Charlotte Tande v. Wintergardens Co-Operative

Posted on September 6, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H059-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-09-05
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The case was dismissed because the Administrative Law Judge determined the Wintergardens Co-Operative, a cooperative mobile home park, did not qualify as a 'planned community' or 'condominium association' under Title 33, Chapter 9 or 16, thus the Arizona Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Charlotte Tande	Counsel	—
Respondent	Wintergardens Co-Operative	Counsel	Beth Mulcahy, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1810

Outcome Summary

The case was dismissed because the Administrative Law Judge determined the Wintergardens Co-Operative, a cooperative mobile home park, did not qualify as a 'planned community' or 'condominium association' under Title 33, Chapter 9 or 16, thus the Arizona Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

Why this result: The Respondent was found not to be a 'Planned Community' because its shareholders were lessees, not owners of 'separately owned lots, parcels or units' as required by A.R.S. § 33-1802(4).

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meeting Requirements

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to comply with the open meeting requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Orders: The case was dismissed after Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was granted.

Filing fee: $0.00

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Financial Records Provision

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide certain financial records as required by A.R.S. § 33-1810.

Orders: The case was dismissed after Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was granted.

Filing fee: $0.00

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1810
A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1074375.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:11:59 (45.4 KB)

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1089824.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:12:05 (83.6 KB)

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1089829.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:12:12 (40.0 KB)

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1091579.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:12:23 (38.0 KB)

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1074375.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:07 (45.4 KB)

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1089824.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:10 (83.6 KB)

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1089829.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:13 (40.0 KB)

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1091579.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:17 (38.0 KB)

This summary details the proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the case of *Charlotte Tande vs. Wintergardens Co-Operative*, No. 23F-H059-REL, heard before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Key Facts and Procedural History

The Petitioner, Charlotte Tande, is a shareholder and lessee of a property within the Respondent, Wintergardens Co-Operative, a non-profit corporation operating a cooperative mobile home and R.V. Park in Yuma, Arizona. Petitioner filed a two-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department) alleging the Respondent failed to comply with: 1) open meeting requirements (A.R.S. § 33-1804), and 2) the requirement to provide certain financial records (A.R.S. § 33-1810). The Department referred the petition to the OAH for an evidentiary hearing.

Main Issues and Arguments

The central legal issue was whether the Wintergardens Co-Operative was subject to the provisions of the Arizona Planned Communities Act (A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16).

Respondent's Position: Wintergardens Co-Operative filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that it is not a "Planned Community" as defined in A.R.S. § 33-1802(4). Respondent asserted that its shareholders are lessees under a Proprietary Lease, not owners of "separately owned lots, parcels or units," which is a requirement for a Planned Community designation.
Petitioner's Position: Petitioner argued in response that Wintergardens was a "Planned Community" and was therefore required to comply with the relevant statutes. Petitioner asserted that shareholders were "Lessees and OWNERS under a proprietary Lease," although she did not identify what the shareholders owned other than a share of the co-operative.

Key Legal Points and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reviewed the Motion, Response, and Reply.

The statutes granting the Department and OAH jurisdiction (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)) are limited to hearing disputes between an owner and a condominium association or a planned community association. Therefore, for the OAH to have jurisdiction, the Respondent had to qualify as one of these entities.

The ALJ analyzed the definition of a "Planned Community" (A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)), which explicitly requires that the declaration state that the owners of separately owned lots, parcels or units are mandatory members. The ALJ concluded that, while shareholders may own a share of the co-operative entity, nothing in the pleadings indicated they were owners of any "separately owned lots, parcels or units".

Conclusion of Law: The ALJ determined that Respondent’s cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community because its purposes and functions are separate and distinct.

