Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
25F-H019-REL
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2025-07-01
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC
Counsel
Danny M. Ford, Esq.
Respondent
Matthew P. Petrovic
Counsel
—
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Outcome Summary
The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the Respondent's request for rehearing of the underlying ALJ Decision.
Why this result: The Commissioner found grounds (errors of law and arbitrary decision) sufficient to grant the Respondent's motion for rehearing.
Key Issues & Findings
Rehearing Request: Errors of Law and Arbitrary Decision
Respondent Matthew Petrovic successfully requested rehearing of the original ALJ decision, alleging errors of law, improper evidence rejection, procedural irregularities, and that the findings were arbitrary or capricious regarding alleged HOA enforcement violations (landscape, paint, walkway denial).
Orders: The Commissioner granted the rehearing request based on grounds of error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law, and that the findings or decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Dispute, Rehearing, Procedural Error, Arbitrary Decision, Selective Enforcement
The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the Respondent's request for rehearing of the underlying ALJ Decision.
Why this result: The Commissioner found grounds (errors of law and arbitrary decision) sufficient to grant the Respondent's motion for rehearing.
Key Issues & Findings
Rehearing Request: Errors of Law and Arbitrary Decision
Respondent Matthew Petrovic successfully requested rehearing of the original ALJ decision, alleging errors of law, improper evidence rejection, procedural irregularities, and that the findings were arbitrary or capricious regarding alleged HOA enforcement violations (landscape, paint, walkway denial).
Orders: The Commissioner granted the rehearing request based on grounds of error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law, and that the findings or decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Dispute, Rehearing, Procedural Error, Arbitrary Decision, Selective Enforcement
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
25F-H019-REL Decision – 1301437.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:36 (137.3 KB)
25F-H019-REL Decision – 1327903.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:44 (2245.4 KB)
25F-H019-REL Decision – 1344402.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:49 (57.4 KB)
25F-H019-REL Decision – 1353469.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:53 (73.9 KB)
25F-H019-REL Decision – 1353471.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:58 (9.4 KB)
25F-H019-REL Decision – 1364458.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:15:02 (59.3 KB)
25F-H019-REL Decision – 1381249.pdf
Uploaded 2026-02-11T07:31:56 (233.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 25F-H019-REL
Briefing Document: Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC vs. Matthew Petrovic
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the key events, arguments, and rulings in the administrative dispute between homeowner Matthew Petrovic (Respondent) and the Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC (Petitioner), case number 25F-H019. Following an initial Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision on May 5, 2025, that found the Petitioner to be the prevailing party, the Respondent successfully petitioned for a rehearing.
The Respondent’s request for a rehearing was based on several grounds, including the misinterpretation of evidence regarding landscaping (Sago palms), insufficient evidence for a paint violation, and the arbitrary denial of a medically necessary walkway. Critically, Mr. Petrovic also cited significant procedural failures, alleging he was denied due process because he was misinformed about the nature of the original hearing and was thus unprepared and without legal counsel. He further claimed that the Petitioner’s witness provided false testimony and that key evidence was improperly excluded.
The Petitioner objected to the rehearing request, arguing solely that it was filed five days past the statutory 30-day deadline. Despite this objection, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing. The official order cites two specific grounds for granting the request: “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding,” and “That the findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” A subsequent continuance has moved the new hearing to October 22, 2025.
Case Overview and Procedural History
The case involves a dispute between a homeowner and his HOA that was initially adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The homeowner, Matthew Petrovic, appealed the initial decision to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) Commissioner and was granted a new hearing.
Key Parties and Representatives:
Name/Entity
Affiliation
Petitioner
Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC
Attorney for Petitioner
Danny M. Ford, Esq.
Goodman Law Group
Respondent
Matthew P. Petrovic
Original ALJ
Velva Moses–Thompson
Office of Administrative Hearings
Deputy Commissioner
Mandy Neat
Arizona Department of Real Estate
ALJ for Continuance
Nicole Robinson
Office of Administrative Hearings
Timeline of Events:
Description
April 15, 2025
Original Hearing
The initial hearing on the dispute takes place.
May 5, 2025
Initial ALJ Decision
ALJ Velva Moses–Thompson issues a decision deeming the Petitioner the “prevailing party.” The decision includes a notice of a 30-day deadline to request a rehearing.
June 9, 2025
Rehearing Request Filed
Respondent Matthew Petrovic files a Dispute Rehearing Request with the ADRE Commissioner.
June 17, 2025
Objection to Rehearing
The Petitioner files a timely response, objecting to the rehearing request on the grounds that it was filed five days past the deadline.
July 3, 2025
Rehearing Granted
The ADRE Deputy Commissioner issues an “Order Granting Rehearing Request.”
July 23, 2025
Notice of Hearing Issued
A notice for the new hearing is issued (as referenced in a later document).
August 28, 2025
Continuance Granted
At the Respondent’s request, ALJ Nicole Robinson grants a continuance for the hearing.
October 22, 2025 (1:00 PM)
Scheduled Rehearing
The new, continued date for the rehearing is set.
Respondent’s Grounds for Rehearing Petition
Matthew Petrovic submitted a detailed petition outlining four primary areas of concern: the factual basis for the violations, procedural irregularities, false testimony, and a lack of due process.
1. Landscape Violation – Sago Palms
Mr. Petrovic argues the ruling that Sago palms are prohibited was incorrect and contradicted the evidence he presented.
• Evidence Submitted: He claims to have provided copies of the CC&Rs, documentation from the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (AMWUA) classifying Sago palms as drought-tolerant plants and not true palm trees, and supporting witness testimony.
• Allegation of False Testimony: He asserts that the petitioner’s witness, identified as “Kevin,” gave false testimony under oath by stating the plants were not allowed, despite being presented with contrary evidence.
• New Evidence: Since the hearing, Mr. Petrovic states he has directly contacted AMWUA, which confirmed Sago palms are not in the palm family. He also notes that a current board member is willing to testify that the plants are permitted under the HOA’s governing documents.
2. Paint Condition Dispute
The petition contends that the ruling on his home’s paint being “in disrepair” was not supported by credible evidence.
• Conflicting Testimony: Three witnesses, including Mr. Petrovic, testified that the paint is in good condition. The individual who testified against the paint’s condition is reportedly no longer a sitting board member.
• Prior Approval and Inconsistent Reasoning: The exterior paint was reviewed and approved by the HOA board when he purchased the home. He alleges the board has demonstrated “inconsistent reasoning” by first claiming the violation was due to the paint needing to be two colors and later changing the reason to “disrepair.”
• Lack of Evidence from Petitioner: The petition states the board has not submitted objective proof, such as photographs or condition reports, to support its claim. Mr. Petrovic views these actions as potential “selective enforcement and retaliation” for his opposition to prior board actions.
3. Paver Walkway Denial
Mr. Petrovic claims the HOA has engaged in selective enforcement and bad faith by repeatedly denying his application for a modified walkway over the past three years.
• Medical Necessity: The walkway modifications are supported by a physician’s letter referencing chronic back and shoulder conditions.
• Selective Enforcement: Similar walkways have allegedly been approved for other homeowners, yet his requests have been denied without justification.
• Violation of CC&Rs: He argues the denial violates the community’s CC&Rs, which require the board to act reasonably and impartially, and that the denial could be viewed as discrimination.
4. Procedural and Due Process Concerns
A significant portion of the petition focuses on procedural failures that Mr. Petrovic believes deprived him of a fair hearing.
• Exclusion of Evidence: He states that key evidence relevant to his claim of selective enforcement was excluded from the hearing due to concerns about third-party privacy.
• Misunderstanding of Hearing Nature: Mr. Petrovic was “led to believe the meeting was a mediation session” and was unaware that binding decisions could result.
• Inability to Prepare Defense: Due to this misunderstanding and “financial hardship,” he was unable to retain legal counsel or properly prepare his case, which he argues “constitutes a denial of due process.”
Petitioner’s Objection to Rehearing
The Tatum Highlands Community Association, through its attorney Danny M. Ford of Goodman Law Group, filed an objection based on a single procedural argument.
• Untimely Filing: The Petitioner’s core argument is that the request for rehearing was time-barred.
◦ The decision was served on May 5, 2025.
◦ The 30-day statutory deadline, per A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, was June 4, 2025.
◦ Mr. Petrovic filed his request on June 9, 2025, five days late.
• Notice of Deadline: The objection notes that the deadline was “plainly written on the very Decision” and that being unrepresented is not an excuse for missing it.
• Requested Action: The Petitioner respectfully requested that the ALJ deny and dismiss the rehearing request as untimely.
Official Rulings and Current Status
Order Granting Rehearing Request
On July 3, 2025, Deputy Commissioner Mandy Neat of the Arizona Department of Real Estate issued an order granting Mr. Petrovic’s request. The order implicitly overruled the Petitioner’s objection regarding the filing deadline. The Commissioner cited two of the grounds available for granting a rehearing, which directly align with the arguments made in Mr. Petrovic’s petition:
1. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.
2. That the findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
Order Granting Continuance and Current Status
An order dated August 28, 2025, from Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson shows that the rehearing was continued at the request of the Respondent, Matthew Petrovic.
• The rehearing is officially scheduled to take place on October 22, 2025, at 1:00 PM.
