Case Summary
| Case ID | 25F-H021-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2025-02-20 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Sondra J. Vanella |
| Outcome | total_loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Deatta M. Pleasants | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. | Counsel | David Onuschak |
Alleged Violations
CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2. Maintenance and Repair, By the Association
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&Rs by the Association. The Association maintained the underground culverts in accordance with Navajo County approved plans, and the evidence established the culverts were functioning as intended. Flooding experienced by the Petitioner was expected due to the lot's location in a FEMA Floodway during an exceptional storm (likely a 100-year event).
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&R provision; the culverts were maintained and functioning as intended, and flooding was anticipated given the lot's location in a FEMA Floodway during the exceptional storm event.
Key Issues & Findings
The association will not repair the culvert (common area) to allow the ditch to drain.
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to repair or connect a culvert (common area), causing her lot located in a regulatory floodway to flood during a severe (100-year) storm in July 2021. The Respondent contended the drainage system was maintained, functioned as intended, and the flooding was due to the exceptional storm magnitude and the property's location in a floodway.
Orders: No action required of Respondent; Petitioner's Petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
- A.R.S. § 32-2199
- 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)
- CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 32-2199
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
- 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)
- CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2
- CC&Rs Rev. September 2022, Article 1, D.
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
25F-H021-REL Decision – 1252432.pdf
25F-H021-REL Decision – 1275219.pdf
Briefing Document: Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Deatta M. Pleasants versus the Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. (HOA). The core of the dispute centered on Ms. Pleasants’ allegation that the HOA violated community CC&Rs by failing to repair a common area culvert, which she claimed caused her property (Lot 185) to flood during a severe storm in July 2021.
The Respondent HOA countered that the drainage system was constructed in accordance with plans approved by Navajo County in the 1980s and has been properly maintained. The defense’s central arguments were that the July 2021 storm was a “100-year storm,” a weather event that exceeded the system’s “50-year storm” design capacity, and that Ms. Pleasants’ lot is situated within a FEMA-designated regulatory floodway, where flooding during such an event is an expected occurrence.
Expert testimony from Dr. Zachary Barlo, a licensed civil engineer retained by the HOA, was pivotal. Dr. Barlo concluded that the drainage system was constructed in “general substantial conformance” with the original plans, is adequately maintained, and functions as designed. He testified that the feature Ms. Pleasants believed to be a disconnected culvert was, in fact, a roadway hatch pattern on the design plans. Crucially, he affirmed that flooding on Lot 185 would be expected during a major storm event due to its location in the floodway, regardless of culvert improvements.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed Ms. Pleasants’ petition. The final decision held that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated the CC&Rs. The ruling affirmed that the HOA had maintained the system and that the flooding was a predictable consequence of an exceptionally severe storm impacting a property located in a high-risk flood zone.
1. Case Overview
• Case Number: 25F-H021-REL
• Petitioner: Deatta M. Pleasants, owner of Lot 185
• Respondent: Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), Phoenix, Arizona
• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
• Hearing Date: February 4, 2025
• Decision Date: February 20, 2025
2. Petitioner’s Allegation and Testimony
Core Claim
The Petitioner, Deatta M. Pleasants, alleged that the Respondent violated Article II, Section I of the revised 2022 CC&Rs. This section assigns the HOA the “full power and duty to maintain, repair and make necessary improvements in the COMMON AREA,” including underground culverts. The petition asserted, “The association will not repair the culvert (common area) to allow the ditch to drain.”
Central Arguments and Evidence
• The July 2021 Storm: The complaint originated from a single, severe storm in July 2021, which caused significant flooding on Petitioner’s property, Lot 185. Ms. Pleasants testified that while the storm was severe, she believes subsequent flooding was due to a malfunctioning drainage system, not the storm’s magnitude alone.
• Interpretation of Design Plans: Ms. Pleasants asserted that a double-line feature on the original circa 1986 drainage plans represented a proposed culvert. She believed this culvert was intended to connect a roadside ditch to the main regional drainage infrastructure but was improperly installed or left disconnected, causing a blockage and subsequent overflow.
• Observed Conditions: The Petitioner presented photographs from the 2021 storm depicting a 21-foot by 5-foot ditch in front of her property completely full of water and not draining. She argued this demonstrated a functional failure of the system.
• Rejection of Floodway Argument: Ms. Pleasants testified that she was “highly disappointed in the engineering report” and that her lot’s location within a FEMA flood plain “has absolutely nothing to do with the functionality and performance of this storm drain channel that is meant to keep from flooding.”
• HOA Responsibility: The Petitioner maintained that it is the HOA’s “fiduciary responsibility” to remedy the issue by connecting what she believes to be the main drain.
3. Respondent’s Position and Defense
Core Defense
The Respondent HOA’s position was that it has fulfilled its maintenance obligations under the CC&Rs and that the flooding was an unavoidable result of an extreme weather event impacting a property in a high-risk area.
Key Arguments and Testimony
• System Design and Approval: The drainage system was constructed in the mid-1980s based on plans approved by Navajo County. The design standards at the time, and currently, require the system to handle a 50-year storm event.