Final Decision: Because Wintergardens Co-Operative does not meet the definition of a planned community, the Department lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Order granted the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, and the scheduled hearing was vacated from the calendar. This Order, issued September 5, 2023, is binding unless a rehearing is requested within 30 days.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H059-REL”, “case_title”: “Charlotte Tande vs. Wintergardens Co-Operative”, “decision_date”: “2023-09-05”, “alj_name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does the Arizona Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction to hear disputes regarding housing cooperatives?”, “short_answer”: “No, not if the cooperative does not meet the legal definition of a ‘planned community’ or ‘condominium.'”, “detailed_answer”: “The Department only has jurisdiction over disputes involving condominium associations or planned community associations. If a housing cooperative does not fit the statutory definition of these entities (e.g., shareholders are lessees rather than owners of separate lots), the Department cannot hear the dispute.”, “alj_quote”: “Therefore, because Respondent does not fall within the definition of a planned community, the Department does not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute between Petitioner and Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A); A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “Cooperatives”, “Planned Community Definition” ] }, { “question”: “If I have a proprietary lease in a cooperative, am I considered an ‘owner’ for the purpose of filing an HOA dispute?”, “short_answer”: “Likely not, unless you hold title to a separately owned lot, parcel, or unit.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if you own a share of the cooperative corporation, if you are a lessee under a proprietary lease and do not own a separate lot or unit, you may not meet the definition of an owner required to classify the community as a ‘planned community’ under Arizona law.”, “alj_quote”: “While the shareholders may be owners of a share of Respondent as an entity, nothing in any of the pleadings indicated that the shareholders were owners of any ‘separately owned lots, parcels or units.'”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Ownership Status”, “Lease vs Ownership”, “Definitions” ] }, { “question”: “What is the legal definition of a ‘Planned Community’ in Arizona?”, “short_answer”: “It is a development where owners of separately owned lots are mandatory members of an association and must pay assessments.”, “detailed_answer”: “A planned community is defined as a real estate development managed by a nonprofit corporation where the declaration states that owners of separately owned lots, parcels, or units are mandatory members and are required to pay assessments.”, “alj_quote”: ““Planned community” means a real estate development… in which the declaration expressly states both that the owners of separately owned lots, parcels or units are mandatory members and that the owners are required to pay assessments to the association for these purposes.“, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Definitions”, “Planned Community” ] }, { “question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge give me legal advice if I am representing myself?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Office of Administrative Hearings cannot provide legal advice to parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ must remain neutral and cannot offer guidance or legal advice to either party involved in the dispute.”, “alj_quote”: “To the extent Petitioner was asking the Administrative Law Judge for guidance, the Office of Administrative Hearings cannot provide parties with legal advice.”, “legal_basis”: “Procedural Rule”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural”, “Legal Advice”, “OAH Role” ] }, { “question”: “What happens to my hearing if the judge determines the community is not a planned community?”, “short_answer”: “The case will be dismissed and the hearing vacated.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the judge finds that the community does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community or condominium, the ADRE/OAH lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the motion to dismiss will be granted.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.”, “legal_basis”: “Jurisdiction”, “topic_tags”: [ “Dismissal”, “Hearing Process”, “Jurisdiction” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Charlotte Tande (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Beth Mulcahy (attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
Esq.

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Orders dated July 18, 2023 and September 5, 2023
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Alyssa Leverette (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Minute Entry granting continuance dated September 5, 2023
AHansen (staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed as contact/recipient for transmissions
vnunez (staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed as contact/recipient for transmissions
djones (staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed as contact/recipient for transmissions
labril (staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed as contact/recipient for transmissions

Shawna Townsend v. North Canyon Ranch Owners Association

Posted on February 7, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H018-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-02-07
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association violated its governing documents regarding the storage of a truck camper.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Shawna Townsend	Counsel	—
Respondent	North Canyon Ranch Owners Association	Counsel	Haidyn DiLorenzo

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 4.3 Storage, Section 4.17 Motor Vehicles, Community Guidelines 2007

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association violated its governing documents regarding the storage of a truck camper.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner's 'truck camper' falls within the scope of prohibited items, specifically as 'other similar equipment' under the CC&Rs and rules, making her argument one of semantics.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the HOA violated its governing documents by issuing a fine for parking a mounted truck camper, based on the Petitioner's claimed 'legal loophole'.

