Tag Archives: Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.

Tom Barrs V. Desert Ranch Homeowners Assocation (ROOT)

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222050-REL; 22F-H2222054-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-02-21
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Barrs Counsel Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted Petitions 1 and 4 in part, finding the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide records where a Board Member was acting in official capacity (survey requests and City communications), even if the management company did not possess them. Petitions 2 (recordings) and 3 (roster) were denied in their entirety. No civil penalties were assessed due to the tumultuous relationship of the parties. The Tribunal ordered that the Association shall not reimburse the Petitioner's filing fees.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove recording violations or entitlement to the roster given privacy concerns. Filing fees were not reimbursed despite partial success.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records (April 2021, Nov 2021, Feb 2022 requests)

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide various records including survey bids and cleanup volunteer responses. The ALJ found the Association was required to provide the survey request records as the Secretary/Treasurer was acting in his capacity as a Board Member, regardless of whether the management company possessed them.

Orders: Petition 1 granted in relevant parts regarding survey requests; remaining portions denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_win

Meeting recording violations

Petitioner alleged the HOA forbade video/audio recording and provided altered recordings. The ALJ found the Petitioner did not sustain his burden of proof regarding this violation.

Orders: Petition 2 denied in its entirety.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Failure to provide membership roster

Petitioner requested a membership roster. The ALJ denied this petition in its entirety, noting evidence that the Association stopped disseminating rosters due to complaints about Petitioner's unsolicited emails.

Orders: Petition 3 denied in its entirety.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Failure to provide records (Oct 2021-Mar 2022 requests)

Petitioner requested various records including emails regarding a Netflix filming event. The ALJ found the Association violated the statute by failing to provide Board Member communications regarding the event, as the member was acting in his capacity as a Board Member.

Orders: Petition 4 granted in relevant parts regarding Board Member communications; remaining portions denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_win

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1000763.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:55 (52.4 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1002291.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:55 (55.0 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1035796.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:56 (295.5 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 980693.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:56 (54.2 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 981784.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:56 (50.4 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 982383.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:57 (55.5 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 987368.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:57 (61.6 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 987371.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:57 (8.5 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 998623.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:58 (45.7 KB)





Briefing Doc – 22F-H2222050-REL


Briefing Document: Legal Proceedings and Testimony Regarding Desert Ranch HOA vs. Tom Bars

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the testimony and legal findings from the consolidated matters of Case Nos. 22 FH222050 REL and 22 SH22254 REL, presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark. The proceedings center on a dispute between homeowner Tom Bars (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association (Respondent), managed by Associated Asset Management (AAM).

The core of the dispute involves allegations that the HOA and AAM violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 33-1804 and 33-1805 by failing to provide complete records, prohibiting homeowners from recording meetings, and producing edited or incomplete audio/video recordings. The testimony of Lori Loch-Lee, Vice President of Client Services at AAM, highlights a significant transition from a self-managed association to professional management, which coincided with the adoption of more restrictive data privacy and recording policies.

Critical Takeaways:

• Recording Irregularities: Multiple board meeting recordings were found to be incomplete or contained abrupt cuts. AAM staff attributed these to technical errors or personal oversight (forgetting to start the recorder) rather than intentional editing.

• Access to Records: While the ALJ found that the majority of records requests were fulfilled, specific violations were identified regarding the failure to provide survey proposals and certain board communications.

• Privacy vs. Precedent: A significant conflict exists regarding homeowner rosters. Historically, the HOA provided unredacted rosters; however, under current management, AAM maintains that email addresses and phone numbers are private information and has withheld them from the Petitioner.

• Homeowner Recording Restrictions: The HOA implemented a policy and board resolution asserting its own recording as the “official” version and used Zoom settings to block homeowners from recording meetings directly to their devices.

——————————————————————————–

Witness Profile: Lori Loch-Lee

Lori Loch-Lee serves as the Vice President of Client Services for Associated Asset Management (AAM). She has been employed in this capacity for over nine years and has acted as the community manager for Desert Ranch HOA since approximately April 1, 2018.

Key Responsibilities:

• Financial management and accounting coordination with CPAs.

• Production of financial statements.