Study Guide – 25F-H019-REL
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “25F-H019-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Tatum Highlands Community Association, Inc. v. Matthew P. Petrovic”,
“decision_date”: “2025-12-26”,
“alj_name”: “Nicole Robinson”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an HOA violation hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “The Petitioner (usually the HOA initiating the case) bears the burden of proof.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the party filing the petition (the Petitioner) must prove that the other party violated the governing documents by a preponderance of the evidence.”,
“alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the aforementioned CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”,
“topic_tags”: [
“burden of proof”,
“legal standards”,
“procedure”
]
},
{
“question”: “What is the standard of proof used in these hearings?”,
“short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the existence of a contested fact is more probable than not.”,
“alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence means ‘proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.'”,
“legal_basis”: “In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 238 (App. 2005)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“legal standards”,
“evidence”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can I install a driveway extension without prior HOA approval if neighbors have similar ones?”,
“short_answer”: “No. You must seek approval first.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Even if neighbors have similar features, failing to seek Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval prior to installation constitutes a violation of the CC&Rs. The presence of other potentially non-compliant homes does not excuse the failure to follow the approval process.”,
“alj_quote”: “Regardless, the record has established that Respondent did not seek ARC approval prior to installing the paver driveway extension. … As such, Petitioner has established that Respondent violated CC&R, Section 4.2.1.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.1”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural control”,
“driveways”,
“selective enforcement”
]
},
{
“question”: “What happens if I plant trees that the Architectural Committee specifically denied?”,
“short_answer”: “It is a violation of the governing documents.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Proceeding to install landscaping that was explicitly denied by the Architectural Review Committee establishes a clear violation of the community’s restrictions.”,
“alj_quote”: “In regard to the pigmy palm tree matter, the evidence clearly established that Respondent requested to plant two pigmy palm trees in his front yard, was denied by ARC, and planted them anyway. … Hence, Petitioner has established that Respondent violated CC&R Section 4.2.7.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.7 / Design Guidelines”,
“topic_tags”: [
“landscaping”,
“architectural control”,
“violations”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge rule on Fair Housing Act discrimination claims?”,
“short_answer”: “No, that venue cannot address Fair Housing Act claims.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The Office of Administrative Hearings for the Department of Real Estate does not have jurisdiction to address claims regarding violations of the Fair Housing Act in these proceedings.”,
“alj_quote”: “In addition, Respondent’s claims regarding the Association violating the Fair Housing Act cannot be addressed in this venue.”,
“legal_basis”: “Jurisdiction limits”,
“topic_tags”: [
“jurisdiction”,
“discrimination”,
“Fair Housing Act”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the HOA fine me for ‘disrepair’ of paint if the paint is just old but not damaged?”,
“short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if evidence shows it is not in disrepair.”,
“detailed_answer”: “If witness testimony establishes that the paint is not actually in disrepair, fines based on that allegation may be waived, even if the homeowner needs to eventually repaint to meet new color schemes.”,
“alj_quote”: “Also, the evidence established from firsthand witnesses that Respondent’s paint was not in disrepair. Therefore, Respondent should be given the opportunity to move forward with the ARC approval for painting his home and any fines he received in regards to the paint be waived.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.7”,
“topic_tags”: [
“maintenance”,
“paint”,
“fines”
]
},
{
“question”: “Do I have to reimburse the HOA’s filing fees if I lose the hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, typically for the issues on which the HOA prevails.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ may order the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fees. In this case, the Respondent was ordered to pay fees proportional to the two issues the HOA won.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 in certified funds for the two issues.”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”,
“topic_tags”: [
“penalties”,
“fees”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does the HOA have to waive fines if a violation was not proven?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes.”,
“detailed_answer”: “If the HOA fails to prove a specific violation (e.g., that paint was in disrepair), the ALJ may order the Association to waive fines related to that specific issue.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner waive all fines issued to Respondent in regards to the paint issue.”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“penalties”
]
}
]
}
Blog Post – 25F-H019-REL
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “25F-H019-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Tatum Highlands Community Association, Inc. v. Matthew P. Petrovic”,
“decision_date”: “2025-12-26”,
“alj_name”: “Nicole Robinson”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an HOA violation hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “The Petitioner (usually the HOA initiating the case) bears the burden of proof.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the party filing the petition (the Petitioner) must prove that the other party violated the governing documents by a preponderance of the evidence.”,
“alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the aforementioned CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”,
“topic_tags”: [
“burden of proof”,
“legal standards”,
“procedure”
]
},
{
“question”: “What is the standard of proof used in these hearings?”,
“short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the existence of a contested fact is more probable than not.”,
“alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence means ‘proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.'”,
“legal_basis”: “In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 238 (App. 2005)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“legal standards”,
“evidence”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can I install a driveway extension without prior HOA approval if neighbors have similar ones?”,
“short_answer”: “No. You must seek approval first.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Even if neighbors have similar features, failing to seek Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval prior to installation constitutes a violation of the CC&Rs. The presence of other potentially non-compliant homes does not excuse the failure to follow the approval process.”,
“alj_quote”: “Regardless, the record has established that Respondent did not seek ARC approval prior to installing the paver driveway extension. … As such, Petitioner has established that Respondent violated CC&R, Section 4.2.1.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.1”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural control”,
“driveways”,
“selective enforcement”
]
},
{
“question”: “What happens if I plant trees that the Architectural Committee specifically denied?”,
“short_answer”: “It is a violation of the governing documents.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Proceeding to install landscaping that was explicitly denied by the Architectural Review Committee establishes a clear violation of the community’s restrictions.”,
“alj_quote”: “In regard to the pigmy palm tree matter, the evidence clearly established that Respondent requested to plant two pigmy palm trees in his front yard, was denied by ARC, and planted them anyway. … Hence, Petitioner has established that Respondent violated CC&R Section 4.2.7.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.7 / Design Guidelines”,
“topic_tags”: [
“landscaping”,
“architectural control”,
“violations”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge rule on Fair Housing Act discrimination claims?”,
“short_answer”: “No, that venue cannot address Fair Housing Act claims.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The Office of Administrative Hearings for the Department of Real Estate does not have jurisdiction to address claims regarding violations of the Fair Housing Act in these proceedings.”,
“alj_quote”: “In addition, Respondent’s claims regarding the Association violating the Fair Housing Act cannot be addressed in this venue.”,
“legal_basis”: “Jurisdiction limits”,
“topic_tags”: [
“jurisdiction”,
“discrimination”,
“Fair Housing Act”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the HOA fine me for ‘disrepair’ of paint if the paint is just old but not damaged?”,
“short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if evidence shows it is not in disrepair.”,
“detailed_answer”: “If witness testimony establishes that the paint is not actually in disrepair, fines based on that allegation may be waived, even if the homeowner needs to eventually repaint to meet new color schemes.”,
“alj_quote”: “Also, the evidence established from firsthand witnesses that Respondent’s paint was not in disrepair. Therefore, Respondent should be given the opportunity to move forward with the ARC approval for painting his home and any fines he received in regards to the paint be waived.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.7”,
“topic_tags”: [
“maintenance”,
“paint”,
“fines”
]
},
{
“question”: “Do I have to reimburse the HOA’s filing fees if I lose the hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, typically for the issues on which the HOA prevails.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ may order the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fees. In this case, the Respondent was ordered to pay fees proportional to the two issues the HOA won.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 in certified funds for the two issues.”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”,
“topic_tags”: [
“penalties”,
“fees”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does the HOA have to waive fines if a violation was not proven?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes.”,
“detailed_answer”: “If the HOA fails to prove a specific violation (e.g., that paint was in disrepair), the ALJ may order the Association to waive fines related to that specific issue.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner waive all fines issued to Respondent in regards to the paint issue.”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“penalties”
]
}
]
}
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Danny Ford(HOA attorney) Goodman Law Group Attorney for Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC.
Kevin Hufnagel(board member) Tatum Highlands HOA Board Testified as a witness for Petitioner; served on Board of Directors.
Brian Lumpkey(board member) Tatum Highlands HOA Board Board Vice President; testified as witness/representative for Petitioner.
Elizabeth Lindlam(HOA attorney) Goodman Law Group Appeared for observation only.
Pat Diaz(board member) Tatum Highlands HOA Board Current President, previously on ARC Board.
Leanne Dilberto(property manager) Trestle Management Observed violations during paint audit; referred to as Leanne Dilberto, Lean Zioto, and Leand Alberto in sources.
Mountain Park Association CC&Rs Art. IV, Sec. 2; Keystone CC&Rs Art. V, Sec. 5.19; Rules (35% Frontage Limit)
Outcome Summary
The Petitioner (HOA) prevailed. The Respondent (Homeowner) was found in violation of Governing Documents for installing an unapproved driveway extension that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the $1,500.00 filing fee and comply with all Governing Documents henceforth. No civil penalty was levied.
Why this result: Respondent failed to obtain prior written approval for the driveway alteration and failed to prove the affirmative defense of laches.
Key Issues & Findings
Unauthorized Driveway Extension Exceeding 35% of Total Yard Frontage Area
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&Rs by installing a driveway extension exceeding 35% of the total yard frontage area without prior written approval. The ALJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation occurred and the Respondent failed to establish the affirmative defense of laches.
Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $1,500.00 for the filing fee and comply henceforth with the Governing Documents.
Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design and Construction, Inc., 170 Ariz. 598, 600, 826 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Ct. App. 1992)
Can a sub-association enforce the rules and CC&Rs of the master association?
Short Answer
Yes, if the master association has assigned those enforcement rights to the sub-association.
Detailed Answer
A sub-association (like a specific neighborhood HOA within a larger master planned community) generally enforces its own documents. However, this decision clarifies that a sub-association may be authorized to enforce the master association's governing documents if there is a specific assignment agreement executing that transfer of authority.