Petitioner claimed a 'legal loophole' existed because the governing documents prohibited 'unmounted pickup camper units' or 'detached campers,' but not her currently mounted/attached truck camper. The ALJ found the truck camper was unequivocally prohibited as 'other similar equipment' under the CC&Rs and Rules, dismissing the petition.

Orders: Petition dismissed. No action is required of Respondent in this matter.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

CC&Rs § 4.3
CC&Rs § 4.17
Community Guidelines 2007
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.R.S. § 33-2102(18)(e)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, truck camper, recreational vehicle, storage violation, legal loophole, fines, administrative hearing, Arizona

Additional Citations:

CC&Rs § 4.3
CC&Rs § 4.17
Community Guidelines 2007
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.R.S. § 33-2102(18)(e)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H018-REL Decision – 1031834.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-27T09:47:34 (167.3 KB)

23F-H018-REL Decision – 1031834.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:42 (167.3 KB)

This summary details the administrative hearing held on January 19, 2023, in the matter of Shawna Townsend v. North Canyon Ranch Owners Association (Docket No. 23F-H018-REL). The Petitioner, Shauna Townsend, appeared self-represented, alleging the Respondent HOA violated community documents by fining her for storing a truck camper.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The dispute centered on the Petitioner storing her truck camper in her driveway, visible from neighboring properties. The Petitioner sought relief from fines imposed by the Respondent, arguing she had found a "legal loophole" in the association's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Community Guidelines.

The Respondent (HOA) maintained that the storage of the camper violated multiple governing documents, including:

CC&R Section 4.3 (Storage): Prohibiting exterior storage of items like "unmounted pickup camper units" in the front yard.
Architectural and Community Guidelines (2007): Prohibiting equipment such as "camper shell, detached camper, boat, boat trailer, hang glider, or other similar equipment or vehicle" from being parked or stored on lots if visible.
Rules Regarding Recreational Type Vehicles (2000): Explicitly defining "Recreational Type Vehicles" to include "campers" and prohibiting their storage in driveways or front yards (allowing only brief loading/unloading, generally less than 24 consecutive hours).

Key Arguments and Legal Points

Petitioner's Argument (The "Loophole"): The Petitioner asserted that because her truck camper was mounted/attached to her truck, it did not fall under the specific prohibitions against "unmounted pickup camper units" (CC&Rs) or "detached campers" (Guidelines). She also argued that her truck camper was not technically an RV, trailer, or camper shell. She noted inconsistencies in the violation notices, which variously referred to the violation as an "RV," "trailer," or "camper shell".

Respondent's Argument: The Respondent contended that the documents, when read together, unambiguously prohibit the storage of the truck camper because it is captured by the broad language of "camper," "truck camper," or "other similar equipment". The Association provided evidence of multiple violation notices, appeals, and appeal denials (dated November 2021 through September 2022) demonstrating that the Petitioner was provided notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to fines being assessed, thereby validating the fines.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that the Petitioner's argument was primarily one of semantics. The ALJ further referenced Arizona state statute A.R.S. § 33-2102(18), which defines a "Recreational vehicle" to include a "portable truck camper". Crucially, the Petitioner acknowledged during testimony that her truck camper is, in fact, a recreational vehicle.

Outcome

The burden of proof rested upon the Petitioner to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the governing documents.

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to meet this burden. The ALJ held that the Petitioner's truck camper clearly falls within the categories of prohibited equipment, particularly under the umbrella language of "other similar equipment" specified in the community documents.

The petition was dismissed, and no action was required of the Respondent. The decision became binding upon the parties pending any request for a rehearing.

