structure?

5. At what point did the Respondent’s Board change its position, and what action did it take?

6. What is the legal standard of proof required in this case, and which party had the burden of meeting it?

7. Despite the Respondent admitting its error before the hearing, why were the Petitioners declared the “prevailing party”?

8. What specific financial penalty was ordered against the Respondent in the final decision?

9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge decide not to levy a civil penalty against the Respondent?

10. What did the Respondent’s counsel state at the hearing regarding the future of the structure in question?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioners, homeowners Donald S. Fern and Judith A. Hedges, and the Respondent, their homeowners’ association, San Ignacio Heights, Inc. The Petitioners filed a complaint against the homeowners’ association for allegedly violating community rules.

2. The dispute centered on Article VI (D) of the “Second Amended and Restated Declaration of CC&Rs,” titled “View Obstructions.” This rule states that “An unobstructed view of the Santa Rita Mountains shall be maintained for Owners of View Lots.”

3. The dispute was caused by a pergola that the Respondent’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approved for construction on lot 47. This lot was adjacent to the Petitioners’ property, lot 46, which is designated as a “view lot” under the CC&Rs.

4. The Respondent initially argued that the approval was valid because (1) the previous owners of lot 46 were notified but did not object, and (2) the configuration of the lots meant a truly unobstructed view was impossible and would require removing eight other houses.

5. The Board changed its position on August 20, 2020, after the Petitioners had already filed their complaint. In a special executive session, the Board determined its February 2018 approval of the pergola was an error and officially rescinded that approval.

6. The standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with the most convincing force. The Petitioners bore the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred.

7. The Petitioners were declared the “prevailing party” because their legal action was the cause of the Respondent’s decision to rescind the erroneous approval. Under Arizona statute, a tribunal is required to order the respondent to pay the filing fee to the prevailing party.

8. The Judge ordered the Respondent, San Ignacio Heights Inc., to pay the Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00. The payment was to be made within thirty days of receipt of the order.

9. The Judge did not levy a civil penalty because the decision explicitly states, “Petitioners have not proven that the Respondent should be assessed a civil penalty.”

10. At the November 3, 2020 hearing, the Respondent’s counsel informed the tribunal that the owners of lot 47 had a contractor scheduled to remove the pergola the very next day.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Further Study

The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the timeline of events from the initial approval of the pergola in February 2018 to the final order in November 2020. How did the Respondent’s actions and communications contribute to the escalation of the dispute, and at what points could it have potentially been resolved before reaching a formal hearing?

2. Discuss the legal concept of the “prevailing party” as it applies to this case. Explain why the Petitioners were granted this status and what financial remedy it entitled them to, even though the Respondent had already conceded the central issue before the hearing.

3. Examine the two initial arguments made by the Respondent to justify its approval of the pergola. Based on the case outcome, why were these arguments ultimately insufficient to defend its position, leading the Board to rescind its approval?

4. Based on the “Conclusions of Law” section, explain the role and authority of the Administrative Law Judge in this type of dispute. What specific powers did the judge have according to Arizona statutes, and how were they applied or not applied in the final order?

5. The decision notes that no testimony was taken and the ruling was based on the administrative record. Discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of this approach for both the Petitioners and the Respondent in this specific case.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official (Thomas Shedden) who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and renders a binding legal decision and order.

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119

The section of Arizona’s administrative rules cited in the decision that establishes the “preponderance of the evidence” as the standard of proof for the matter.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

The Arizona state law that grants the ALJ the authority to order parties to abide by community documents, levy civil penalties, and order a losing respondent to pay the prevailing petitioner’s filing fee.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the Petitioners bore the burden of proof.

An acronym for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. In this case, it refers to the “Second Amended and Restated Declaration of CC&Rs,” the official governing documents for the San Ignacio Heights community.

Civil Penalty

A monetary fine that an ALJ may levy for each violation of a statute or community document. A civil penalty was considered but not assessed in this case.