Alj Quote
The Governing Documents authorize Petitioner to enforce the Governing Documents, as further memorialized by an executed Assignment Agreement by and between Mountain Park Association and Keystone Owners Association signed on August 16, 2023.
Legal Basis
Assignment Agreement / Governing Documents
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
sub-associations
master association
enforcement authority
Question
If I extend my driveway without approval, does the HOA have to prove I didn't get permission, or do I have to prove I did?
Short Answer
The absence of written evidence granting approval can be used to establish a violation.
Detailed Answer
While the HOA bears the initial burden of proof for the violation, the lack of testimonial or written evidence showing that the homeowner received approval helps establish that the modification was unauthorized.
Alj Quote
However, there was no testimonial or written evidence presented to establish that Respondent was granted approval to install a driveway that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
architectural approval
evidence
driveways
modifications
Question
What is the 'burden of proof' for an HOA to win a violation hearing?
Short Answer
The HOA must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The HOA does not need to prove a violation 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (the criminal standard). They must only show that their contention is 'more probably true than not' or carries superior evidentiary weight.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 7.9 by a preponderance of the evidence… 'A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
hearing procedures
Question
Can I use the defense that the HOA waited too long to enforce the rule (laches)?
Short Answer
Yes, but you bear the burden of proving that the delay was unreasonable and caused you prejudice.
Detailed Answer
Laches is an affirmative defense. It is not enough to simply show a delay; the homeowner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the delay was unreasonable and that it resulted in sufficient prejudice to deny the HOA's relief.
Alj Quote
Laches is an affirmative defense, and Respondent bears the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence… Respondent has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was unreasonable delay that has resulted in prejudice to Respondent sufficient to deny the relief Petitioner seeks…
Legal Basis
A.C.C. R2-19-119(B)(2); Flynn v. Rogers
Topic Tags
defenses
laches
enforcement delay
Question
If I lose the hearing, can the judge make me pay the HOA's filing fees?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the losing homeowner to reimburse the HOA's filing fee.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the judge ordered the Respondent (homeowner) to pay the Petitioner's (HOA) filing fee of $1,500.00 directly to the Petitioner within 30 days.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner its filing fee of $1,500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
fees
costs
penalties
Question
How do judges interpret the meaning of restrictive covenants (CC&Rs)?
Short Answer
They are interpreted as a whole, looking at the underlying purpose of the document.
Detailed Answer
Legal interpretation does not isolate single phrases but looks at the document in its entirety to understand the intent of the parties and the purpose of the restrictions.
Alj Quote
Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.
Legal Basis
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.
Topic Tags
legal interpretation
CC&Rs
covenants
Question
Can the judge issue a civil penalty (fine) in addition to ordering me to fix the violation?
Short Answer
Yes, the judge has the authority to levy a civil penalty, though they may choose not to.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, the administrative law judge has the discretion to order compliance and also levy a civil penalty for each violation. In this specific case, the judge found no civil penalty was appropriate, but the authority exists.
Alj Quote
The administrative law judge may order any party to abide by the statute, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue and may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
civil penalties
fines
statutory authority
Case
Docket No
24F-H031-REL
Case Title
Keystone Owners Association vs. Bernadette M. Bennett
Decision Date
2024-12-09
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can a sub-association enforce the rules and CC&Rs of the master association?
Short Answer
Yes, if the master association has assigned those enforcement rights to the sub-association.
Detailed Answer
A sub-association (like a specific neighborhood HOA within a larger master planned community) generally enforces its own documents. However, this decision clarifies that a sub-association may be authorized to enforce the master association's governing documents if there is a specific assignment agreement executing that transfer of authority.
Alj Quote
The Governing Documents authorize Petitioner to enforce the Governing Documents, as further memorialized by an executed Assignment Agreement by and between Mountain Park Association and Keystone Owners Association signed on August 16, 2023.
Legal Basis
Assignment Agreement / Governing Documents
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
sub-associations
master association
enforcement authority
Question
If I extend my driveway without approval, does the HOA have to prove I didn't get permission, or do I have to prove I did?
Short Answer
The absence of written evidence granting approval can be used to establish a violation.
Detailed Answer
While the HOA bears the initial burden of proof for the violation, the lack of testimonial or written evidence showing that the homeowner received approval helps establish that the modification was unauthorized.
Alj Quote
However, there was no testimonial or written evidence presented to establish that Respondent was granted approval to install a driveway that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
architectural approval
evidence
driveways
modifications
Question
What is the 'burden of proof' for an HOA to win a violation hearing?
Short Answer
The HOA must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The HOA does not need to prove a violation 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (the criminal standard). They must only show that their contention is 'more probably true than not' or carries superior evidentiary weight.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 7.9 by a preponderance of the evidence… 'A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
hearing procedures
Question
Can I use the defense that the HOA waited too long to enforce the rule (laches)?
Short Answer
Yes, but you bear the burden of proving that the delay was unreasonable and caused you prejudice.
Detailed Answer
Laches is an affirmative defense. It is not enough to simply show a delay; the homeowner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the delay was unreasonable and that it resulted in sufficient prejudice to deny the HOA's relief.
Alj Quote
Laches is an affirmative defense, and Respondent bears the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence… Respondent has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was unreasonable delay that has resulted in prejudice to Respondent sufficient to deny the relief Petitioner seeks…
Legal Basis
A.C.C. R2-19-119(B)(2); Flynn v. Rogers
Topic Tags
defenses
laches
enforcement delay
Question
If I lose the hearing, can the judge make me pay the HOA's filing fees?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the losing homeowner to reimburse the HOA's filing fee.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the judge ordered the Respondent (homeowner) to pay the Petitioner's (HOA) filing fee of $1,500.00 directly to the Petitioner within 30 days.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner its filing fee of $1,500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
fees
costs
penalties
Question
How do judges interpret the meaning of restrictive covenants (CC&Rs)?
Short Answer
They are interpreted as a whole, looking at the underlying purpose of the document.
Detailed Answer
Legal interpretation does not isolate single phrases but looks at the document in its entirety to understand the intent of the parties and the purpose of the restrictions.
Alj Quote
Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.
Legal Basis
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.
Topic Tags
legal interpretation
CC&Rs
covenants
Question
Can the judge issue a civil penalty (fine) in addition to ordering me to fix the violation?
Short Answer
Yes, the judge has the authority to levy a civil penalty, though they may choose not to.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, the administrative law judge has the discretion to order compliance and also levy a civil penalty for each violation. In this specific case, the judge found no civil penalty was appropriate, but the authority exists.
Alj Quote
The administrative law judge may order any party to abide by the statute, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue and may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
civil penalties
fines
statutory authority
Case
Docket No
24F-H031-REL
Case Title
Keystone Owners Association vs. Bernadette M. Bennett
Decision Date
2024-12-09
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Erica L. Mortenson(attorney) Goodman Law Group HOA attorney
Harry Whitel(board member/witness) Keystone Owners Association Secretary of the Board
Tim Seyfarth(board member/president) Keystone Owners Association Board President
Glenn Steinman(board member) Keystone Owners Association Board Vice President
Debbie Burch(board member) Keystone Owners Association Board Treasurer
Cherry Collins(board member) Keystone Owners Association Member at large; Architectural Advisory Committee member
Joe Getti(ARC member/former board member) Keystone Owners Association Architectural Advisory Committee member
Mary Hamilton(ARC member) Keystone Owners Association Architectural Advisory Committee member
Dan(attorney/staff) Goodman Law Group
Respondent Side
Bernadette M. Bennett(respondent) Lot Owner
Thomas A. Walcott(attorney) Provident Lawyers Respondent attorney
Noah Alvarado(staff) Staff/assistant for Respondent's Counsel
Christopher J. Charles(attorney/staff) Provident Lawyers
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge
Amy Haley(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge (prior to VMT)
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Isabella(property manager) Vision Management Keystone Property Manager who was asked for documents
Annette Wthbon(property management agent) City Management Former Property Management Agent
Carla Garvin(property management agent) City Management Former Property Management Agent
Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association
Counsel
Erica L. Mortenson
Alleged Violations
Park By-Laws Article III, Section 1
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's claim, finding that the HOA (Park) was in compliance with its By-Laws. Frank Maiz was found to be the spouse of the unit owner (Mercedes B.B. Maiz), making him eligible to serve on the Board of Directors.
Why this result: Petitioner was mistaken regarding the current ownership of the unit at issue and failed to prove the respondent violated the Park By-Laws.
Key Issues & Findings
Board of Directors Qualification (Owner/Spouse Requirement)
Petitioner alleged that Frank Maiz was ineligible for the Board because his wife, Mercedes B.B. Maiz, was not the true owner of the unit, arguing that their daughter (also Mercedes B.B. Maiz) was the owner based on a recorded Beneficiary Deed. The Respondent proved that the wife owned the property, making Frank Maiz eligible as her spouse.
Orders: Petitioner's Petition is dismissed. Park is deemed the prevailing party. Petitioner shall bear her filing fee.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1801 et seq.
A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H041-REL Decision – 1178740.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:07:21 (54.4 KB)
24F-H041-REL Decision – 1202883.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:07:25 (42.7 KB)
24F-H041-REL Decision – 1211324.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:07:30 (120.7 KB)
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the person filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the person bringing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not automatically have to prove they are innocent; the accuser must prove the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
In these proceedings, a petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a respondent has violated the planned community document(s’) provisions or statutes alleged to have been violated.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
procedure
Question
Can the spouse of a homeowner serve on the Board of Directors even if they are not listed on the deed?
