Case Summary
| Case ID | 08F-HO780002-BFS |
|---|---|
| Agency | Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety |
| Tribunal | Office of Administrative Hearings |
| Decision Date | 2007-10-09 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Lewis D. Kowal |
| Outcome | no |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Win Kressel | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Cachet Grayhawk Condominium | Counsel | Jeffrey B. Corben |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1227; Declaration Sections 4.13 and 6.3
Outcome Summary
The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA properly classified the Petitioner's sister as a resident who is ineligible for guest parking. The ALJ further ruled that the Board had the authority to adopt the parking rules without a membership vote and that the rules were not unreasonable.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated the Declaration or statutes; the sister was a resident not entitled to guest parking privileges.
Key Issues & Findings
Denial of guest parking for resident sister and validity of parking rules
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated the Declaration and statutes by denying his sister (a resident) use of guest parking and by adopting parking rules without a unit owner vote.
Orders: No action required of the Association; Petition dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- A.R.S. § 33-1227
- Declaration Section 4.13
- Declaration Section 6.3
- Declaration Section 4.25
- Declaration Section 13.15
Decision Documents
08F-HO780002-BFS Decision – 178155.pdf
Administrative Law Judge Decision: Kressel v. Cachet Grayhawk Condominium
Executive Summary
This briefing document summarizes the findings and conclusions of Law Case No. 08F-HO780002-BFS, presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lewis D. Kowal. The dispute involved Petitioner Dr. Win Kressel and Respondent Cachet Grayhawk Condominium regarding the enforcement of parking restrictions.
The central issue was whether the Association’s refusal to permit the Petitioner’s sister to use guest parking or park in his driveway violated the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (Declaration), the Association’s Parking Rules, or Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1227. The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner’s sister qualified as a “resident” rather than a “guest” under the established rules, thereby disqualifying her from guest parking privileges. Furthermore, the ALJ ruled that the Board acted within its authority to adopt parking rules and that the Petitioner failed to establish any unreasonable discrimination or statutory violations.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
Category
Details
Case Number
08F-HO780002-BFS
Petitioner
Dr. Win Kressel
Respondent
Cachet Grayhawk Condominium; Rossmar & Graham Management Company
Hearing Date
October 9, 2007
Administrative Law Judge
Lewis D. Kowal
——————————————————————————–
Core Themes and Legal Analysis
1. Classification of Residency and Parking Eligibility
The dispute hinged on the definition of a “resident” versus a “guest” as defined by the Association’s Parking Rules and the Declaration.
• Petitioner’s Circumstances: Dr. Kressel’s sister moved into his unit in early summer 2007 with the intent to stay indefinitely.
• Rule Definitions:
◦ Residents: Defined as anyone occupying a unit on a full-time or part-time basis.
◦ Guests/Visitors: Defined as individuals visiting for up to 60 days.
• ALJ Finding: Because the Petitioner’s sister was a family member and an occupant of the unit, she fell under the definition of a “resident.” Consequently, under Section 4.13 of the Declaration, she was prohibited from using guest parking areas.
2. Authority of the Board to Adopt Rules
The Petitioner argued that the Parking Rules adopted in 2004 constituted an unauthorized amendment to the Declaration that should have required a vote from all unit owners per A.R.S. § 33-1227.
• Declaration Section 6.3: Grants the Board the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations governing the use of any area by owners, family, or invitees.
• ALJ Finding: The 2004 rules were not an amendment to the Declaration but were rules adopted by a Board vote as permitted by the Declaration. The Petitioner failed to provide legal authority to support the claim that the rules were invalid or improperly adopted.
3. Discrimination and Unreasonableness Claims
The Petitioner contended that the rules were unreasonable and discriminatory because they restricted him to a single parking space, which he argued could force him to move if his household size increased (e.g., through marriage).
• The Variance Provision: Section 4.25 of the Declaration allows for variances. Testimony from the Association President, James Friebacher, revealed that he and five other owners had received variances to park second vehicles in their driveways.
• ALJ Finding: The Petitioner had never applied for a variance under Section 4.25. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish a legal standard or factual evidence showing the rules were unreasonable under the circumstances.
——————————————————————————–
Evidence and Key Findings of Fact
The following evidence was established during the hearing:
• Temporary Accommodations: The Association had previously granted the Petitioner “unusual exceptions” for his sister’s parking. This included a guest parking approval through July 1, 2007, which was later extended to September 1, 2007, with the stipulation that the vehicle could not be parked in the driveway.