• Record-keeping for the association (though she clarifies that AAM is primarily a financial management company for this specific client).

• Attending board meetings and recording them via Zoom.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of Record-Keeping and Transparency Disputes

1. Incomplete and “Edited” Meeting Recordings

A primary point of contention is the integrity of meeting recordings provided to the Petitioner.

• April 27, 2021 Meeting: The recording provided was 36 minutes and 48 seconds long, whereas the meeting itself lasted approximately one hour and six minutes. Loch-Lee testified that she “forgot to start the recording at the very beginning” and denied any intentional editing.

• September 2020 Meeting: This meeting involved an incident where the Petitioner was removed from a board member’s home. Testimony and video evidence showed an “abrupt cut” in the recording at 17 minutes and 20 seconds and another at 30 minutes and 24 seconds.

• Witness Defense: Loch-Lee repeatedly stated, “I do not edit anything. I’m lucky I turned it on and turn it off. I don’t know how to edit.” She attributed cuts to the Zoom platform or the suspension of meetings when disruptions occurred.

2. Policies on Homeowner Recording

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated statutory rights by prohibiting homeowners from making their own recordings.

• Technological Prohibitions: Evidence (Exhibit P243) showed a Zoom notification stating: “This meeting is not allowed to be recorded to your device. Please stop recording to continue the meeting.” Loch-Lee claimed she had never seen this message from her end.

• Board Resolutions: The board adopted a resolution stating that the HOA’s recording is the “official” version. Loch-Lee interpreted this as a means to prevent “intimidating” behavior by homeowners who would bring equipment and “cameras on their hats” to the business office, causing distress to staff.

• Consistency of Enforcement: While Loch-Lee stated she could not stop a homeowner from recording on their own side of a phone line, the HOA maintained a policy (Exhibit P71) that “no audio or visual equipment can be used by individual members of the association.”

3. Homeowner Roster and Data Privacy

The dispute over the membership roster highlights a shift in HOA policy following the hiring of AAM.

• Historical Context: Prior to 2018, the association (then self-managed) voluntarily provided unredacted rosters, including emails and phone numbers, to all homeowners.

• Current Stance: Loch-Lee testified that she treats emails and phone numbers as “private and personal and confidential.” She stated, “I have not been providing homeowner rosters to homeowners when they ask for it because it’s not a directory.”

• The “Opt-In” vs. “Opt-Out” Conflict: The Petitioner argued the association historically used an “opt-out” provision for sharing info. Loch-Lee contended that AAM uses an “opt-in” system through their mobile app, where homeowners must choose to share contact information.

• Justification for Restriction: The HOA alleged that the Petitioner used previous rosters to “blast” unsolicited emails to members, leading the board to stop disseminating the information in 2018.

——————————————————————————–

4. Bids and Financial Records

The Petitioner sought copies of various bids, particularly for street work and common area surveys.

• Retention Policy: Loch-Lee testified that she only retains bids if they are “contracted.” If the board procures a bid but does not accept it, she claims she does not keep it in the official files.

• Holbrook Asphalt Bid: Despite claims of not having certain bids, a proposal for $10,738.60 from Holbrook Asphalt was identified with Loch-Lee’s name in the “attention” line. She stated she had “no idea” why she was listed and denied destroying any documents.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Findings (ALJ Order – Case No. HO22-22050/22054)

The ALJ’s final order, issued February 21, 2023, summarized the findings based on the evidence and testimony provided during the January 2023 hearings.

Statutory Requirements (A.R.S. Title 33)

Statute

Requirement

§ 33-1804(A)

Meetings must be open to all members; any person may tape record or use a video camera subject to reasonable board rules.

§ 33-1805(A)

All financial and other records shall be made reasonably available for examination within 10 business days.

§ 33-1805(B)

Certain records may be withheld (e.g., attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, personal/health/financial info of individual members).

Summary of Rulings

• Records Compliance: The ALJ found that the “overwhelming majority” of the Petitioner’s records requests were complied with fully and timely.

• Specific Violations: The Respondent failed to timely and completely fulfill requests regarding:

◦ Survey proposals (April 27, 2021).