Short Answer
Yes, if the community bylaws explicitly allow spouses of owners to serve.
Detailed Answer
If the specific HOA bylaws state that board members can be owners or the spouse of an owner, a spouse may run for and serve on the board even if they are not legally listed on the property deed.
Alj Quote
Park By-Laws Article III, Section 1 provides, in pertinent part: Each member of the Board of Directors shall be either an owner of a Unit or the spouse of an owner.
Legal Basis
Community Bylaws
Topic Tags
board eligibility
bylaws
elections
Question
Does a 'Beneficiary Deed' transfer ownership of a property immediately?
Short Answer
No, a Beneficiary Deed transfers title only upon the death of the owner.
Detailed Answer
The existence of a recorded Beneficiary Deed does not mean the current owner has given up their rights. The current owner remains the owner until they die, at which point the property transfers to the beneficiary.
Alj Quote
Mercedes B.B. Maiz testified that she executed the Beneficiary Deed… indicating that, upon her death, the subject property is deeded to her daughter… [and] The hearing record clearly documented that Mercedes B.B. Maiz owns Unit 245 at Park.
Legal Basis
Fact Finding / Property Law
Topic Tags
property ownership
deeds
evidence
Question
What is the standard of evidence required to win an administrative hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
To win, the evidence must show that the claim is more likely true than not. It does not require removal of all doubt, just that the evidence carries more weight than the opposing side.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
Question
Where can a homeowner file a petition regarding violations of condo statutes or documents?
Short Answer
The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).
Detailed Answer
Arizona law allows owners to petition the Department of Real Estate for a hearing if there is a dispute regarding violations of condominium documents or regulating statutes.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et al., regarding a dispute between an owner and a planned community association, the owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of condominium documents or violations of the statutes that regulate condominiums…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
filing a complaint
Question
If I lose my case against the HOA, who pays the filing fee?
Short Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) must pay their own filing fee if the petition is dismissed.
Detailed Answer
If the Administrative Law Judge rules in favor of the HOA and dismisses the petition, the homeowner is ordered to bear the cost of the filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS ORDERED Petitioner shall bear her filing fee.
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
fees
penalties
Case
Docket No
24F-H041-REL
Case Title
Deborah Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2024-08-14
Alj Name
Kay A. Abramsohn
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the person filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the person bringing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not automatically have to prove they are innocent; the accuser must prove the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
In these proceedings, a petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a respondent has violated the planned community document(s’) provisions or statutes alleged to have been violated.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
procedure
Question
Can the spouse of a homeowner serve on the Board of Directors even if they are not listed on the deed?
Short Answer
Yes, if the community bylaws explicitly allow spouses of owners to serve.
Detailed Answer
If the specific HOA bylaws state that board members can be owners or the spouse of an owner, a spouse may run for and serve on the board even if they are not legally listed on the property deed.
Alj Quote
Park By-Laws Article III, Section 1 provides, in pertinent part: Each member of the Board of Directors shall be either an owner of a Unit or the spouse of an owner.
Legal Basis
Community Bylaws
Topic Tags
board eligibility
bylaws
elections
Question
Does a 'Beneficiary Deed' transfer ownership of a property immediately?
Short Answer
No, a Beneficiary Deed transfers title only upon the death of the owner.
Detailed Answer
The existence of a recorded Beneficiary Deed does not mean the current owner has given up their rights. The current owner remains the owner until they die, at which point the property transfers to the beneficiary.
Alj Quote
Mercedes B.B. Maiz testified that she executed the Beneficiary Deed… indicating that, upon her death, the subject property is deeded to her daughter… [and] The hearing record clearly documented that Mercedes B.B. Maiz owns Unit 245 at Park.
Legal Basis
Fact Finding / Property Law
Topic Tags
property ownership
deeds
evidence
Question
What is the standard of evidence required to win an administrative hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
To win, the evidence must show that the claim is more likely true than not. It does not require removal of all doubt, just that the evidence carries more weight than the opposing side.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
Question
Where can a homeowner file a petition regarding violations of condo statutes or documents?
Short Answer
The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).
Detailed Answer
Arizona law allows owners to petition the Department of Real Estate for a hearing if there is a dispute regarding violations of condominium documents or regulating statutes.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et al., regarding a dispute between an owner and a planned community association, the owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of condominium documents or violations of the statutes that regulate condominiums…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
filing a complaint
Question
If I lose my case against the HOA, who pays the filing fee?
Short Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) must pay their own filing fee if the petition is dismissed.
Detailed Answer
If the Administrative Law Judge rules in favor of the HOA and dismisses the petition, the homeowner is ordered to bear the cost of the filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS ORDERED Petitioner shall bear her filing fee.
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
fees
penalties
Case
Docket No
24F-H041-REL
Case Title
Deborah Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2024-08-14
Alj Name
Kay A. Abramsohn
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Deborah Masear(petitioner) Represented herself
Respondent Side
Erica L. Mortenson(HOA attorney) Goodman Law Group Represented Respondent at the hearing
Frank German Maiz(board member; witness) Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association Spouse of owner; testified for Respondent
Mercedes Bofill Benaches Maiz(owner; witness) Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association Owner of the unit at issue; testified for Respondent
Ashley N. Turner(attorney) Goodman Law Group Listed for transmission
GT(observer) Goodman Law Group Observing from Respondent's attorney's office
Neutral Parties
Kay A. Abramsohn(ALJ) OAH Presided over the hearing and issued the decision
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH Signed the minute entry granting continuance
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission
mneat(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission
lrecchia(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission
gosborn(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission
Other Participants
John Prieve(observer) Requested to observe the hearing
Mercedes Bofill Maiz(beneficiary; daughter) Daughter of owner Mercedes B.B. Maiz
Frank Bofill Maiz(beneficiary; son) Son of owner Mercedes B.B. Maiz
The petition filed by David Y. Samuels against The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association was dismissed. The Tribunal found that Samuels lacked standing to bring the action as an individual, and the cited statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803 (Planned Community Act), was improper for this condominium dispute.
Why this result: Petitioner lacked standing because the property was owned by Daso Properties, LLC, not by David Y. Samuels individually. Additionally, the Petitioner brought the action under the incorrect statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803, which governs planned communities, not condominiums.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation concerning late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees for delinquent assessment payments
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 by charging unwarranted late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees for delinquent assessments.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed because Petitioner lacked standing as an individual owner, and the cause of action was brought under the improper statute (Planned Community Act) for a condominium property.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Analytics Highlights
Topics: standing, condominium, planned community act, statutory violation, late fees, collection fees, attorney fees, jurisdiction, dismissal
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
A.A.C. R2-19-106(D)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1124651.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:59 (48.4 KB)
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1133120.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:01 (39.9 KB)
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1134423.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:05 (48.2 KB)
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139633.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:08 (55.7 KB)
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139646.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:12 (7.6 KB)
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1157271.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:17 (47.1 KB)
24F-H025-REL Decision – 1168680.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:22 (86.1 KB)
Questions
Question
If my property is owned by an LLC, can I file a petition against the HOA in my own name as the managing member?
Short Answer
No. The petition must be filed by the legal owner (the LLC), not an individual member, or it will be dismissed for lack of standing.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that an individual managing member of an LLC does not have standing to bring an action on behalf of the property owned by the LLC. The dispute statute specifically applies to 'owners' and 'associations'.
Alj Quote
The Tribunal finds that, after taking testimony, Petitioner, as an individual, did not have standing to bring this action… The proper party to bring the action would have been Daso Properties, LLC.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
Topic Tags
standing
LLC ownership
procedural requirements
Question
Can I use laws meant for Planned Communities (A.R.S. § 33-1803) to dispute charges if I live in a Condominium?
Short Answer
No. Condominiums are governed by a different set of statutes (Chapter 9) than Planned Communities (Chapter 16).
Detailed Answer
The ALJ dismissed the claim because the homeowner cited the Planned Community Act (A.R.S. § 33-1803) while the property was legally a condominium. Condominiums are not subject to the Planned Community Act.
Alj Quote
However, the Property is a condominium; therefore, Respondent is not subject to the Planned Community Act. … Chapter 9 governs condominiums.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
condominium vs planned community
statutory application
Question
Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction to hear a dispute if I am not the legal owner of the property?
Short Answer
No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to disputes specifically between an owner and an association.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarifies that the administrative hearing process is strictly for disputes involving an 'owner' or 'association'. If the petitioner is not the legal owner (even if they manage the LLC that owns it), the Department lacks jurisdiction.
Alj Quote
The department does not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute that does not involve an owner or an association.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
standing
homeowner rights
Question
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner claims an HOA violated state laws?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
In these administrative hearings, it is the responsibility of the person bringing the complaint to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 as alleged in his petition.
Legal Basis
Preponderance of Evidence
Topic Tags
burden of proof
evidence
legal standards
Question
What happens if I base my entire petition on a statute that doesn't apply to my type of property?
Short Answer
The petition will be dismissed because you have stated no claim upon which relief can be granted.
Detailed Answer
Because the petitioner cited the wrong statute (Planned Community Act for a Condominium), the judge ruled that there was no valid legal claim to rule on, resulting in dismissal.
Alj Quote
As such, Petitioner has stated no claim upon which relief can be granted under A.R.S. § 33-1801.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1801
Topic Tags
dismissal
legal procedure
condominium act
Case
Docket No
24F-H025-REL
Case Title
David Y. Samuels vs The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association
Decision Date
2024-04-18
Alj Name
Amy M. Haley
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If my property is owned by an LLC, can I file a petition against the HOA in my own name as the managing member?