Department of Real Estate

The Arizona state agency with legal authority over disputes concerning alleged violations of a community’s CC&Rs.

Filing Fee

The fee ($500.00 in this case) required by Arizona statute to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate. The Judge ordered the Respondent to repay this fee to the Petitioners.

Petitioner

The party that initiates a legal proceeding by filing a petition. In this case, homeowners Donald S. Fern and Judith A. Hedges.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in the hearing. It is defined as “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Prevailing Party

The party that wins a legal case. The Petitioners were declared the prevailing party, which legally entitled them to have their filing fee reimbursed by the Respondent.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the homeowners’ association, San Ignacio Heights, Inc.

View Lot

A specific property designation defined in the CC&Rs, such as the Petitioners’ lot 46, which is guaranteed an unobstructed view of the Santa Rita Mountains.

View Obstructions

The title of Article VI (D) of the CC&Rs, the specific rule that the Petitioners alleged the Respondent violated by approving the construction of the pergola.

Select all sources
838563.pdf

No emoji found

Loading

21F-H2120005-REL

1 source

This administrative law judge decision details a dispute between Petitioners Donald S. Fern and Judith A. Hedges and Respondent San Ignacio Heights, Inc. regarding a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The petitioners alleged that a pergola approved by the Respondent’s Architectural Review Committee was a view obstruction in violation of Article VI(D) of the CC&Rs. Although the Respondent acknowledged its error and rescinded the approval for the pergola before the hearing, the matter was not dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Petitioners to be the prevailing party and ordered the Respondent to pay the petitioners’ $500 filing fee, though no additional civil penalty was assessed.

1 source

What are the core legal and procedural issues decided in this administrative hearing?
How did the Respondent’s actions impact the Petitioners’ prevailing party status and remedy?
What is the significance of the CC&Rs and view obstruction clause in this dispute?

Audio Overview

Video Overview

Video Overview

Mind Map Mind Map

Reports Reports

Flashcards

Flashcards

Quiz

Quiz

00:00 / 00:00

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Donald S Fern (petitioner)
  • Judith A. Hedges (petitioner)
  • Lance Leslie (petitioner attorney)
    Law Office of Susan A Siwek

Respondent Side

  • Michael S. Shupe (respondent attorney)
    Goldschmidt | Shupe, PLLC

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • LDettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as recipient of transmission
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as recipient of transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as recipient of transmission
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as recipient of transmission
  • ncano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as recipient of transmission

Tom J Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

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

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-05-10
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the dismissal of the petition on rehearing, ruling that the HOA's website and policy manual are not 'community documents' as defined by statute, and therefore the Department has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding them. Additionally, the requested financial relief was outside the ALJ's authority.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom J Martin Counsel —
Respondent SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc. Counsel Carolyn B. Goldschmidt

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A); ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the dismissal of the petition on rehearing, ruling that the HOA's website and policy manual are not 'community documents' as defined by statute, and therefore the Department has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding them. Additionally, the requested financial relief was outside the ALJ's authority.

Why this result: Lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the alleged violations did not involve the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, or rules of the planned community.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of HOA website and Policy Manual (Policy BC-3) regarding pickleball courts

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated its website and policy manual by failing to provide pickleball courts as marketed. The Respondent moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing these documents are not community documents. The ALJ affirmed the dismissal, finding that policies and website statements do not fall under the statutory definition of community documents in A.R.S. § 33-1802(2), thus the Department lacked jurisdiction.