◦ Specific board communications involving Brian Schoeffler (December 07, 2021).

• Recordings: The ALJ noted that the beginning of the April 27 meeting was missing and that the September 2020 recording was stopped twice, but did not find sufficient evidence of “purposeful” or “flagrant” editing.

• Outcome: The ALJ ordered the Respondent to provide the missing survey proposals and communications. However, the request to levy civil penalties against the HOA was denied, and the Respondent was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fees.

——————————————————————————–

Key Quotes from Testimony

On Recording Errors: “I provided the recording that I had and I forgot to start it at the very beginning. I believe this is the meeting that it happened in… I simply forgot.” — Lori Loch-Lee

On Historical Transparency: “That was then… I don’t know of any specific change, sir. What I do know is when I started managing, there’s never been any conversation about homeowner rosters.” — Lori Loch-Lee, responding to evidence that rosters were previously public.

On Data Privacy: “I’ve never sent a I don’t recall ever sending a redacted one. I have sent recently a roster with just the names on it, but homeowner addresses and email s are considered private information. I’ve always been trained that way.” — Lori Loch-Lee

On Recording Prohibitions: “I will remind you that no tape recording nor visual recording can or will be done in this business office… [the Petitioner’s family] were being very intimidating and causing a ruckus. So that’s when we stopped it.” — Lori Loch-Lee


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tom Barrs (Petitioner)
    Homeowner
  • Jonathan A. Dessaules (Legal Counsel for Petitioner)
    Dessaules Law Group

Respondent Side

  • Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent)
    HOA
  • B. Austin Baillio (Legal Counsel for Respondent)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (Administrative Law Judge)

Victoria J Whitaker v. Villas at Sunland Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-02-22
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Victoria J Whitaker Counsel —
Respondent Villas at Sunland Condominium Association Counsel Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 regarding due process requirements for violation enforcement, as the Petitioner did not follow the required certified mail procedure to trigger those rights.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242. Petitioner did not follow the statutory requirement of sending a response via certified mail (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged failure to follow due process concerning violation enforcement

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to follow due process when enforcing community documents regarding damage to a semi-common element (carport) before her purchase, leading to a violation notice and subsequent enforcement.

Orders: Petition denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Condominium Association, Due Process, Violation Enforcement, Carport Damage, Statutory Compliance, Filing Fee Denial
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260(A)(3)(e)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • Declaration Article 5.3
  • Declaration Article 5.1
  • Declaration Article 5.2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/72I03UkB36YQYWN0aeBE1m

Decision Documents

23F-H021-REL Decision – 1036088.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:06 (224.9 KB)

Questions

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge decide if I am actually responsible for the damage cited in a violation?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ's jurisdiction is limited to determining if the HOA followed the correct statutory process (due process), not determining the underlying facts of responsibility or 'guilt' regarding the damage.

Detailed Answer

The Tribunal does not have the authority to decide the merits of the violation itself (e.g., who caused the damage). Its role is strictly to determine if the Association violated the specific statutes governing the enforcement process (such as notice and hearing requirements).

Alj Quote

The record is clear that Petitioner was under the erroneous belief that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine who, if anyone, was responsible for causing the damage to Unit 16’s carport and was therefore liable for the repairs required. In all actuality, the crux of the matter for hearing is whether Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • scope of hearing
  • violation responsibility

Question

Is it required to send my violation dispute response by certified mail?

Short Answer

Yes. Failing to send a response by certified mail may fail to 'trigger' the specific statutory due process protections afforded by state law.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly states that a unit owner 'may' provide a written response by certified mail within 21 days. The decision clarifies that failing to follow this specific requirement (e.g., sending an email instead) means the owner has not met the statutory requirements necessary to trigger protected due process rights under that specific statute.

Alj Quote

The record reflects that Petitioner did not follow the statutory requirements of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 necessary to 'trigger' any protected due process rights.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)

Topic Tags

  • certified mail
  • procedural requirements
  • contesting violations

Question

What constitutes 'due process' for an HOA violation?

Short Answer

Due process generally consists of being given notice of the violation and an opportunity to be heard by the Board before any penalties are levied.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner misses a technical step (like certified mail), the ALJ may find the HOA acted correctly if the HOA still provided the homeowner with clear notice of their rights/options and allowed them a hearing before the Board prior to issuing fines.