Short Answer
No. The petition must be filed by the legal owner (the LLC), not an individual member, or it will be dismissed for lack of standing.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that an individual managing member of an LLC does not have standing to bring an action on behalf of the property owned by the LLC. The dispute statute specifically applies to 'owners' and 'associations'.
Alj Quote
The Tribunal finds that, after taking testimony, Petitioner, as an individual, did not have standing to bring this action… The proper party to bring the action would have been Daso Properties, LLC.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
Topic Tags
standing
LLC ownership
procedural requirements
Question
Can I use laws meant for Planned Communities (A.R.S. § 33-1803) to dispute charges if I live in a Condominium?
Short Answer
No. Condominiums are governed by a different set of statutes (Chapter 9) than Planned Communities (Chapter 16).
Detailed Answer
The ALJ dismissed the claim because the homeowner cited the Planned Community Act (A.R.S. § 33-1803) while the property was legally a condominium. Condominiums are not subject to the Planned Community Act.
Alj Quote
However, the Property is a condominium; therefore, Respondent is not subject to the Planned Community Act. … Chapter 9 governs condominiums.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
condominium vs planned community
statutory application
Question
Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction to hear a dispute if I am not the legal owner of the property?
Short Answer
No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to disputes specifically between an owner and an association.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarifies that the administrative hearing process is strictly for disputes involving an 'owner' or 'association'. If the petitioner is not the legal owner (even if they manage the LLC that owns it), the Department lacks jurisdiction.
Alj Quote
The department does not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute that does not involve an owner or an association.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
standing
homeowner rights
Question
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner claims an HOA violated state laws?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
In these administrative hearings, it is the responsibility of the person bringing the complaint to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 as alleged in his petition.
Legal Basis
Preponderance of Evidence
Topic Tags
burden of proof
evidence
legal standards
Question
What happens if I base my entire petition on a statute that doesn't apply to my type of property?
Short Answer
The petition will be dismissed because you have stated no claim upon which relief can be granted.
Detailed Answer
Because the petitioner cited the wrong statute (Planned Community Act for a Condominium), the judge ruled that there was no valid legal claim to rule on, resulting in dismissal.
Alj Quote
As such, Petitioner has stated no claim upon which relief can be granted under A.R.S. § 33-1801.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1801
Topic Tags
dismissal
legal procedure
condominium act
Case
Docket No
24F-H025-REL
Case Title
David Y. Samuels vs The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association
Decision Date
2024-04-18
Alj Name
Amy M. Haley
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
David Y. Samuels(petitioner) Daso Properties, LLC Managing member of the property owner (Daso Properties, LLC); Appeared on his own behalf.
Respondent Side
Ashley N. Turner(HOA attorney) Goodman Law Group Council for respondent; Also appeared as Ashley N. Moscarello in earlier filings.
Alyssa Butler(community manager) The Management Trust (TMT) Witness for the association.
Stephanie Beck(HOA staff) Involved in prior HOA correspondence regarding fines.
Catherine Green(HOA staff) Involved in prior HOA correspondence regarding fines.
Neutral Parties
Amy M. Haley(ALJ) OAH Conducted the hearing and issued the final decision.
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) OAH Issued an order on March 19, 2024.
A. Hansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
V. Nunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
D. Jones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
L. Abril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
M. Neat(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
A. Kowaleski(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
G. Osborn(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to show the Respondent violated the open meeting statute (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)). The Board provided open meetings where the management contract discussions and votes occurred, including allowing the Petitioner and other homeowners to comment.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by a preponderance of the evidence.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of the open meeting statute regarding entering into a contract with a new Community Association Management Company.
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by canceling the existing community management contract and entering a contract with a new company (Haywood Realty & Investment, Inc.) without allowing open discussion, member comment, motion, and a vote regarding the change and the acquisition of Requests for Proposals (RFPs).
Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Open Meetings, Management Contract, Request for Proposals, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:
ARS 33-1804(A)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H011-REL Decision – 1116173.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:52 (111.6 KB)
Study Guide – 24F-H011-REL
Select all sources
1112606.aac
1116173.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
24F-H011-REL
2 sources
These sources document an administrative hearing regarding a dispute between Samuel T. Paparazzo and the Coronado Ranch Community Association over alleged open meeting violations. The petitioner contended that the board hired a new management company without proper public discussion, member input, or a formal vote as required by Arizona law. In response, the board treasurer testified that the transition was discussed across multiple open sessions and that the final decision was made during a meeting where the petitioner himself provided verbal testimony. Evidence showed that while the official meeting minutes were occasionally incomplete, the board had made significant efforts to inform homeowners through Facebook and email. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the association provided sufficient opportunity for member participation before executing the new contract.
What was the final outcome of the HOA dispute hearing?
How did the treasurer defend the board’s decision-making process?
Explain the member’s specific complaints about the new contract.
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 3:35 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 24F-H011-REL
Select all sources
1112606.aac
1116173.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
24F-H011-REL
2 sources
These sources document an administrative hearing regarding a dispute between Samuel T. Paparazzo and the Coronado Ranch Community Association over alleged open meeting violations. The petitioner contended that the board hired a new management company without proper public discussion, member input, or a formal vote as required by Arizona law. In response, the board treasurer testified that the transition was discussed across multiple open sessions and that the final decision was made during a meeting where the petitioner himself provided verbal testimony. Evidence showed that while the official meeting minutes were occasionally incomplete, the board had made significant efforts to inform homeowners through Facebook and email. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the association provided sufficient opportunity for member participation before executing the new contract.
What was the final outcome of the HOA dispute hearing?
How did the treasurer defend the board’s decision-making process?
Explain the member’s specific complaints about the new contract.
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 3:35 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Samuel T. Paparazzo(petitioner) Also appeared as Samuel Gene Everzo; testified on his own behalf.
Respondent Side
Ashley Turner(HOA attorney) Goodman Law Group Counsel for Coronado Ranch Community Association.
Kimberly Jackson(board member/treasurer) Coronado Ranch Community Association Board Appeared as a witness; sometimes referred to as Jim Jackson.
Sheree(board member) Coronado Ranch Community Association Board Director who obtained RFPs.
Michelle(board member) Coronado Ranch Community Association Board Director who obtained RFPs.
Cathy / Cassie(board member/secretary) Coronado Ranch Community Association Board Board member who read documents aloud; secretary who inadvertently left information off minutes.
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Also identified as Sandra Vanella.
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
A. Hansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of decision transmission.
V. Nunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of decision transmission.
D. Jones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of decision transmission.
L. Abril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of decision transmission.
Other Participants
Erica Martinson(attorney) prison law
Tony Rosetti(lawist) Spelled R O SS KTI.
Miss Lee(potential witness) Did not testify.
Rob Bishop(community manager) Renaissance Community Partners Son of owner of previous management company; facilitated virtual mic for Petitioner.
Tamara Lens(community assistant) Renaissance Community Partners Sent official meeting notice email.
Linda Palmer(homeowner) Coronado Ranch Community Association member Commented at the meeting.
Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association
Counsel
Ashley N. Moscarello
Alleged Violations
Article II Section 3 of Respondent’s bylaws
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the Petitioner's claim, finding that the HOA violated Article II Section 3 of its bylaws by failing to hold the Annual Meeting on the second Monday of March (March 13, 2023). The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee, but a request for a civil penalty was denied.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to hold an annual meeting as required by bylaws
The HOA failed to hold the mandatory annual meeting on March 13, 2023, as explicitly required by the amended bylaws (Article II Section 3). The meeting was subsequently scheduled for May 8, 2023, 56 days late, constituting a violation, even though the later meeting failed to meet quorum.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is affirmed. Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00. Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H053-REL Decision – 1072068.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:32 (115.3 KB)
Study Guide – 23F-H053-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H053-REL”, “case_title”: “Deborah L. Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-07-10”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If the bylaws state a specific date for the annual meeting, can the HOA board reschedule it to a different month?”, “short_answer”: “No. If the bylaws use mandatory language like “shall,” the HOA cannot change the date.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that when bylaws state a meeting “shall be held” on a specific date, this language is mandatory and not permissive. The HOA does not have the discretion to change the date of the annual meeting if the governing documents specify exactly when it must occur.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s Bylaws state, ‘[t]he annual meeting of the members shall be held,’ at the designated date and time annually. The phrase ‘shall be held’ is not permissive; there is no changing the date of the annual meeting.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article II Section 3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Annual Meetings”, “Bylaws Interpretation”, “HOA Obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does a meeting count as being ‘held’ if the HOA schedules it but fails to reach a quorum?”, “short_answer”: “No. If a quorum is not present, the meeting is legally considered not to have been held.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA sends notice and attempts to convene, the failure to achieve a quorum means the meeting cannot conduct business. The ALJ ruled that in such cases, the meeting was not actually held, resulting in a violation if the bylaws required a meeting on that date.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent attempted to hold an annual meeting on May 8, 2023, and but for the lack of quorum, the meeting was not held.”, “legal_basis”: “Findings of Fact”, “topic_tags”: [ “Quorum”, “Annual Meetings”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my dispute against the HOA, will I get my $500 filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee to the prevailing homeowner.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, after ruling in favor of the homeowner regarding the failure to hold the annual meeting, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee the homeowner paid to initiate the case.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Filing Fees”, “Costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA automatically be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ may deny a request for civil penalties even if they find that a violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the homeowner in this case requested a civil penalty be levied against the HOA for the violation, the ALJ explicitly denied this request in the final order, despite ruling that the HOA had violated the bylaws.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Remedies”, “Enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA violated the rules?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing before the OAH, the person bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ It is not up to the HOA to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article II Section 3 of the Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Hearing Procedures” ] }, { “question”: “What kind of HOA disputes can I file with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?”, “short_answer”: “You can file petitions regarding violations of community documents (CC&Rs, bylaws) or state statutes regulating planned communities.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Department has jurisdiction to hear disputes between owners and associations specifically concerning violations of the community’s governing documents or the relevant Arizona statutes regulating these communities.”, “alj_quote”: “The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities…”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “ADRE”, “Filing a Complaint” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 23F-H053-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H053-REL”, “case_title”: “Deborah L. Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-07-10”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If the bylaws state a specific date for the annual meeting, can the HOA board reschedule it to a different month?”, “short_answer”: “No. If the bylaws use mandatory language like “shall,” the HOA cannot change the date.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that when bylaws state a meeting “shall be held” on a specific date, this language is mandatory and not permissive. The HOA does not have the discretion to change the date of the annual meeting if the governing documents specify exactly when it must occur.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s Bylaws state, ‘[t]he annual meeting of the members shall be held,’ at the designated date and time annually. The phrase ‘shall be held’ is not permissive; there is no changing the date of the annual meeting.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article II Section 3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Annual Meetings”, “Bylaws Interpretation”, “HOA Obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does a meeting count as being ‘held’ if the HOA schedules it but fails to reach a quorum?”, “short_answer”: “No. If a quorum is not present, the meeting is legally considered not to have been held.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA sends notice and attempts to convene, the failure to achieve a quorum means the meeting cannot conduct business. The ALJ ruled that in such cases, the meeting was not actually held, resulting in a violation if the bylaws required a meeting on that date.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent attempted to hold an annual meeting on May 8, 2023, and but for the lack of quorum, the meeting was not held.”, “legal_basis”: “Findings of Fact”, “topic_tags”: [ “Quorum”, “Annual Meetings”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my dispute against the HOA, will I get my $500 filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee to the prevailing homeowner.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, after ruling in favor of the homeowner regarding the failure to hold the annual meeting, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee the homeowner paid to initiate the case.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Filing Fees”, “Costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA automatically be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ may deny a request for civil penalties even if they find that a violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the homeowner in this case requested a civil penalty be levied against the HOA for the violation, the ALJ explicitly denied this request in the final order, despite ruling that the HOA had violated the bylaws.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Remedies”, “Enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA violated the rules?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing before the OAH, the person bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ It is not up to the HOA to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article II Section 3 of the Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Hearing Procedures” ] }, { “question”: “What kind of HOA disputes can I file with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?”, “short_answer”: “You can file petitions regarding violations of community documents (CC&Rs, bylaws) or state statutes regulating planned communities.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Department has jurisdiction to hear disputes between owners and associations specifically concerning violations of the community’s governing documents or the relevant Arizona statutes regulating these communities.”, “alj_quote”: “The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities…”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “ADRE”, “Filing a Complaint” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Deborah Masear(petitioner) Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II HOA Member Also referred to as Deborah Maer
Respondent Side
Ashley Moscarello(HOA attorney) Goodman Law Group Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Carl Westlund(witness) Management Trust Community Manager for the HOA
Neutral Parties
Brian Del Vecchio(ALJ) OAH Also referred to as Judge Delio
The petition was granted because the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law) by holding an informal quorum discussion prior to a meeting, and violated CC&R 4.32 by improperly charging the homeowner $1750.00 for septic maintenance and repair costs that should have been covered by annual common assessments.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Laws and unequal application of CC&R 4.32 regarding septic system costs.
The Board violated open meeting laws by holding an informal quorum discussion about septic policy prior to a formal meeting. Additionally, the Association improperly charged Petitioner $1750.00 for septic maintenance and repair, violating CC&R 4.32, which mandates such costs be included as part of Assessments allocated equally among all Lots.
Orders: Petition granted. Respondent must reimburse the $1,000.00 filing fee and henceforth comply with A.R.S. § 33-33-1804 and CC&R 4.32.
Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(C)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)
CC&R 4.32
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Open Meeting Law, HOA Governing Documents, Assessment Dispute, Septic System Maintenance, Informal Meeting
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H015-REL”, “case_title”: “Jill P. Eden-Burns v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-18”, “alj_name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can the HOA board meet informally (e.g., on Zoom) before an open meeting to discuss business without notifying homeowners?”, “short_answer”: “No. Any gathering of a quorum of the board to discuss association business, even informally, must be open to members.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law requires that whenever a quorum of the board meets to discuss association business, the meeting must be open to members. This applies even if the meeting is informal and no official votes or actions are taken during that time. Discussions about how to handle agenda items or agreeing on policies effectively constitute a meeting.”, “alj_quote”: “The plain language of the statute provides that when a quorum of a board of directors meets, even informally, to discuss association business, the meeting must be open to the members of the association, even if they do not vote or take any action during the informal meeting.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (C), and (E)”, “topic_tags”: [ “open meeting law”, “board procedures”, “informal meetings” ] }, { “question”: “Does the board have to take a formal vote for a private discussion to be considered a violation of open meeting laws?”, “short_answer”: “No. Merely discussing business is sufficient to trigger open meeting requirements.”, “detailed_answer”: “It is a violation of open meeting laws for a quorum of the board to discuss association business in private, even if they do not take a formal vote or action. If the board members discuss a policy and agree on how to proceed (e.g., agreeing to ‘just nod our heads’ later), they are conducting business that must be done in the open.”, “alj_quote”: “The plain language of the statute provides that when a quorum of a board of directors meets, even informally, to discuss association business, the meeting must be open to the members of the association, even if they do not vote or take any action during the informal meeting.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)”, “topic_tags”: [ “open meeting law”, “voting”, “quorum” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me individually for maintenance on my lot if the CC&Rs say costs are part of ‘Assessments’?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. It depends on how ‘Assessments’ is defined in your CC&Rs.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the CC&Rs define ‘Assessments’ as charges levied against each membership equally (like annual dues), the HOA cannot interpret a provision saying costs are ‘part of the Assessments’ as authorization to bill a single owner individually. Unless there is a specific provision allowing individual charges (like for owner negligence), maintenance costs defined as ‘Assessments’ must generally be paid from the common funds.”, “alj_quote”: “Nothing in Article 8 provides a mechanism by which a single owner may be charged for fees associated with their lot. Rather, that type of charge is located in Section 11 of the CC&Rs, which is not referenced in the definition of ‘Assessments.'”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “assessments”, “maintenance costs”, “CC&R interpretation” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) filing the complaint has the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means they must show that their claims are more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-33-1804(A), (C) and (E) and the CC&Rs.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Law Standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal procedure”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the petitioner prevails in the hearing, the ALJ has the authority to order the Respondent (the HOA) to reimburse the filing fee paid to the Department of Real Estate.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 in certified funds.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “remedies”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “How are ambiguous terms in CC&Rs interpreted?”, “short_answer”: “Words are given their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning, and definitions within the document are prioritized.”, “detailed_answer”: “When interpreting CC&Rs, the tribunal looks at the defined terms within the document. If a term like ‘Assessment’ is specifically defined as a general charge allocated equally, that definition controls over an interpretation that would allow individual billing, unless another section specifically authorizes it.”, “alj_quote”: “Unless defined by the legislature, words in statutes are given their ordinary meanings… Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence of a statute or rule must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.”, “legal_basis”: “Principles of Statutory/Contract Construction”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “definitions” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to maintain systems on my lot if the CC&Rs state they ‘shall assume responsibility’?