Select all sources

No emoji found

23F-H018-REL

2 sources

This legal transcript and subsequent judicial decision detail a dispute between homeowner Shawna Townsend and the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association regarding a fine for storing a truck camper in public view. Townsend argued that her equipment fell into a legal loophole because the association’s rules specifically prohibited “unmounted” or “detached” campers, while hers remained attached to her vehicle. In contrast, the Homeowners Association maintained that the camper violated multiple regulations prohibiting the storage of recreational type vehicles and similar equipment in driveways. During the administrative hearing, testimony was provided regarding the enforcement consistency of the community’s governing documents and the specific definitions of recreational vehicles under Arizona law. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, determining that the truck camper was clearly prohibited as “similar equipment” regardless of its attachment status. The petition was dismissed, confirming that the association acted within its authority when issuing the violation notices and fines.

What are the core legal arguments regarding the truck camper loophole?

How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the association’s enforcement?

How do North Canyon Ranch guidelines define recreational vehicles and storage?

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 2:12 PM

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

Select all sources

No emoji found

23F-H018-REL

2 sources

What are the core legal arguments regarding the truck camper loophole?

How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the association’s enforcement?

How do North Canyon Ranch guidelines define recreational vehicles and storage?

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 2:12 PM

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Shawna Townsend (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf; also referred to as Shauna Townsen or Miss Townsen
Michael Townsen (co-owner)
Co-owner and recipient of violation notices with Petitioner

Respondent Side

Haidyn DiLorenzo (HOA attorney)
Represented Respondent North Canyon Ranch Owners Association
Justin DeLuca (HOA attorney)
Represented Respondent North Canyon Ranch Owners Association
Josey Perkins (community manager/witness)
North Canyon Ranch Owners Association
Community Manager for the association, testified as a witness (also referred to as Joy Perkins)
Riner (board member)
North Canyon Ranch Owners Association Board of Directors
Made motion to deny petitioner's appeal
Robera Holler (board member)
North Canyon Ranch Owners Association Board of Directors
Seconded motion to deny petitioner's appeal
Petra Paul (Executive VP of Management Services)
Management Services
Vice President of management services, communicated with Petitioner about the appeal
Beth Mulcahy (HOA attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
Listed as contact for transmission of the decision

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge (also referred to as Sandra Vanella)
James Knupp (Acting Commissioner, ADRE)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of the decision

Matthew E Thompson v. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc

Posted on December 20, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H003-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-12-20
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Association violated community documents by failing to replace trees on Member lots. The CC&Rs did not establish a duty for the HOA to replace homeowner trees.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Matthew E Thompson	Counsel	—
Respondent	Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc.	Counsel	Beth Mulcahy, Esq. & Haidyn Di Lorenzo, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Sun City West Dec CC&Rs Article 4.2(F); Deer Valley CC&Rs Articles 1.16, 6.2, 2.3, 7.1, 7.3; Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.1 and 7.2

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Association violated community documents by failing to replace trees on Member lots. The CC&Rs did not establish a duty for the HOA to replace homeowner trees.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; Petitioner was not an aggrieved party; Petitioner failed to establish causation by Respondent or duty to act by Respondent; trees belong to homeowners, and the Deer Valley CC&Rs do not require the HOA to replace trees under its maintenance obligations.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Respondent is responsible for replacing dead and/or dying trees on all Member Lots in accordance with cited community documents.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated governing documents by failing to replace dead trees on member lots, and sought an order compelling the replacement of 59 missing trees (at a rate of 10 per year).

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Sun City West Dec CC&Rs Article 4.2(F)
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 1.16
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 6.2
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 2.3
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 7.1
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 7.3
Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.1
Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, Landscape maintenance, Tree replacement, Burden of proof, Standing

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1001043.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:55:51 (58.8 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1001154.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:55:55 (7.1 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1021049.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:56:02 (133.5 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 999666.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:56:09 (53.9 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1001043.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:08 (58.8 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1001154.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:14 (7.1 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1021049.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:17 (133.5 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 999666.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:20 (53.9 KB)

This is a summary of the administrative hearing proceedings in the matter of *Matthew E Thompson, Petitioner, vs. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc., Respondent* (No. 23F-H003-REL). The hearing, presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark, was held on December 12, 2022.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner, Matthew Thompson (a homeowner and former Board member), filed a single-issue petition alleging the Deer Valley Homeowners Association (HOA) violated community documents by failing to replace dead trees within the community. Petitioner paid a $500 filing fee for the adjudication of this single issue.