Alj Quote

Respondent nonetheless apprised her of her rights and options, and afforded her an opportunity to be heard before the Board prior to levying penalties/fines over the violation at issue.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Topic Tags

  • due process
  • notice
  • board hearing

Question

Who is responsible for repairing 'Limited Common Elements' like a designated carport?

Short Answer

Typically the Unit Owner. The specific maintenance obligations are defined in the community's Declaration.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the Declaration stated that while the Association maintains Common Elements, Limited Common Elements allocated to a specific unit are the responsibility of that Unit Owner to maintain, repair, and replace.

Alj Quote

[E]ach Owner shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the Limited Common Elements allocated to [their] unit.

Legal Basis

Declaration Article 5.2

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • limited common elements
  • carport

Question

Am I financially liable for damage caused by my tenants?

Short Answer

Yes. Owners are generally liable for damages to common elements resulting from the negligence or misconduct of their lessees.

Detailed Answer

The governing documents in this case explicitly stated that the owner is liable for damage to common elements resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of the owner's lessees, occupants, or invitees.

Alj Quote

Each Owner shall be liable to the Association for any damage to the Common Elements which results from the negligence or willful misconduct of the Owner or of the Owner’s Lessees, Occupants or Invitees.

Legal Basis

Declaration Article 5.3

Topic Tags

  • tenant liability
  • rental property
  • damages

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' (meaning it is more probable than not) that the Association violated the relevant statute.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • evidence
  • legal standard

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if my petition is denied?

Short Answer

No. If the petition is denied, the ALJ acts under statute to order that the filing fee is not reimbursed.

Detailed Answer

The decision specifically orders that pursuant to state statute, the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee when the Petitioner does not prevail.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • costs
  • reimbursement

Case

Docket No
23F-H021-REL
Case Title
Victoria J Whitaker vs. Villas at Sunland Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-02-22
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge decide if I am actually responsible for the damage cited in a violation?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ's jurisdiction is limited to determining if the HOA followed the correct statutory process (due process), not determining the underlying facts of responsibility or 'guilt' regarding the damage.

Detailed Answer

The Tribunal does not have the authority to decide the merits of the violation itself (e.g., who caused the damage). Its role is strictly to determine if the Association violated the specific statutes governing the enforcement process (such as notice and hearing requirements).

Alj Quote

The record is clear that Petitioner was under the erroneous belief that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine who, if anyone, was responsible for causing the damage to Unit 16’s carport and was therefore liable for the repairs required. In all actuality, the crux of the matter for hearing is whether Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • scope of hearing
  • violation responsibility

Question

Is it required to send my violation dispute response by certified mail?

Short Answer

Yes. Failing to send a response by certified mail may fail to 'trigger' the specific statutory due process protections afforded by state law.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly states that a unit owner 'may' provide a written response by certified mail within 21 days. The decision clarifies that failing to follow this specific requirement (e.g., sending an email instead) means the owner has not met the statutory requirements necessary to trigger protected due process rights under that specific statute.

Alj Quote

The record reflects that Petitioner did not follow the statutory requirements of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 necessary to 'trigger' any protected due process rights.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)

Topic Tags

  • certified mail
  • procedural requirements
  • contesting violations

Question

What constitutes 'due process' for an HOA violation?

Short Answer

Due process generally consists of being given notice of the violation and an opportunity to be heard by the Board before any penalties are levied.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner misses a technical step (like certified mail), the ALJ may find the HOA acted correctly if the HOA still provided the homeowner with clear notice of their rights/options and allowed them a hearing before the Board prior to issuing fines.

Alj Quote

Respondent nonetheless apprised her of her rights and options, and afforded her an opportunity to be heard before the Board prior to levying penalties/fines over the violation at issue.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Topic Tags

  • due process
  • notice
  • board hearing

Question

Who is responsible for repairing 'Limited Common Elements' like a designated carport?

Short Answer

Typically the Unit Owner. The specific maintenance obligations are defined in the community's Declaration.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the Declaration stated that while the Association maintains Common Elements, Limited Common Elements allocated to a specific unit are the responsibility of that Unit Owner to maintain, repair, and replace.