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the CC&Rs state the HOA assumes responsibility for monitoring, maintenance, and repair, they must perform and pay for it.”, “detailed_answer”: “When the governing documents explicitly state the Association ‘shall assume responsibility’ for maintenance, and the costs are to be included in the general Assessments, the HOA cannot shift that financial burden back to the individual owner improperly.”, “alj_quote”: “Accordingly, the terms of the CC&Rs requires that Respondent is responsible for the maintenance of the septic systems in the Association and that the maintenance is to be paid for from the annual assessments collected by Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “Contract Law / CC&R Enforcement”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA obligations”, “maintenance”, “repairs” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 23F-H015-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H015-REL”, “case_title”: “Jill P. Eden-Burns v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-18”, “alj_name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can the HOA board meet informally (e.g., on Zoom) before an open meeting to discuss business without notifying homeowners?”, “short_answer”: “No. Any gathering of a quorum of the board to discuss association business, even informally, must be open to members.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law requires that whenever a quorum of the board meets to discuss association business, the meeting must be open to members. This applies even if the meeting is informal and no official votes or actions are taken during that time. Discussions about how to handle agenda items or agreeing on policies effectively constitute a meeting.”, “alj_quote”: “The plain language of the statute provides that when a quorum of a board of directors meets, even informally, to discuss association business, the meeting must be open to the members of the association, even if they do not vote or take any action during the informal meeting.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (C), and (E)”, “topic_tags”: [ “open meeting law”, “board procedures”, “informal meetings” ] }, { “question”: “Does the board have to take a formal vote for a private discussion to be considered a violation of open meeting laws?”, “short_answer”: “No. Merely discussing business is sufficient to trigger open meeting requirements.”, “detailed_answer”: “It is a violation of open meeting laws for a quorum of the board to discuss association business in private, even if they do not take a formal vote or action. If the board members discuss a policy and agree on how to proceed (e.g., agreeing to ‘just nod our heads’ later), they are conducting business that must be done in the open.”, “alj_quote”: “The plain language of the statute provides that when a quorum of a board of directors meets, even informally, to discuss association business, the meeting must be open to the members of the association, even if they do not vote or take any action during the informal meeting.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)”, “topic_tags”: [ “open meeting law”, “voting”, “quorum” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me individually for maintenance on my lot if the CC&Rs say costs are part of ‘Assessments’?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. It depends on how ‘Assessments’ is defined in your CC&Rs.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the CC&Rs define ‘Assessments’ as charges levied against each membership equally (like annual dues), the HOA cannot interpret a provision saying costs are ‘part of the Assessments’ as authorization to bill a single owner individually. Unless there is a specific provision allowing individual charges (like for owner negligence), maintenance costs defined as ‘Assessments’ must generally be paid from the common funds.”, “alj_quote”: “Nothing in Article 8 provides a mechanism by which a single owner may be charged for fees associated with their lot. Rather, that type of charge is located in Section 11 of the CC&Rs, which is not referenced in the definition of ‘Assessments.'”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “assessments”, “maintenance costs”, “CC&R interpretation” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) filing the complaint has the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means they must show that their claims are more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-33-1804(A), (C) and (E) and the CC&Rs.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Law Standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal procedure”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the petitioner prevails in the hearing, the ALJ has the authority to order the Respondent (the HOA) to reimburse the filing fee paid to the Department of Real Estate.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 in certified funds.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “remedies”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “How are ambiguous terms in CC&Rs interpreted?”, “short_answer”: “Words are given their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning, and definitions within the document are prioritized.”, “detailed_answer”: “When interpreting CC&Rs, the tribunal looks at the defined terms within the document. If a term like ‘Assessment’ is specifically defined as a general charge allocated equally, that definition controls over an interpretation that would allow individual billing, unless another section specifically authorizes it.”, “alj_quote”: “Unless defined by the legislature, words in statutes are given their ordinary meanings… Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence of a statute or rule must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.”, “legal_basis”: “Principles of Statutory/Contract Construction”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “definitions” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to maintain systems on my lot if the CC&Rs state they ‘shall assume responsibility’?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the CC&Rs state the HOA assumes responsibility for monitoring, maintenance, and repair, they must perform and pay for it.”, “detailed_answer”: “When the governing documents explicitly state the Association ‘shall assume responsibility’ for maintenance, and the costs are to be included in the general Assessments, the HOA cannot shift that financial burden back to the individual owner improperly.”, “alj_quote”: “Accordingly, the terms of the CC&Rs requires that Respondent is responsible for the maintenance of the septic systems in the Association and that the maintenance is to be paid for from the annual assessments collected by Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “Contract Law / CC&R Enforcement”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA obligations”, “maintenance”, “repairs” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jill P. Eden-Burns(petitioner)
Kathryn Kendall(witness) Former Board Member; also referred to as Catherine Temple
John Krahn(witness) Former Board Member/Secretary; also referred to as John Cran
Bylaws Article II Paragraph 2.3 Bylaws Article III Section A Paragraph 3.5, Section B Paragraph 3.7, and Article IV Paragraph 4.2 Bylaws Article III Section B, Article IV Section 6.7(b), Article I Paragraph 1.3 A.R.S. 33-1804(A) A.R.S. 33-1804
Outcome Summary
Petitioner succeeded on two issues regarding the HOA's failure to hold its annual meeting at the prescribed time and improperly prohibiting the recording of an open session meeting. Respondent prevailed on the remaining three issues, as the ALJ found the bylaws did not require a separate organizational meeting, the community manager acted as an authorized agent to call a meeting, and Petitioner was not denied the opportunity to speak despite being muted at times during a videoconference. Respondent was ordered to refund $1,000 for the two successful issues.
Why this result: Petitioner lost on three issues because the bylaws did not strictly require the organizational meeting to be held separately, the community manager had authority as an agent to organize a meeting, and evidence demonstrated Petitioner was afforded multiple opportunities to speak during the Zoom meeting.
Key Issues & Findings
Annual Meetings
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold its annual meeting at the prescribed time in April 2022.
Orders: Petitioner deemed prevailing party. Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $500 for this issue.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Organizational Meetings
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold a separate organizational meeting to elect officers.
Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Authority to Call Board Meeting
Petitioner alleged the HOA manager was not authorized to organize or call a board meeting.
Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Open Meeting Recording
Petitioner alleged the HOA illegally prohibited homeowners from recording an open board meeting.
Orders: Petitioner deemed prevailing party. Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $500 for this issue.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Open Meeting Opportunity to Speak
Petitioner alleged the HOA muted participants during a Zoom meeting, preventing them from speaking.
Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Decision Documents
23F-H037-REL Decision – 1037672.pdf
Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:37 (49.3 KB)
23F-H037-REL Decision – 1041383.pdf
Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:38 (50.6 KB)
23F-H037-REL Decision – 1044671.pdf
Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:38 (166.9 KB)
23F-H037-REL Decision – 1044839.pdf
Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:38 (36.5 KB)
23F-H037-REL Decision – 1048179.pdf
Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:38 (105.1 KB)
23F-H037-REL Decision – 1054714.pdf
Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:38 (47.2 KB)
**Case Overview**
**Case Title:** Consolidated Docket Nos. 23F-H034-REL and 23F-H037-REL
**Parties:** Senol Pekin (Petitioner) vs. Artesian Ranch Community Association (Respondent)
**Hearing Date:** March 20, 2023
**Judge:** Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson, Office of Administrative Hearings
**Main Issues**
The Petitioner brought five central allegations against the Respondent (the Homeowners' Association or HOA), claiming violations of the HOA's Bylaws and Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1804):
1. The HOA failed to hold its 2022 annual meeting on the required date (the second Wednesday of April).
2. The HOA failed to hold an exclusively scheduled organizational meeting to elect officers.
3. The HOA held a board meeting on September 22, 2022, that was unlawfully organized by the HOA Manager rather than the Board.
4. The HOA prohibited the recording of an open board session on October 24, 2022, violating A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).
5. The HOA unfairly silenced opposing sides by muting attendees during the October 24 Zoom meeting.
**Key Facts and Legal Arguments**
* **Annual Meeting Timing:** The HOA admitted it held the 2022 annual meeting in May instead of April, arguing it was merely a technical violation without harm, relying on A.R.S. § 10-3701(e). The Judge ruled that while corporate actions may remain valid under that statute, the HOA still directly violated its own Bylaws which mandate a specific timeline.
* **Organizational and Manager-Called Meetings:** The Judge found no requirement in the Bylaws that an organizational meeting to elect officers must be separate from a regular board meeting. Regarding the September meeting, the Judge determined that the HOA Manager acted lawfully as an agent of the Board at the request of the Board President.
* **Recording Prohibition and Muting:** Evidence confirmed the HOA Manager instructed homeowners not to record the October open meeting and required advance notice to do so. The Judge ruled this was a clear violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804, which explicitly guarantees members the right to record open meetings without providing advance notice. However, the Judge dismissed the claim regarding muting; evidence showed the Manager muted the Petitioner due to aggressive behavior, but the Petitioner was still given ample opportunity to speak during the meeting.
**Outcome and Final Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge issued a split decision on April 10, 2023:
* **Petitioner Prevailed:** The Petitioner won on Issues 1 (failure to hold the annual meeting on time) and 4 (unlawfully prohibiting the recording of an open meeting) [
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Senol Pekin(petitioner) Testified on his own behalf
Julie Willoughby(witness) Also spelled Julie Willowby in transcript
Shelley Nelson(witness) Also spelled Shelly Nelson in transcript
Sherry Swanson(witness)
Respondent Side
Ashley N. Moscarello(HOA attorney) Goodman Law Group Represented the respondent
Daniel S. Francom(HOA attorney) Goodman Law Group
Mandy Rogers(property manager) AAM, LLC Community Manager; testified as a witness for respondent
Susanne Easterday Roskens(board member) Artesian Ranch Community Association Director/President of Respondent's Board; testified as a witness for respondent
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Assigned Administrative Law Judge
Susan Nicolson(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Dennis Berger(subpoenaed individual) Subpoena for this individual was quashed
Brock O’Neal(subpoenaed individual) Motion to quash subpoena for this individual was denied
Rick Beaver(homeowner) Artesian Ranch Community Association Had an appeal reviewed during a board meeting; candidate for the board
Sandra Carlson(unknown) Copied on board packet email
Bylaws Article II Paragraph 2.3 Bylaws Article III Section A Paragraph 3.5, Section B Paragraph 3.7, and Article IV Paragraph 4.2 Bylaws Article III Section B, Article IV Section 6.7(b), Article I Paragraph 1.3 A.R.S. 33-1804(A) A.R.S. 33-1804
Outcome Summary
Petitioner succeeded on two issues regarding the HOA's failure to hold its annual meeting at the prescribed time and improperly prohibiting the recording of an open session meeting. Respondent prevailed on the remaining three issues, as the ALJ found the bylaws did not require a separate organizational meeting, the community manager acted as an authorized agent to call a meeting, and Petitioner was not denied the opportunity to speak despite being muted at times during a videoconference. Respondent was ordered to refund $1,000 for the two successful issues.
Why this result: Petitioner lost on three issues because the bylaws did not strictly require the organizational meeting to be held separately, the community manager had authority as an agent to organize a meeting, and evidence demonstrated Petitioner was afforded multiple opportunities to speak during the Zoom meeting.