• Storm Severity: The July 2021 storm was characterized as an exceptional event, a “100-year storm,” that produced approximately three inches of rain within hours. This exceeded the design capacity of the drainage infrastructure.
• FEMA Floodway Designation: A critical element of the defense was that Lot 185 is located within a FEMA-designated regulatory floodway. Testimony established this as the highest-risk flood category, specifically designated to allow for the unimpeded flow of floodwater.
• Maintenance Record: HOA President Sharon Seekins testified that the association periodically inspects and maintains the common area drainage system, including recent improvement projects on the Oklahoma Draw Wash. She noted that under the CC&Rs, individual lot owners are responsible for maintaining the drainage ditches directly in front of their properties.
• Lack of Other Complaints: Ms. Seekins testified that no other homeowners filed formal complaints about the drainage system’s performance following the July 2021 storm.
4. Expert Witness Testimony: Dr. Zachary Barlo
Dr. Zachary Barlo, a Senior Civil Engineer with a PhD, was retained by the Respondent to inspect the drainage system and provide an expert opinion. His testimony was a cornerstone of the Respondent’s case.
Credentials and Experience
• Position: Senior Engineer at Ironside Engineering Development, Inc.
• Education: PhD and Master of Science in Civil Engineering from Oregon State University; undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech.
• Licensure: Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Arizona.
• Expertise: Extensive experience with drainage systems, Navajo County codes, and FEMA regulations.
Inspection and Analysis
Dr. Barlo conducted two field visits in June and December of 2024. His process involved:
1. Reviewing the original circa 1986 construction and drainage plans.
2. Conducting a visual and physical inspection of the as-built infrastructure near Lot 185, including measuring culverts.
3. Speaking with both Ms. Pleasants and HOA representatives to understand the concerns.
Key Findings and Professional Opinion
Finding Category
Dr. Barlo’s Testimony and Conclusions
Conformance with Plans
The existing infrastructure was found to be in “general substantial conformance with the original plan.” Notably, a 24-inch pipe was installed where an 18-inch pipe was specified, which he described as a “betterment to the design” as it increases the capacity to convey water.
The Disputed “Culvert”
The double-line feature on the plans, which the Petitioner believed was a disconnected culvert, is not a culvert. Dr. Barlo identified it as part of the “hatch pattern of the roadway track.” He supported this by noting the absence of design specifications like invert elevations, which are present on all actual culverts shown in the plans.
System Functionality
The drainage system is designed to handle a 50-year storm. The July 2021 storm was “generally believed” to be larger than a 50-year event. He opined that the Respondent has adequately maintained the drainage system and that it is not in a state of disrepair.
Impact of FEMA Designation
Lot 185’s location in a regulatory floodway is highly significant. Dr. Barlo explained this area is designed for “unimpeded discharge” and is expected to have “deeper discharge depths” during major storms.
Conclusion on Flooding
Dr. Barlo stated definitively: “flooding of the area would be expected in this area in large storm events based on the FEMA designation regardless of the culvert improvements.” He testified that the conditions Ms. Pleasants experienced were what he would expect during a 100-year storm event on that specific lot.
5. Hearing Outcome and Judicial Decision
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision, issued on February 20, 2025, ruled conclusively in favor of the Respondent.
Conclusions of Law
• The Judge found that the Petitioner, who bore the burden of proof, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated Article II, Section I of the CC&Rs.
• The ruling stated, “The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.”
• It was further established that “the underground culverts are functioning as intended.”
Final Determination
The Judge concluded that the flooding experienced by the Petitioner was a predictable and expected outcome given the circumstances: “Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.”
IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H021-REL”, “case_title”: “Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-02-20”, “alj_name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”, “tribunal”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”, “agency”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the CC&Rs during a hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner to prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The HOA does not have to prove they are innocent unless they are establishing an affirmative defense.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA responsible for flooding damage caused by an unusually severe storm?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the drainage system was properly maintained and the flooding was due to the severity of the storm and property location.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA maintains its drainage system according to the approved design plans, it is not necessarily liable for flooding caused by extreme weather events (like a 100-year storm) that exceed the system’s design capacity, especially if the home is located in a known flood zone.”, “alj_quote”: “Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.”, “legal_basis”: “Factual Finding / Liability Standards”, “topic_tags”: [ “Flooding”, “Maintenance”, “Liability” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to upgrade old infrastructure to meet modern standards?”, “short_answer”: “The decision implies no, as long as the system is maintained according to the originally approved plans.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA met its obligations by maintaining the system in accordance with the plans approved at the time of construction (late 1980s), which were designed for a ’50-year storm,’ even if modern severe storms exceed that capacity.”, “alj_quote”: “The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Infrastructure”, “Grandfathering” ] }, { “question”: “How much evidence is needed to win a case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “A ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the claim is more probably true than not.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must provide evidence that has ‘superior evidentiary weight’ and is more convincing than the HOA’s evidence. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence presented.”, “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”, “topic_tags”: [ “Evidence”, “Legal Standards” ] }, { “question”: “Can I rely on my own interpretation of engineering plans to prove a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Likely not, if the HOA presents conflicting expert testimony.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the homeowner believed a marking on the plan was a missing culvert, but the HOA’s expert engineer testified it was a roadway hatch pattern. The ALJ relied on the expert’s interpretation over the homeowner’s assumption.”, “alj_quote”: “Dr. Barlow testified that Petitioner’s belief that double lines in the red box on the plans are supposed to be a designated culvert, is erroneous, as those lines are part of the roadway designation.”, “legal_basis”: “Expert Testimony”, “topic_tags”: [ “Evidence”, “Expert Witnesses”, “Dispute Resolution” ] }, { “question”: “Is a single incident of failure enough to prove the HOA isn’t maintaining common areas?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the incident was caused by exceptional circumstances.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the petition was based on a single storm event in July 2021 described as ‘exceptional and unusually severe,’ and there were no other complaints. This isolated incident was insufficient to prove a failure to maintain.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Seekins testified (and Petitioner agreed) that the Petition was filed due to an occurrence from a single storm in July 2021, and that there have been no other complaints to the Board regarding the culverts.”, “legal_basis”: “Factual Finding”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Enforcement”, “Violations” ] } ] }
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H021-REL”, “case_title”: “Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-02-20”, “alj_name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”, “tribunal”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”, “agency”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the CC&Rs during a hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner to prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The HOA does not have to prove they are innocent unless they are establishing an affirmative defense.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA responsible for flooding damage caused by an unusually severe storm?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the drainage system was properly maintained and the flooding was due to the severity of the storm and property location.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA maintains its drainage system according to the approved design plans, it is not necessarily liable for flooding caused by extreme weather events (like a 100-year storm) that exceed the system’s design capacity, especially if the home is located in a known flood zone.”, “alj_quote”: “Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.”, “legal_basis”: “Factual Finding / Liability Standards”, “topic_tags”: [ “Flooding”, “Maintenance”, “Liability” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to upgrade old infrastructure to meet modern standards?”, “short_answer”: “The decision implies no, as long as the system is maintained according to the originally approved plans.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA met its obligations by maintaining the system in accordance with the plans approved at the time of construction (late 1980s), which were designed for a ’50-year storm,’ even if modern severe storms exceed that capacity.”, “alj_quote”: “The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Infrastructure”, “Grandfathering” ] }, { “question”: “How much evidence is needed to win a case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “A ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the claim is more probably true than not.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must provide evidence that has ‘superior evidentiary weight’ and is more convincing than the HOA’s evidence. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence presented.”, “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”, “topic_tags”: [ “Evidence”, “Legal Standards” ] }, { “question”: “Can I rely on my own interpretation of engineering plans to prove a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Likely not, if the HOA presents conflicting expert testimony.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the homeowner believed a marking on the plan was a missing culvert, but the HOA’s expert engineer testified it was a roadway hatch pattern. The ALJ relied on the expert’s interpretation over the homeowner’s assumption.”, “alj_quote”: “Dr. Barlow testified that Petitioner’s belief that double lines in the red box on the plans are supposed to be a designated culvert, is erroneous, as those lines are part of the roadway designation.”, “legal_basis”: “Expert Testimony”, “topic_tags”: [ “Evidence”, “Expert Witnesses”, “Dispute Resolution” ] }, { “question”: “Is a single incident of failure enough to prove the HOA isn’t maintaining common areas?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the incident was caused by exceptional circumstances.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the petition was based on a single storm event in July 2021 described as ‘exceptional and unusually severe,’ and there were no other complaints. This isolated incident was insufficient to prove a failure to maintain.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Seekins testified (and Petitioner agreed) that the Petition was filed due to an occurrence from a single storm in July 2021, and that there have been no other complaints to the Board regarding the culverts.”, “legal_basis”: “Factual Finding”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Enforcement”, “Violations” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Deatta M. Pleasants (petitioner)
Lot 185 owner; testified on her own behalf - Larry Rice (co-owner, present with petitioner)
Present with Petitioner - Daphna Rice (co-owner, present with petitioner)
Present with Petitioner (referred to as 'D. Rice')
Respondent Side
- Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. (respondent (entity))
- David Onuschak (HOA attorney)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
Represented Respondent - Sharon Seekins (board president, witness)
Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.
President of Respondent's Board - Zachary Barlo (witness, civil engineer)
Ironside Engineering and Development, Inc.
Testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
- Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
OAH - Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of Decision - vnunez (ADRE recipient)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient of documents/decision - djones (ADRE recipient)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient of documents/decision - labril (ADRE recipient)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient of documents/decision - mneat (ADRE recipient)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient of documents/decision - lrecchia (ADRE recipient)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient of documents/decision - gosborn (ADRE recipient)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient of documents/decision
Other Participants
- Ryan J. McCarthy (attorney)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
Affiliated with Respondent's counsel; specific hearing role unclear