Alj Quote

[E]ach Owner shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the Limited Common Elements allocated to [their] unit.

Legal Basis

Declaration Article 5.2

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • limited common elements
  • carport

Question

Am I financially liable for damage caused by my tenants?

Short Answer

Yes. Owners are generally liable for damages to common elements resulting from the negligence or misconduct of their lessees.

Detailed Answer

The governing documents in this case explicitly stated that the owner is liable for damage to common elements resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of the owner's lessees, occupants, or invitees.

Alj Quote

Each Owner shall be liable to the Association for any damage to the Common Elements which results from the negligence or willful misconduct of the Owner or of the Owner’s Lessees, Occupants or Invitees.

Legal Basis

Declaration Article 5.3

Topic Tags

  • tenant liability
  • rental property
  • damages

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' (meaning it is more probable than not) that the Association violated the relevant statute.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • evidence
  • legal standard

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if my petition is denied?

Short Answer

No. If the petition is denied, the ALJ acts under statute to order that the filing fee is not reimbursed.

Detailed Answer

The decision specifically orders that pursuant to state statute, the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee when the Petitioner does not prevail.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • costs
  • reimbursement

Case

Docket No
23F-H021-REL
Case Title
Victoria J Whitaker vs. Villas at Sunland Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-02-22
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Victoria Whitaker (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf without counsel
  • Kimball Whitaker (observer)
    Observed hearing; potential witness for petitioner
  • Realtor (realtor)
    Petitioner's realtor (name not provided)

Respondent Side

  • Austin Baillio (HOA attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
  • Joseph Milin (board member)
    Villas at Sunland Condominium Association
    Board President; Witness
  • Steven Cheff (property manager)
    Haywood Community Management (HMC)
    Community Manager and Compliance Inspector; Witness
  • Carly Collins (property management admin)
    Haywood Community Management (HMC)
    Admin responsible for correspondence
  • Harvey Colin (property management admin)
    Haywood Community Management (HMC)
    Signed resale disclosure statement
  • Neighbor (Unit 15) (witness)
    Unit 15 resident
    Provided alleged eyewitness testimony regarding the damage

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

  • Chad and Ida Carpenter (prior owners/sellers)
    Unit 16 (prior owners)
    The sellers of the property at issue
  • Kevin Finley (contractor)
    Signature
    Provided repair estimate

Don France v. Mesa East Property Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020056-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-09-21
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Don France Counsel —
Respondent Mesa East Property Owners Association Counsel B. Austin Bailio

Alleged Violations

CC&R section 2.7

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.

Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.

Orders: Don France's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&R, RV storage, Estoppel, Fines
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Don France v. Mesa East Property Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020056-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-09-21
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Don France Counsel —
Respondent Mesa East Property Owners Association Counsel B. Austin Bailio

Alleged Violations

CC&R section 2.7

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.

Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.

Orders: Don France's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&R, RV storage, Estoppel, Fines
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Don France v. Mesa East Property Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020056-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-09-21
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Don France Counsel —
Respondent Mesa East Property Owners Association Counsel B. Austin Bailio

Alleged Violations

CC&R section 2.7

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.

Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.

Orders: Don France's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&R, RV storage, Estoppel, Fines
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Don France v. Mesa East Property Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020056-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-09-21
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Don France Counsel —
Respondent Mesa East Property Owners Association Counsel B. Austin Bailio

Alleged Violations

CC&R section 2.7

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.

Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.

Orders: Don France's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&R, RV storage, Estoppel, Fines
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Decision Documents

20F-H2020056-REL-RHG Decision – 924655.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:27:39 (39.2 KB)

Don France v. Mesa East Property Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020056-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-09-21
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Don France Counsel —
Respondent Mesa East Property Owners Association Counsel B. Austin Bailio

Alleged Violations

CC&R section 2.7

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.

Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.