Key Issues & Findings
Annual Meetings
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold its annual meeting at the prescribed time in April 2022.
Orders: Petitioner deemed prevailing party. Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $500 for this issue.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Organizational Meetings
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold a separate organizational meeting to elect officers.
Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Authority to Call Board Meeting
Petitioner alleged the HOA manager was not authorized to organize or call a board meeting.
Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Open Meeting Recording
Petitioner alleged the HOA illegally prohibited homeowners from recording an open board meeting.
Orders: Petitioner deemed prevailing party. Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $500 for this issue.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Open Meeting Opportunity to Speak
Petitioner alleged the HOA muted participants during a Zoom meeting, preventing them from speaking.
Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H034-REL Decision – 1044665.pdf
Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:46:54 (166.9 KB)
23F-H034-REL Decision – 1048179.pdf
Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:02 (105.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 23F-H034-REL
Briefing on the Dispute Between Senol Pekin and the Artesian Ranch Community Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the key arguments, evidence, and outcomes from a consolidated administrative hearing concerning five allegations brought by homeowner and board member Senol Pekin against the Artesian Ranch Community Association (HOA). The dispute centers on alleged violations of the association’s bylaws and Arizona state statutes regarding the scheduling and conduct of board meetings.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the HOA in violation on two of the five issues: failing to hold its 2022 annual meeting on the date prescribed by the bylaws and improperly prohibiting the recording of an open board meeting in October 2022. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fees of $1,000 for these violations.
The ALJ found in favor of the HOA on the remaining three issues. It concluded that the organizational meeting process was compliant with the bylaws, that a September 2022 board meeting was properly called by the HOA manager acting as an agent of the board, and that the petitioner failed to prove he was denied the opportunity to speak during the October 2022 meeting despite being muted at times. No civil penalties were deemed appropriate.
——————————————————————————–
I. Allegation 1: Improper Annual Meeting Date
Outcome: Violation Found
The petitioner prevailed on the allegation that the HOA violated its bylaws by holding the 2022 annual meeting in May, rather than on the mandated date.
Aspect
Details
Petitioner’s Allegation
The HOA violated Bylaws Article II, Paragraph 2.3, which requires the annual meeting to be held on the second Wednesday of April each year.
Respondent’s Defense
The Community Manager, Mandy Rogers, testified that upon taking over the account in January 2022, she presented a draft calendar to the prior board. The board chose the May date, following a “cadence” established in previous years. She noted the 2021 meeting was moved to August due to COVID-19, and the 2019 meeting was also not in April.
Supporting Testimony
– Mandy Rogers: Acknowledged awareness that the annual meeting is supposed to be in April. She stated, “Your annual meeting for the past 3 years was on the wrong date per the bylaw.” She confirmed the 2023 meeting was correctly scheduled for April. – Mandy Rogers: Explained her process for the 2022 calendar: “I looked at when their last annual meeting was and it was in August of 2021. So on that draft calendar, I said, ‘Do you want your meeting in August of 2022?’ And they said, ‘No, we traditionally have it in May.’ And I said, ‘Okay, you guys choose a date and a time that works for you.'”
ALJ Conclusion
The evidence showed the HOA failed to hold its meeting on the required date. The ALJ noted that while A.R.S. § 10-3701(e) states that failure to hold a timely meeting does not invalidate corporate action, it “does not provide an exception to the adherence to Bylaws that require a set time for an annual meeting.”
II. Allegation 2: Improper Organizational Meeting
Outcome: Violation Not Found
The petitioner failed to prove that the HOA violated bylaws regarding the scheduling and format of the organizational meeting.
Aspect
Details
Petitioner’s Allegation
The HOA did not elect officers in an “exclusively and timely scheduled Organizational Meeting” as required by its bylaws (Article III, Section 3.5 and 3.7). The petitioner argued the meeting should be a standalone event held shortly after directors take office on January 1st.
Respondent’s Defense
The organizational meeting was held during the August 2022 board meeting, which was the next scheduled open session after the May election. This delay was to allow for new board member training to be completed, as required by the bylaws. The bylaws mandate a meeting “within a reasonable time” and do not require it to be “exclusive.”
Supporting Testimony
– Mandy Rogers: “Your organizational meeting was specifically scheduled for the next open session board meeting which was in August. That was also to satisfy that your bylaws say that all board training should be done prior to that meeting.” She confirmed that the new director (Pekin) received training via Zoom and was provided a board book and access to the online platform. – Susanne Roskens (Board President): Confirmed that officer positions were discussed and voted on by the three present directors during the August meeting.
ALJ Conclusion
The bylaws do not require the organizational meeting to be held separately from a regular board meeting. The ALJ also noted that the Community Manager may act as an agent of the board.
Sub-Issue: Director Term Start Date
A significant point of contention was a bylaw provision (Section 3.5) stating that elected directors take office on January 1st of the following year.
• Mandy Rogers’ Testimony: She described this provision as highly unusual and professionally unheard of. “I’ve never seen governing documents that call out that you have an election in April and don’t take office until January. That’s unheard of.” She stated the association attorney was reviewing the provision.
• Association Practice: Board President Susanne Roskens testified that the association has never had directors wait until January to take office.
III. Allegation 3: Improperly Called September 2022 Board Meeting
Outcome: Violation Not Found
The petitioner failed to prove that the September 22, 2022 board meeting was improperly called by the HOA Manager.
Aspect
Details
Petitioner’s Allegation
The HOA Manager, Mandy Rogers, who is not a board member, was not authorized to call a board meeting. An email from her stated, “I’m scheduling a board meeting.”
Respondent’s Defense
The meeting was necessary to approve a time-sensitive landscaping and overseeding contract, as unanimous email approval could not be achieved. Board President Susanne Roskens verbally directed Mandy Rogers to schedule the meeting. The petitioner himself had requested a meeting on the topic in prior emails, and the third director, Dennis Burger, confirmed his support for the meeting in writing.
Supporting Testimony
– Mandy Rogers: “I spoke to your board president and at your request to schedule a meeting… I was given the directive to schedule it.” – Susanne Roskens: “I discussed it with Mandy via a phone call and asked if we could have a meeting to get clarification so that we could move forward.” – Exhibit I (Email Chain): This exhibit shows the petitioner requesting a meeting to discuss the topic, Mandy Rogers subsequently scheduling the meeting, the petitioner objecting to her authority, and Dennis Burger responding, “I’m confused meaning [Susanne] wants the meeting and ask her to set it up.”
ALJ Conclusion
The meeting was properly initiated. Ms. Rogers, as an employee of the Community Manager, may act as an agent of the Board.
IV. Allegation 4: Prohibition of Recording (October 24, 2022)
Outcome: Violation Found
The petitioner prevailed on the allegation that the HOA violated Arizona statute by prohibiting the recording of an open session meeting.
Aspect
Details
Petitioner’s Allegation
The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by prohibiting the recording of the open session meeting on October 24, 2022.
Respondent’s Defense
Mandy Rogers stated she made the announcement based on advice from the association attorney following a contentious executive session that preceded the open meeting. She also testified that the board requires advance notice of recording. The defense also argued the issue was moot because the petitioner recorded the meeting regardless.
Supporting Testimony
– Mandy Rogers: “A statement was made at the beginning of the session so the board could handle board business.” When asked who gave the direction to prohibit recording, she stated it was the attorney. – Shelly Nelson (Witness): Confirmed she remembered the association prohibiting recording of the open meeting. – Sherry Swanson (Witness): Confirmed, “The meeting started that way that she said you should not record.”
ALJ Conclusion
The preponderance of evidence shows that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 when it informed homeowners they were not allowed to record the board meeting.
V. Allegation 5: Muting and Silencing Opposition (October 24, 2022)
Outcome: Violation Not Found
The petitioner failed to prove that he was prevented from speaking for the opposing side during the October 24, 2022 meeting.
Aspect
Details
Petitioner’s Allegation
During the Zoom meeting, the HOA muted the petitioner, preventing him from voicing opposition on issues, in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.
Respondent’s Defense
Mandy Rogers admitted to muting the petitioner but justified it on several grounds: he was being “combative,” speaking over others, and bringing up confidential executive session topics in an open forum. His camera was off and he was self-muted at times, creating confusion about his presence and participation.
Witness Testimony
– Shelly Nelson: Did not perceive the petitioner’s behavior as combative. She described the overall tone of the meeting as “antagonistic” and felt “decisions were foregone conclusions.” – Sherry Swanson: Perceived both the petitioner and Mandy Rogers as “very argumentative.” She stated the petitioner “did come across very argumented from the beginning of the meeting” and came in “hotheaded.”
ALJ Conclusion
Petitioner failed to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ noted, “the evidence shows that Petitioner had several times to speak during the board meeting.”
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Senol Pekin(petitioner/board member) Director of Artesian Ranch Community Association Board
Julie Willowby(witness) Testified for Petitioner; Former Board President
Shelley Nelson(witness) Testified for Petitioner; Resident, daughter of homeowners John and Muriel Nelson
Sherry Swanson(witness) Testified for Petitioner; Homeowner
Respondent Side
Ashley N. Moscarello(HOA attorney) goodlaw.legal
Mandy Rogers(property manager) AAM, LLC Community Manager for Artesian Ranch
Susanne Easterday Roskens(board member) Director/Board President of Artesian Ranch Community Association Board
Dennis Burger(board member) Director of Artesian Ranch Community Association Board