Petitioner's Position: The HOA has an obligation to replace dead or missing trees, relying on provisions within the Deer Valley CC&Rs (subdivision declaration) and the Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations concerning "maintenance" and the Board's role in setting "priorities for plant and tree replacement". Petitioner asserted that the value of his property was negatively impacted by the approximately 59 missing or dying trees on neighboring lots, arguing he has standing because he pays common assessments for landscape maintenance.

Respondent's Position: The HOA denied the allegations. The current Board interprets the Deer Valley CC&Rs as *not* requiring tree replacement, noting that the documents only mention maintenance and specifically limit replacement obligations to irrigation parts. The Board's policy is to replace trees only if the death or damage is proven to be caused by the Association’s negligence or willful maintenance.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

Procedural Matters: At the outset, Respondent's counsel raised motions to dismiss.

Jurisdiction/Relief: Counsel sought clarification that the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and OAH lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief or monetary damages. The ALJ confirmed that the only relief available was an order for a party to abide by specific documents, denying the requested injunctive relief of compelling the HOA to plant 10 trees annually.
Standing (Injury in Fact): Respondent argued Petitioner lacked standing because he failed to allege a personalized injury, as no trees were missing or dead on his personal lot, and he cannot pursue disputes on behalf of other homeowners.
Wrong Party: Respondent argued that the minimum tree requirement cited by Petitioner originated in the Sun City West Declaration (the Master Association), which Deer Valley HOA (the sub-association) is not responsible for enforcing.

Motion for Summary Judgment: After Petitioner presented his case-in-chief, Respondent renewed the motion, arguing that the evidence showed, as a matter of law, that the Deer Valley CC&Rs do not require tree replacement.

ALJ Ruling on Motions: The ALJ denied the motions to dismiss/summary judgment, citing an issue of fact regarding the interpretation of the CC&Rs and the necessity of establishing a definitive record.

Witness Testimony: The HOA Board President, Charles Dean Otto, testified that the Board does not interpret replacement as a requirement and respects homeowners who do not want more trees on their lots. He noted that the requirement of four trees per lot was in the Master Association documents, potentially intended for marketing, and was not intended to be maintained in perpetuity by the Deer Valley HOA.

Legal Points and Final Outcome

The ALJ, after reviewing the record, issued a FINAL ORDER denying the Petitioner's petition.

Legal Conclusions:

Burden of Proof: Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the cited community documents.
Lack of Standing (Aggrieved Party): Petitioner was found not to be an "aggrieved party" because he admitted that he brought the petition "on behalf of all community members" and did not have a dead, dying, or missing tree on his

CC&Rs
Master Association

Case

Docket No: 23F-H003-REL
Case Title: Matthew E Thompson vs. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc.
Decision Date: 2022-12-20
Alj Name: Jenna Clark
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

If the CC&Rs require the HOA to perform 'maintenance', does that legally obligate them to replace dead plants or trees?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The term 'maintenance' does not automatically include 'replacement' unless specified in the governing documents.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

The Board declined Petitioner’s request, as it had concluded that the Deer Valley CC&Rs did not require replacement of trees under its maintenance obligations.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation / CC&Rs

Topic Tags

Maintenance vs Replacement
CC&Rs
Landscaping

Question

Can I file a petition against my HOA on behalf of the entire community regarding a general issue?

Short Answer

No. You must be an 'aggrieved party' with a specific injury to yourself or your property.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Here, Petitioner is not an aggrieved party. Petitioner admitted that he brought forth his petition 'on behalf of all community members' and did not have a dead, dying, or missing tree on his lot.