Orders: Don France's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&R, RV storage, Estoppel, Fines
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020056-REL Decision – 823714.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:18 (96.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020056-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: France v. Mesa East Property Owners Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a detailed analysis of the administrative hearing decision in case number 20F-H2020056-REL, involving petitioner Don France and respondent Mesa East Property Owners Association (the “Association”). The core of the dispute was the Association’s enforcement of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), specifically section 2.7, which requires a six-foot-high gate for Recreational Vehicles (RVs) stored on a property.

The petitioner, Mr. France, was fined by the Association in 2019 for not having the required gate on an RV structure that the Association itself had approved in 2014. Mr. France initially filed a petition alleging the Association was in violation of its own CC&Rs. However, at the September 1, 2020 hearing, he conceded this was not the case and instead argued the Association was “estopped”—or legally prevented—from enforcing the rule due to its prior approval.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed Mr. France’s petition on procedural grounds. The judge determined that since Mr. France acknowledged his petition’s central claim was incorrect, he had failed to meet his burden of proof. The new arguments concerning estoppel and the legality of the fines were deemed not properly before the tribunal because they were not included in the original petition. The decision underscores the critical importance of aligning claims made in a formal petition with the arguments presented at a hearing.

Case Overview

Case Number

No. 20F-H2020056-REL

In the Office of Administrative Hearings

Petitioner

Don France

Respondent

Mesa East Property Owners Association

Respondent’s Counsel

B. Austin Bailio, Esq.

Administrative Law Judge

Thomas Shedden

Hearing Date

September 1, 2020

Decision Date

September 21, 2020

The central issue of the case revolves around the enforcement of CC&R section 2.7, which mandates that RVs stored on a property must be screened behind a structure with a six-foot-high gate. This requirement is mirrored by a City of Mesa municipal code.

Chronology of Key Events

• 2014: Mr. France applies for and receives approval from the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to build an RV port. In his application, he acknowledges he will abide by deed restrictions and City of Mesa codes.

• October 21, 2014: The Association issues its final approval for the structure, which is built without a gate.

• Circa 2018: Following threats of litigation from other residents over non-enforcement of the CC&Rs, the Association begins a new enforcement campaign for the six-foot gate rule. The City of Mesa denies the Association’s request to “grandfather in” non-compliant homes.

• 2019: The deadline for residents to come into compliance passes.

• March 11, 2019: The Association issues a Notice of Violation (NOV) to Mr. France for lacking the required gate.

• April 5, 2019: Through an attorney, Mr. France asserts that the Association is estopped from enforcing the rule due to its 2014 approval.

• May 15, 2019: The Association’s attorney rejects the estoppel claim and informs Mr. France’s attorney that fines of $500 per week will be assessed.

• May 31, 2019: The Association assesses a $500 fine against Mr. France, with additional fines assessed later.

• July 24, 2019: The City of Mesa issues its own NOV to Mr. France, citing a violation of city code 11-34-5(B), which also requires a six-foot screening fence for RVs.

• April 16, 2020: Mr. France files a petition alleging the Association is in violation of CC&R section 2.7.

• Prior to Hearing: To comply with the City of Mesa’s NOV, Mr. France installs a temporary gate at a cost of approximately $800.

• September 1, 2020: The administrative hearing is conducted.

Analysis of Arguments and Testimonies

Petitioner’s Position (Don France)

• Initial Petition: The formal petition, filed on April 16, 2020, was based on the single issue that the Mesa East Property Owners Association had violated its own CC&R section 2.7.

• Revised Argument at Hearing: During the hearing, Mr. France acknowledged that the Association was not, in fact, violating section 2.7. His argument shifted to a claim of estoppel, asserting that the Association could not enforce the rule against him because its own ARC had approved his gateless structure in 2014.

• Requested Relief: Mr. France asked the judge to rule that the Association could not require him to install a gate and to invalidate any outstanding fines levied against him.

• Supporting Testimony: Joann Van Kirk, the chairperson of the ARC in 2014, testified on Mr. France’s behalf. She stated that she had been informed by a past chair that no gate was required for structures like Mr. France’s, citing other properties that had RV shelters without gates. She also testified that she called the City of Mesa at the time and was told a gate was not required if the structure was attached to the house.

Respondent’s Position (Mesa East POA)

• Basis for Enforcement: The Association began strictly enforcing the gate requirement around 2018 after being threatened with lawsuits by other members for failing to enforce the CC&Rs.