• Failure to Request Extension: The Petitioner did not file a request with the Association to extend the guest parking exception beyond the September 1, 2007 deadline.
• Vehicle Limitations: Section 4.13 of the Declaration permits guest parking in driveways only for vehicles not exceeding 7 feet in height and 18 feet in length. However, this applies strictly to guests; family members and occupants are explicitly excluded from guest parking privileges.
——————————————————————————–
Final Decision and Order
Dismissal of Petition
The ALJ determined that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the Declaration or A.R.S. § 33-1227.
• Conclusion: The Association’s actions were consistent with the Declaration and Parking Rules.
• Order: The Petition was dismissed, and no action was required of the Association.
Costs and Attorney Fees
The Association requested an award for costs and attorney fees under Section 13.15 of the Declaration.
• ALJ Ruling: The request was denied. The ALJ found that Section 13.15 did not provide for the recovery of costs and fees for defending against this specific type of administrative action.
——————————————————————————–
Notable Quotes
Administrative Law Judge Decision Study Guide: Kressel v. Cachet Grayhawk Condominium
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the legal dispute between Dr. Win Kressel and the Cachet Grayhawk Condominium Association regarding parking regulations and the interpretation of the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions.
Part I: Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided administrative decision.
1. What was the primary complaint filed by Dr. Win Kressel against the Association?
2. How do the Association’s Parking Rules distinguish between a “resident” and a “visitor/guest”?
3. What specific parking restrictions are placed on unit owners and their family members under Section 4.13 of the Declaration?
4. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclude that Petitioner’s sister was a resident rather than a guest?
5. What was the Association’s initial response to the Petitioner’s request for guest parking in early 2007?
6. What argument did the Petitioner make regarding the adoption of Parking Rules and A.R.S. § 33-1227?
7. How did the ALJ rule on the Petitioner’s claim that the Parking Rules were an “amendment” to the Declaration?
8. What evidence was provided regarding the possibility of obtaining a “variance” for parking?
9. On what grounds did the ALJ deny the Association’s request for attorney fees and costs?
10. What is the Board’s authority regarding rule-making as defined in Section 6.3 of the Declaration?
——————————————————————————–
Part II: Answer Key
1. What was the primary complaint filed by Dr. Win Kressel against the Association? Dr. Win Kressel alleged that the Association violated the Declaration and state law by refusing to allow his sister to park in his driveway or providing her with guest parking. He specifically contended that the Association’s actions violated Sections 4.13 and 6.3 of the Declaration and A.R.S. § 33-1227.
2. How do the Association’s Parking Rules distinguish between a “resident” and a “visitor/guest”? A resident is defined as anyone who occupies a unit on a full-time or part-time basis, excluding visitors or guests. Visitors and guests are defined as individuals visiting for a period of up to 60 days.
3. What specific parking restrictions are placed on unit owners and their family members under Section 4.13 of the Declaration? Unit owners are prohibited from parking automobiles anywhere on the condominium property except in their assigned garages. Furthermore, owners, their family members, and occupants are explicitly barred from using guest parking areas.
4. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclude that Petitioner’s sister was a resident rather than a guest? The ALJ noted that the Petitioner’s sister had moved into the unit and that the Petitioner testified she could stay as long as she wished. Because she occupied the unit indefinitely, she met the definition of a resident and therefore did not qualify for guest parking privileges.
5. What was the Association’s initial response to the Petitioner’s request for guest parking in early 2007? The Association initially granted an “unusual exception” by approving guest parking for the sister through July 1, 2007, and later extended it to September 1, 2007. However, they stipulated that the vehicle could not be parked in the driveway and stated that no further extensions would be granted beyond that date.
6. What argument did the Petitioner make regarding the adoption of Parking Rules and A.R.S. § 33-1227? The Petitioner argued that the Parking Rules adopted by the Board in 2004 actually constituted an amendment to the Declaration. He contended that under A.R.S. § 33-1227, such an amendment required a formal vote of the unit owners rather than a simple Board vote.
7. How did the ALJ rule on the Petitioner’s claim that the Parking Rules were an “amendment” to the Declaration? The ALJ rejected this claim, stating that the Petitioner’s characterization was in error. The judge found that there was no amendment to the Declaration; rather, the Board had exercised its permitted authority under the Declaration to adopt rules.