Orders: Petitioner Tom J. Martin’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: jurisdiction, community documents, policy manual, pickleball courts, dismissal, rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-213
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904
  • Walker v. Scottsdale, 163 Ariz. 206, 786 P.2d 1057 (App. 1989)
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918022-REL-RHG Decision – 704322.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:27:17 (89.7 KB)

Briefing Document: Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc. (Case No. 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Tom J. Martin versus SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc., which resulted in the dismissal of the petitioner’s case. The decision, issued on May 10, 2019, centered on a critical jurisdictional question: whether an HOA’s website content and internal policy manual constitute “community documents” under Arizona state law.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded they do not. The petitioner’s claim, which alleged the HOA failed to provide pickleball courts as promised on its website and in its “Policy Number BC-3,” was dismissed because it did not allege a violation of a legally recognized “community document.” According to Arizona Revised Statutes, such documents are strictly defined as the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, and formally adopted rules. As the petitioner’s initial filing cited only the website and a policy not adopted as a rule, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked the statutory jurisdiction to hear the case. Furthermore, the ALJ determined that the petitioner’s requested relief—a financial award of $463,112 or the construction of eight new courts—was beyond the scope of the tribunal’s authority.

Case Overview

Case Name

Tom J. Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

Case Number

19F-H1918022-REL-RHG

Tribunal

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Petitioner

Tom J. Martin

Respondent

SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden

Date of Decision

May 10, 2019

Petitioner’s Core Allegations and Requested Relief

The petition filed by Tom J. Martin on September 28, 2018, was founded on the central allegation that the SaddleBrooke HOA violated its own website content and its internal policy manual, specifically “Policy Number BC-3.”

• Primary Allegation: The HOA failed to fulfill its advertised and marketed promise to provide pickleball courts.

• Cited Violations: In the initial petition, Martin explicitly alleged violations of the HOA’s website and policy manual. While he checked boxes on the petition form indicating violations of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, he failed to identify any specific provisions from those documents.

• Requested Relief: The petitioner sought a significant remedy from the HOA, requesting one of the following:

1. Financial support in the amount of $463,112.00 for the expansion of pickleball courts in Bobcat Canyon.

2. The provision of eight new pickleball courts within a two-mile radius of the community within one year.

3. A commitment from the HOA to be financially responsible for the maintenance of pickleball courts in an amount equal to its spending on eight tennis courts.

Procedural History and Key Arguments

The case progressed through several key stages, culminating in a rehearing and a final dismissal.

1. Initial Petition (September 28, 2018): Mr. Martin filed his single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (November 30, 2018): The HOA argued that the Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction over the matter. Its core argument was that hearings under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 are limited to violations of “community documents,” and that a website and an internal policy do not meet the legal definition of such documents. The HOA also contended the requested relief was outside the tribunal’s authority.

3. Petitioner’s Response (December 4, 2018): In his response, Mr. Martin argued that a “policy” should be interpreted as a “rule” under its ordinary meaning. He further asserted that another HOA policy (CE-3) defined “governing documents” to include “Rules and Regulations,” and therefore Policy BC-3 should be considered a governing document.

4. Initial Dismissal (December 12, 2018): The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that it had not alleged a violation meeting the statutory requirements.

5. Request for Rehearing (December 31, 2018): Mr. Martin requested a rehearing, reasserting that a “policy” is a “rule.” In this request, he newly alleged that the HOA had violated specific provisions: Bylaws article 4, section 6(3) and Articles of Incorporation Article XII, by failing to implement policy BC-3.

6. Rehearing (April 16, 2019): A rehearing was conducted where both parties presented their cases. The respondent renewed its argument regarding lack of jurisdiction.

Central Legal Dispute: The Definition of “Community Documents”

The determinative issue of the case was the precise legal definition of “community documents” and whether the petitioner’s claims fell within that scope.

• Statutory Definition: The court’s decision was anchored in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2), which defines community documents as:

◦ The declaration (CC&Rs)

◦ Bylaws

◦ Articles of incorporation, if any

◦ Rules, if any

• The Court’s Finding: The ALJ concluded that this legislative definition is exclusive and does not include “a planned community’s statements of policy, statements on its website, or advertising and marketing material.”