• Enforcement Actions: After an unsuccessful attempt to have the City of Mesa grandfather in non-compliant properties, the Association notified members of the requirement via its newsletter and online, setting a compliance deadline of 2019. When Mr. France did not comply, the Association issued an NOV and subsequently began assessing fines.

• Legal Stance: The Association’s counsel formally rejected Mr. France’s estoppel argument in May 2019.

• Supporting Testimony: Donald Smith testified that at the time the NOV was issued to Mr. France, eleven other residents were also non-compliant. By the hearing date, six remained in violation, five of whom had agreed to comply. This testimony was intended to show that the enforcement was not targeted solely at Mr. France.

Independent Municipal Action

The City of Mesa’s regulations played a significant and independent role in the matter.

• City Code: The City of Mesa has its own ordinance, Code section 11-34-5(B), which requires RVs taller than six feet to be screened by a six-foot-tall fence.

• Notice of Violation: On July 24, 2019, the City issued its own NOV to Mr. France for violating this code.

• Consequence: This municipal enforcement action compelled Mr. France to install a temporary gate to avoid penalties from the City, regardless of the outcome of his dispute with the Property Owners Association.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

Final Order: IT IS ORDERED that Don France’s petition is dismissed.

The judge’s decision to dismiss the case was based on a precise legal and procedural rationale, rather than the merits of the estoppel argument.

• Failure of the Core Claim: The judge noted that Mr. France’s petition was limited to the single claim that the Association had violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Mr. France himself admitted this was not the case. As the petitioner, Mr. France bore the burden of proof, and his own testimony demonstrated that the “preponderance of the evidence shows that there is no violation.”

• Jurisdictional Limitation: The new issues raised by Mr. France at the hearing—namely the estoppel argument and the legality of the fines—were declared “not properly before the tribunal.” The judge reasoned that these claims were not included in the original petition, a separate filing fee was not paid for a second issue, and the claims were not listed in the official Notice of Hearing. This procedural failure prevented the judge from ruling on the substance of these arguments.

Conclusion and Post-Decision Protocol

The dismissal of Mr. France’s petition represents a conclusive finding in favor of the respondent based on the specific claims filed. The decision illustrates that the scope of an administrative hearing is strictly defined by the issues raised in the initial petition.

According to the decision document, the order is binding on both parties unless a rehearing is granted. A request for a rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020056-REL


Study Guide: France v. Mesa East Property Owners Association (No. 20F-H2020056-REL)

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing decision in the case between Don France (Petitioner) and the Mesa East Property Owners Association (Respondent), as decided by Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided legal decision.

1. Who are the primary parties in this case, and what was the single issue alleged in the Petitioner’s original petition filed on April 16, 2020?

2. According to CC&R section 2.7 and the City of Mesa’s code, what is the specific requirement for storing a recreational vehicle (RV) on a property?

3. What enforcement actions did the Mesa East Property Owners Association take against Don France in the spring of 2019?

4. What was Don France’s primary legal argument against the Association’s enforcement, which he revealed at the September 1, 2020 hearing?

5. What was the state of compliance on Mr. France’s property regarding the RV gate as of the hearing date, and what prompted this action?

6. According to the testimony of Donald Smith, what prompted the Association to begin enforcing the six-foot gate requirement around 2018?

7. What key information did Joann Van Kirk, the 2014 chairperson of the Architectural Review Committee, provide in her testimony?

8. How did the Petitioner’s argument at the hearing differ from the allegation in his initial petition, and why was this difference critical to the case’s outcome?

9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge decline to rule on the legality of the fines the Association had levied against Mr. France?

10. What was the ultimate order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, and what was the legal reasoning behind this decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key for Short-Answer Questions

1. The primary parties are Don France, the Petitioner, and the Mesa East Property Owners Association, the Respondent. The single issue alleged in Mr. France’s petition was that the Association was in violation of its own CC&R section 2.7.

2. Both CC&R section 2.7 (the 1994 version) and the City of Mesa’s code (section 11-34-5(B)) require that RVs stored on a property must be screened behind a structure with a gate that is at least six feet high. The CC&Rs also specified the fence and gate must be tall enough to prevent a person from seeing the RV.