8. What evidence was provided regarding the possibility of obtaining a “variance” for parking? James Friebacher, the Board President, testified that Section 4.25 of the Declaration allows residents to apply for a variance, which he himself had successfully done to park a second vehicle in his driveway. However, it was established that the Petitioner had never actually applied to the Board for such a variance.
9. On what grounds did the ALJ deny the Association’s request for attorney fees and costs? The ALJ denied the request because Section 13.15 of the Declaration, which the Association cited as the basis for the award, did not contain provisions allowing the Association to recover costs for defending this specific type of action.
10. What is the Board’s authority regarding rule-making as defined in Section 6.3 of the Declaration? Section 6.3 grants the Board the power to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations that govern the use of any area by owners, families, invitees, or lessees. These rules are valid as long as they do not “unreasonably discriminate” among the unit owners.
——————————————————————————–
Part III: Essay Questions
Instructions: Use the facts and legal conclusions from the source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.
1. The Resident vs. Guest Distinction: Analyze how the definition of “occupancy” influenced the outcome of this case. How did the Petitioner’s own testimony regarding his sister’s stay undermine his legal position under the Association’s Parking Rules?
2. Board Authority and Rule-Making: Discuss the legal difference between amending a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions and adopting “rules and regulations” as seen in this case. Why is this distinction vital for HOA governance?
3. The Burden of Proof: Explain the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it was applied to the Petitioner’s claims. In what specific ways did the Petitioner fail to meet this evidentiary standard?
4. The Principle of Unreasonable Discrimination: Section 6.3 prohibits rules that “unreasonably discriminate” among owners. Evaluate the Petitioner’s claim of discrimination in light of the fact that the Board President held a parking variance while the Petitioner did not.
5. Contractual Interpretation of Fees: Analyze the ALJ’s decision regarding the Association’s request for legal fees. Why is the specific language of a Declaration’s “costs and fees” provision (such as Section 13.15) critical in administrative hearings?
——————————————————————————–
Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
A.R.S. § 33-1227
An Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner regarding the requirements for amending a condominium declaration.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The presiding official (in this case, Lewis D. Kowal) who hears evidence and issues a decision in an administrative hearing.
Architectural Committee
A specific body within the Association that met to review and initially approve temporary parking exceptions for the Petitioner.
Declaration (CC&Rs)
The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the legal document that governs the use of the property and the powers of the Association.
Guest/Visitor
Defined by the Association’s rules as an individual visiting a resident for a period not exceeding 60 days.
Petition
The formal written request or complaint filed by the Petitioner to initiate the legal process with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The legal standard of proof required in this civil/administrative matter, meaning the claim is more likely to be true than not true.
Resident
Any person who occupies a unit on a full-time or part-time basis; residents are prohibited from using guest parking under the Association’s rules.
Section 4.13
The specific provision of the Declaration prohibiting owners from parking anywhere except assigned garages and regulating guest driveway use.
Section 4.25
The provision of the Declaration that allows for the granting of a “variance” or exception to the established rules.
Section 6.3
The provision of the Declaration granting the Board authority to adopt or repeal rules governing the use of the community.
Variance
A formal exception to a rule or regulation, granted by the Board under specific circumstances (e.g., allowing a second vehicle in a driveway).
When Family Becomes a Resident: 4 Surprising Truths About HOA Parking Wars
1. Introduction: The Unforeseen Conflict of a “Full House”
It is a common and often generous scenario: a family member needs a place to stay, and you have the space to accommodate them. However, within the structured legal environment of a Condominium Association, this act of hospitality can trigger a complex battle over asphalt and curb space. For Dr. Win Kressel, what began as a family arrangement devolved into a formal dispute before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that would redefine his understanding of “home.”
The case of Win Kressel vs. Cachet Grayhawk Condominium serves as a critical case study for any homeowner. The conflict centered on whether a family member is legally a “guest” or a “resident”—a distinction that carries heavy consequences for where a vehicle may be parked. By examining the ALJ’s findings, we can uncover the surprising legal realities that govern modern community living.