• Petitioner’s Argument Rejected: Mr. Martin’s argument that Policy BC-3 should be considered a rule was found to be “not persuasive.” A critical finding of fact was that the “Respondent has not adopted policy BC-3 as a rule” under the authority granted in its CC&Rs (section 4.5). The tribunal must follow the legislature’s explicit definition.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions and Final Order

The ALJ’s conclusions of law led directly to the dismissal of the petition on jurisdictional grounds.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Because Mr. Martin’s original petition only alleged that the respondent violated its website and policy manual—neither of which are “community documents” under Arizona law—the petition failed to meet the foundational requirements for a hearing under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A).

• Improper Relief Requested: The ALJ also concluded that the relief Mr. Martin sought was not within the tribunal’s authority. Under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02, an ALJ may order a party to abide by statutes or community documents and may levy civil penalties. The statute does not grant the authority to order large financial payments for construction or to mandate specific capital improvement projects.

• Final Order: Based on these conclusions, the petition was dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Tom J. Martin’s petition is dismissed.

The decision, having been issued as the result of a rehearing, is binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed for judicial review with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date of the order’s service.

Study Guide: Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Tom J. Martin vs. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc. (No. 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG). It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and final outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the source document.

1. Who were the Petitioner and Respondent in case No. 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG?

2. What was the central allegation made by the Petitioner in his initial petition filed on or about September 28, 2018?

3. Describe the two alternative forms of relief the Petitioner requested in his petition.

4. On what primary legal grounds did the Respondent file its Motion to Dismiss?

5. According to Arizona Revised Statute section 33-1802(2), what are the four types of documents that constitute “community documents”?

6. Explain the two main arguments the Petitioner made in his Response to the Motion to Dismiss for why Policy BC-3 should be considered a governing document.

7. What new violation did the Petitioner allege in his request for a rehearing on December 31, 2019?

8. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s findings, what was the final outcome of the Petitioner’s petition and the primary reason for this decision?

9. According to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, what powers does an administrative law judge have if a violation of community documents is found?

10. What is the process and time frame for a party wishing to appeal this Administrative Law Judge order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Tom J. Martin, who appeared on his own behalf. The Respondent was SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc., which was represented by Carolyn B. Goldschmidt, Esq.

2. In his initial petition, Mr. Martin’s single-issue allegation was that the Respondent violated its website and its policy manual, specifically Policy Number BC-3. He included printouts from the website and a copy of the policy with his petition.

3. The Petitioner requested financial support in the sum of $463,112.00 for the expansion of pickleball courts in Bobcat Canyon. Alternatively, he requested that the Respondent provide eight pickleball courts within a two-mile radius of the community within one year, and be financially responsible for their maintenance at a level equal to its spending on eight tennis courts.

4. The Respondent argued that the Arizona Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction over the matter. This was because hearings are limited to disputes over “community documents,” and neither the website nor Policy BC-3 qualified as such under the definition provided in ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1802(2).

5. Arizona Revised Statute section 33-1802(2) defines “community documents” as “the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, if any, and rules, if any.”

6. First, Mr. Martin argued that based on A.R.S. § 1-213, the word “policy” should be given its ordinary meaning, which is a rule. Second, he asserted that because the Respondent’s own policy CE-3 defines “governing documents” to include Rules and Regulations, then BC-3 must be a governing document.

7. In his request for a rehearing, Mr. Martin alleged for the first time that the Respondent had violated its bylaws, specifically article 4, section 6(3), by failing to implement policy BC-3. He also alleged a violation of Articles of Incorporation Article XII.

8. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Mr. Martin’s petition be dismissed. The dismissal was based on the finding that the petition did not meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A) because it alleged violations of a website and a policy manual, which are not legally defined as “community documents.”

9. If a violation is found, an administrative law judge may order any party to abide by the statute or document at issue. The judge may also levy a civil penalty for each violation and, if the petitioner prevails, order the respondent to pay the petitioner’s filing fee.

10. A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the superior court. This appeal must be filed within thirty-five days from the date a copy of the order was served upon the parties, as prescribed by A.R.S. section 12-904(A).

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each question based on the facts and legal principles presented in the decision.