Legal Basis

Standing / Aggrieved Party Status

Topic Tags

Standing
Procedural Requirements

Question

Can I argue that my neighbor's violations are diminishing my property value in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

Generally, no, unless you have concrete evidence and it is a justiciable issue.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Evidence / Justiciable Issues

Topic Tags

Property Value
Evidence

Question

If I pay a filing fee for one issue, can I add other complaints to the hearing later?

Short Answer

No. The tribunal will only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioner raised in the addendum to his petition.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05

Topic Tags

Filing Fees
Scope of Hearing

Question

Does the HOA have the authority to remove items (like trees) from my private lot without permission?

Short Answer

No, unless the governing documents explicitly grant that authority.

Detailed Answer

The HOA generally cannot enter a homeowner's lot to remove property, such as trees, without the owner's permission, unless the record establishes specific authority to do so.

Alj Quote

There is nothing in the record that establishes Respondent has the authority to remove a tree from a homeowner’s lot without permission, or that Respondent has done so in the past.

Legal Basis

Property Rights / HOA Authority

Topic Tags

Homeowner Rights
Trespass/Authority

Question

What level of proof is required for a homeowner to win a case against their HOA?

Short Answer

The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

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

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

Legal Standards
Evidence

Question

Can I base my claim on the 'Master Association' CC&Rs if my specific HOA CC&Rs say something different?

Short Answer

Generally, the specific HOA CC&Rs form the enforceable contract for maintenance issues within that specific subdivision.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

The record reflects that the Deer Valley CC&Rs govern landscaping maintenance for the Association… [and] did not require Respondent to replace dead, dying, or missing trees within the Association

Legal Basis

Governing Documents Hierarchy

Topic Tags

CC&Rs
Master Association

Case

Docket No: 23F-H003-REL
Case Title: Matthew E Thompson vs. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc.
Decision Date: 2022-12-20
Alj Name: Jenna Clark
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Matthew E Thompson (petitioner)
Also referred to as Mathew E. Thompson; Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Beth Mulcahy (HOA attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
Also referred to as Beth Mohei, Beth Moi, or Beth Mali
Haidyn DiLorenzo (HOA attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
Also referred to as Hayden Dorenzo
Charles Dean Otto (Board President; witness)
Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc.
Also referred to as Charles Deano; President of the board of management

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge

Other Participants

Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardener (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Constituent Services Manager
Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
Transmitted electronic order
c. serrano (OAH staff)
OAH
Transmitted Minute Entry
Sam Muza (Contractor President)
Verde Valley Landscape Services
Signed contract with HOA
Charlene Frost (homeowner)
Filed Request for Exterior Change application
vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence
labril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence

Susan L Jarzabek v. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2

Posted on November 19, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2221008-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-11-19
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	Petitioner's complaint regarding the wrongful assessment of attorney's fees was dismissed because she failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA violated its Policy regarding pre-attorney notification requirements.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Susan L Jarzabek	Counsel	—
Respondent	Hillcrest Improvement Association #2	Counsel	Haidyn DiLorenzo, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 1, Section 10; Enforcement, Fines and Appeals Policy ("Policy")

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's complaint regarding the wrongful assessment of attorney's fees was dismissed because she failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA violated its Policy regarding pre-attorney notification requirements.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof; the ALJ found the Policy does not require the two notices prior to attorney escalation, as Petitioner had alleged.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of Policy concerning attorney's fees assessment and required pre-litigation notices.

Petitioner alleged the Association wrongfully assessed attorney's fees, arguing the Policy required providing the owner two warning notices and a certified letter before escalating a matter to attorney involvement.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: attorney fees, HOA policy enforcement, notice requirements, CC&Rs, due process

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221008-REL Decision – 926455.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:38:50 (93.9 KB)

22F-H2221008-REL Decision – 926455.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:13 (93.9 KB)

This summary pertains to the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Susan L Jarzabek (Petitioner) vs. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2 (Respondent), heard on November 5, 2021.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The Petitioner, Susan L. Jarzabek, filed a petition alleging that the Respondent Association violated CC&R Article 1, Section 10 and its Enforcement, Fines and Appeals Policy ("Policy") by wrongfully charging her attorney’s fees. The underlying dispute involved a neighbor's complaint regarding a tree on Ms. Jarzabek's property.