3. On March 11, 2019, the Association issued a Notice of Violation to Mr. France because his RV structure lacked a six-foot gate. Subsequently, on May 31, 2019, the Association fined him $500 for the same violation.

4. At the hearing, Mr. France’s primary argument was that the Association was “estopped” from finding him in violation of section 2.7. He argued this because the Association’s Architectural Review Committee had approved his RV structure in 2014 without the gate.

5. As of the hearing date, Mr. France had installed a temporary six-foot gate at a cost of about $800. This action was taken to comply with a Notice of Violation issued to him by the City of Mesa on July 24, 2019.

6. Donald Smith testified that around 2018, people were threatening to sue the Association if it did not enforce the CC&Rs. After meeting with the City of Mesa, which would not allow non-compliant homes to be grandfathered in, the Association began enforcing the gate requirement.

7. Joann Van Kirk testified that in 2014, she had learned from the past ARC chair that no gate was required because other owners had shelters without gates. She also testified that she called the City of Mesa and was told no gate was required if the structure was attached to the house.

8. While his petition alleged the Association had violated section 2.7, at the hearing Mr. France acknowledged this was not the case and argued instead that the Association was estopped from enforcing that section against him. This was critical because the judge could only rule on the single issue raised in the petition, which Mr. France conceded had no merit.

9. The judge declined to rule on the legality of the fines because the issue was not raised in Mr. France’s original petition. Therefore, it was not properly before the tribunal as a filing fee had not been paid for a second issue and it was not included in the Notice of Hearing.

10. The judge ordered that Don France’s petition be dismissed. The reasoning was that the petition was limited to the single issue of whether the Association had violated CC&R section 2.7, and Mr. France himself acknowledged at the hearing that no such violation by the Association had occurred.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive essay-format response for each, citing specific facts from the case decision to support your arguments.

1. Analyze the concept of estoppel as it applies to this case. Explain why Don France believed the Association was estopped from enforcing the gate requirement, referencing the 2014 approvals, and discuss why the Association disagreed and proceeded with enforcement actions.

2. Discuss the procedural limitations that shaped the outcome of this hearing. How did the specific wording of Mr. France’s initial petition and the rules governing administrative hearings ultimately prevent the judge from considering the central issues of estoppel and the validity of the fines?

3. Examine the conflict between a property owner’s reliance on past approvals and a Property Owners Association’s duty to enforce its CC&Rs. Use the testimony of Joann Van Kirk and Donald Smith to illustrate the differing perspectives and pressures that led to this dispute.

4. Trace the timeline of events from Mr. France’s 2014 application to the 2020 hearing. Detail the key actions taken by Mr. France, the Association’s Architectural Review Committee, the Association’s Board, and the City of Mesa, and explain how their interactions created the legal conflict.

5. Evaluate the standard of proof required in this case, the “preponderance of the evidence.” Although the case was dismissed on a procedural issue, discuss which party presented a more convincing case regarding the underlying dispute over the RV gate, and why.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official (Thomas Shedden in this case) who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions and orders.

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

A committee within the Property Owners Association responsible for reviewing and approving applications for property improvements, such as Mr. France’s RV port in 2014.

Burden of Proof

The responsibility of a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this matter, Mr. France bore the burden of proof to show the Association violated its CC&Rs.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing community documents that set rules for property use, such as section 2.7 which requires a six-foot gate for RV storage.

Conclusions of Law

The section of the judge’s decision that applies legal principles and statutes to the established facts of the case to reach a final ruling.

Estoppel

A legal principle asserted by Mr. France arguing that the Association should be prevented from enforcing a rule (the gate requirement) against him because of its prior action (approving his structure without a gate in 2014).

Findings of Fact

A formal, numbered list of facts in the judge’s decision that are established by the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing.

Notice of Violation (NOV)

A formal notice issued by the Association or the City of Mesa to a property owner informing them that they are in violation of a specific rule or code.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Don France is the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is sufficient to incline an impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Mesa East Property Owners Association is the Respondent.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020056-REL



Select all sources