2. Takeaway 1: Your Sister Isn’t a “Guest” (Legally Speaking)
Under many Association Parking Rules, the transition from “guest” to “resident” is governed by intent and occupancy rather than just a calendar. In the Cachet Grayhawk case, the rules defined a resident as anyone who occupies a unit on a full or part-time basis. While “guests” were defined as those visiting for up to 60 days, the ALJ focused on the Petitioner’s own testimony to determine the sister’s status.
In a move of legal irony, Dr. Kressel’s generous testimony—stating his sister resided in his unit and could stay “as long as she wished”—was the primary evidence used to strip her of guest status. This distinction is vital due to Section 4.13 of the Declaration. Under this provision, guests are granted the privilege of parking in driveways. Residents, however, are strictly relegated to the garages assigned to the unit and are barred from guest parking areas.
By declaring her an occupant with an indefinite stay, Kressel inadvertently legally disqualified her from using the driveway. As the Administrative Law Judge noted:
3. Takeaway 2: The Board’s Pen is Mightier Than the Vote
A common misconception among homeowners is that any rule affecting property rights requires a community-wide vote. Dr. Kressel challenged the Parking Rules by citing A.R.S. § 33-1227, arguing that such regulations constituted an “amendment” to the Declaration that required a membership vote.
The legal reality is found in Section 6.3 of the Declaration. This provision grants the Board the specific authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules governing the use of the property without a full vote of unit owners. The ALJ clarified that as long as the Board acts within this administrative authority and the rules do not “unreasonably discriminate” among owners, they are legally binding. The court found that Dr. Kressel failed to establish that the Board’s adoption of these standards was an error; they were valid rules, not invalid amendments.
4. Takeaway 3: The “Variance” Loophole You’re Probably Missing
One of the most revealing moments of the hearing involved the testimony of Board President James Friebacher. It was revealed that Mr. Friebacher held a variance under Section 4.25 of the Declaration, allowing him to park a second vehicle in his driveway—a privilege denied to Dr. Kressel’s sister.
While this might appear to be favoritism at first glance, the “Legal Analyst” must look at the timeline. The evidence showed that Mr. Friebacher was one of six owners who received such a variance in 2004, and crucially, he was not a member of the Board when he applied. The Petitioner’s failure was not necessarily a victim of corruption, but a failure to navigate the proper “administrative channel.” Mr. Friebacher testified that Dr. Kressel had never actually applied for a variance under Section 4.25. The lesson is clear: you cannot successfully argue a rule is being unfairly applied if you have not first utilized the procedural remedies available to you.
5. Takeaway 4: Guest Parking is a Temporary Privilege, Not a Backup Plan
Guest parking is often a tiered privilege rather than a permanent right. The Cachet Grayhawk rules established a clear hierarchy:
• Up to 15 days: Guests may park in designated areas without Board approval.
• 15 to 60 days: Mandatory Board approval is required.
• Beyond 60 days: The occupant is generally reclassified as a resident.
The Association had initially granted Dr. Kressel an “unusual exception” due to “extraordinary circumstances,” allowing his sister to use guest parking through September 1, 2007. However, the Association was legally entitled to set a hard expiration date on this grace period. The court affirmed that “extraordinary circumstances” do not create a permanent right to bypass the Declaration. When the deadline passed, the privilege evaporated, and the Association was under no legal obligation to extend it.
6. Conclusion: The Fine Print of Modern Living
The Kressel dispute highlights a harsh reality: in a Condominium Association, personal logic and family ties are secondary to the specific definitions within the CC&Rs. Dr. Kressel argued that these rules were “unreasonable,” claiming that if he were to marry or start a family, the single parking space restriction would force him to move.
The Judge was unmoved by this appeal to “future logic,” finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” required to prove the rules were discriminatory or unreasonable. The Board’s need to set community standards outweighed the Petitioner’s personal lifestyle choices.
Before you invite a loved one to move in, you must look past the guest room and toward the governing documents. If your lifestyle changes tomorrow, do you know which section of your HOA agreement might suddenly turn your driveway into a legal battlefield?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Win Kressel (Petitioner)
Dr. Win Kressel represented himself
Respondent Side
- Jeffrey B. Corben (Respondent Attorney)
Maxwell & Morgan
Representing Cachet Grayhawk Condominium - James Friebacher (witness)
Cachet Grayhawk Condominium
President of the Association and Board member
Neutral Parties
- Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings - Robert Barger (Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Listed on mailing distribution - Joyce Kesterman (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Listed on mailing distribution