1. Analyze the concept of jurisdiction as it applies to this case. Why was the distinction between “community documents” and other materials like websites or policy manuals the central factor in the judge’s jurisdictional decision?

2. Trace the procedural history of this case, from Mr. Martin’s initial petition to the final order of dismissal. Identify the key filings, arguments, and decisions at each stage of the process.

3. Evaluate the legal arguments presented by Mr. Martin. Explain his reasoning for equating a “policy” with a “rule” and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found this argument unpersuasive, citing relevant statutes and case law mentioned in the decision.

4. Discuss the limitations on the relief an Administrative Law Judge can grant in disputes involving planned communities, as outlined in A.R.S. § 32-2199.02. How did Mr. Martin’s requested relief fall outside the scope of the judge’s authority?

5. Explain the legal principle that when a legislature defines a word or term, a tribunal must follow that definition. How did this principle, as cited in Walker v. Scottsdale, directly influence the outcome of Mr. Martin’s petition?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Thomas Shedden.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. (A.R.S.)

The abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the State of Arizona.

Articles of Incorporation

A set of formal documents filed with a government body to legally document the creation of a corporation. Defined in A.R.S. § 33-1802(2) as one of the “community documents.”

Bylaws

A set of rules adopted by an organization, such as an HOA, to govern its internal management and operations. Defined in A.R.S. § 33-1802(2) as one of the “community documents.”

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

Rules governing the use of land within a particular planned community. Section 4.5 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs sets out its authority to adopt rules.

Community Documents

As defined by A.R.S. § 33-1802(2), these are “the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, if any, and rules, if any.” The central legal issue of the case was whether the Respondent’s website and policy manual qualified as community documents.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Respondent argued, and the ALJ agreed, that the Office of Administrative Hearings did not have jurisdiction because the alleged violations did not involve “community documents.”

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request by a party for a court or tribunal to dismiss a case. The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on November 30, 2018, arguing a lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was Tom J. Martin.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues and arguments, granted in this instance after the initial dismissal. The rehearing was conducted on April 16, 2019.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

Regulations adopted by a planned community association. The decision notes that while the Respondent has the authority to adopt rules, it had not adopted policy BC-3 as a rule.

4 Harsh Lessons from a Homeowner’s Failed Lawsuit Against His HOA

Introduction: The Promise vs. The Paperwork

Imagine finding the perfect community. Its website advertises fantastic amenities, including the pickleball courts you’ve been dreaming of. The association’s own policy manual seems to confirm this commitment. But what happens when the courts are never built and the homeowner association (HOA) doesn’t deliver on these perceived promises?

This isn’t a hypothetical scenario. It’s the central conflict in the case of Tom J. Martin versus the SaddleBrooke HOA in Arizona. Mr. Martin believed his HOA was legally obligated to provide pickleball courts based on its policies and marketing materials. His subsequent lawsuit, however, failed spectacularly, revealing some surprising truths about HOA disputes. This case provides several critical, counter-intuitive lessons for any current or future homeowner about the difference between a promise and a legally enforceable contract.

——————————————————————————–

1. A “Policy” Isn’t Always a Legally Binding “Rule”

Mr. Martin’s argument was straightforward: he believed the HOA violated its own “policy manual,” specifically a section referred to as Policy BC-3, by not providing pickleball courts. He contended that, in the ordinary sense of the word, a “policy” is a rule that must be followed.

The judge, however, dismissed the case based on a harsh legal reality. According to Arizona law, the court’s jurisdiction in this type of hearing is limited to violations of official “community documents.” The judge was bound by the statute’s specific definition of what constitutes these documents.

Based on Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1802(2), “community documents” are strictly defined as:

• The declaration (often called CC&Rs)

• Bylaws

• Articles of incorporation

• Rules

Crucially, the HOA’s own CC&Rs specified the exact procedure for how to adopt an enforceable rule, and the association had never subjected Policy BC-3 to that formal process. It wasn’t just a legal technicality; the HOA was following its own governing documents about how to create—or not create—a binding rule. Because the pickleball policy had not been formally adopted, it was legally unenforceable in this hearing.

Key Takeaway Analysis: In a legal dispute, the common-sense meaning of a word can be overruled by a specific statutory definition. It’s not enough to read an HOA’s policy manual. As a homeowner, you must cross-reference that policy with the CC&Rs or Bylaws to confirm the HOA has followed its own stated procedure for adopting it as a formal, legally binding rule.

——————————————————————————–

2. Marketing Materials Are Not Governing Documents

To support his case, Mr. Martin presented printouts from the HOA’s website. He felt these materials advertised and marketed the availability of pickleball courts, stating in a legal filing that “the Association is in violation for not providing pickleball courts as advertised and marketed….”

The judge’s conclusion was unequivocal: advertising and marketing materials, just like the internal policy manual, do not qualify as “community documents.” The legal definition is exclusive, and an HOA’s website is not on the list. Therefore, promises or suggestions made on a website carry no legal weight in a dispute over violations of governing documents.

Key Takeaway Analysis: There is a significant gap between marketing promises and legally enforceable obligations. For potential buyers, this is a critical warning. The glossy brochure, the community website, and the sales pitch might paint a picture of community life, but that picture is not guaranteed by the legally binding documents you sign at closing.

——————————————————————————–

3. You Must Allege a Violation of theRightDocument

The case also reveals a crucial lesson in legal procedure. In his initial petition, Mr. Martin only alleged violations of the HOA’s website and its policy manual. While his petition form indicated alleged violations of the “CC&Rs and Bylaws,” he failed to identify any specific provisions within those official documents that the HOA had actually violated.

It was only after his case was first dismissed that he attempted to specify violations of the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation in his request for a rehearing. By then, it was too late. The initial petition failed to allege a violation of a legitimate community document.

Key Takeaway Analysis: Precision is paramount. To successfully challenge an HOA in an administrative hearing, a homeowner cannot just have a general grievance. You must be able to pinpoint the exact article, section, and provision of an official “community document” (like the CC&Rs or Bylaws) that was violated and state it clearly in your initial complaint.

——————————————————————————–

4. The Court May Not Have the Power to Grant Your Request

Mr. Martin was clear about what he wanted the court to do. He requested one of two specific forms of relief:

• Provide financial support of $463,112.00 for the expansion of pickleball courts in Bobcat Canyon.

• Alternatively, construct eight new pickleball courts within a two-mile radius of the community within one year, with the HOA being financially responsible for their maintenance.

The judge noted a final, critical problem with the case: the requested relief was “not within the scope of the Administrative Law Judge’s authority.” The law governing these hearings simply did not give the judge the power to order an HOA to undertake a massive, six-figure construction project.

Key Takeaway Analysis: Even if you have a valid case and prove the HOA violated a rule, the court or tribunal you are in has limits. An administrative hearing might only be empowered to levy a civil penalty or issue an order for the HOA to abide by an existing rule. It likely cannot force the HOA to build new facilities or make large capital expenditures. This highlights the need to research the legal venue before you file to ensure it has the authority to grant the specific outcome you are seeking.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Read Before You Litigate

The outcome of Mr. Martin’s lawsuit underscores the critical difference between a homeowner’s reasonable expectations and an HOA’s legally enforceable covenants. For homeowners, disputes are won or lost based on the precise wording of official governing documents—the CC&Rs, bylaws, and formal rules.

Before you challenge your HOA, have you read the fine print to see if their promise is written in the one place that truly matters?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tom J. Martin (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Carolyn B. Goldschmidt (respondent attorney)
    Goldschmidt, Shupe, PLLC
  • Michael S. Shupe (attorney)
    Goldschmidt, Shupe, PLLC
    Recipient of transmittal

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal
  • LDettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)
  • ncano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)

Other Participants

  • JS (Unknown staff)
    Transmittal initials