Ms. Jarzabek, the sole record owner, argued that the Association’s Policy requires the owner of record to be provided two warning notices and a certified letter before a matter can be escalated to attorney involvement, thus making the assessment of fees improper. She also contended she was denied due process because she did not receive proper notice of the allegations. Although the Association assessed fines and interest related to the violation, these charges were rescinded prior to the hearing.

The Association’s documents grant it the ability to recover enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees (CC&R Art. VIII, Section 1). Crucially, the Association’s Policy provides that if a matter is escalated to the attorney, the standard notice-procedure will no longer apply, and the owner is responsible for the associated fees and costs.

The facts showed that the Association sent a certified letter (January 15, 2019) regarding the tree violation, but it was addressed to Ms. Jarzabek’s husband, John Jarzabek, and was not claimed by either party. Furthermore, this January 15, 2019 letter did not meet all the required elements for a Notice of Violation under the Association’s policy. The Association engaged counsel (The Mulcahy Law Firm) on October 15, 2019, which subsequently sent Notices of Violation to Ms. Jarzabek.

Legal Analysis and Outcome

The matter was governed by the Department of Real Estate's authority concerning alleged violations of community documents. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to show the alleged violation occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered the Policy a contract with which both parties must comply.

The ALJ concluded that Ms. Jarzabek did not meet her burden to prove the Association violated the Policy. The central legal finding was that the Policy, as written, does not require that an owner receive two notices before a matter is escalated to attorney involvement.

Final Decision

Based on this finding, the ALJ ordered that Susan L. Jarzabek’s petition be dismissed. The ALJ noted that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine whether the attorney’s fees levied against Ms. Jarzabek constituted a valid debt, offering no opinion on that specific debt issue.

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “22F-H2221008-REL”,
“case_title”: “Susan L Jarzabek, Petitioner, vs. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2, Respondent”,
“decision_date”: “November 19, 2021”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Susan L Jarzabek”,
“role”: “petitioner, witness”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Haidyn DiLorenzo”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Counsel for Respondent”
},
{
“name”: “Thomas Shedden”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Robert Cody”,
“role”: “board president, witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Hillcrest Improvement Association #2”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “John Jarzabek”,
“role”: “spouse”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Petitioner’s husband, named on certified letter sent by Association”
},
{
“name”: “Louis Dettorre”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission”
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “DGardner”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “vnunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “Beth Mulcahy”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Mulcahy Law Firm, PC”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission; firm engaged by Association”
},
{
“name”: “Miranda Alvarez”,
“role”: “OAH staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitter of Decision”
}
]
}

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2221008-REL”, “case_title”: “Susan L Jarzabek vs. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2”, “decision_date”: “2021-11-19”, “alj_name”: “Thomas Shedden”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA send a violation directly to their attorney without sending me warning letters first?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the community’s enforcement policy allows for immediate escalation to legal counsel.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ ruled that the HOA did not violate its policy by involving a lawyer without prior notices, because the policy contained a provision stating that the standard notice procedure ceases to apply once a matter is escalated to an attorney.”, “alj_quote”: “The Policy also provides in pertinent part that the Association may escalate a matter to its attorney for further action, if a matter is escalated to the attorney, the notice-procedure will no longer apply”, “legal_basis”: “HOA Enforcement Policy / Contract Law”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement process”, “attorney referral”, “notice requirements” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA sends my violation to a lawyer, do I have to pay the attorney’s fees?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, generally, if the CC&Rs and enforcement policy state that the owner is responsible for enforcement costs.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision notes that the governing documents (CC&Rs) specifically allow the Association to recover enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees, from the owner. Additionally, the specific policy noted that upon escalation, the owner becomes responsible for these costs.”, “alj_quote”: “CC&R Art. VIII, Section 1, Enforcement, provides that the Association may recover from an owner its enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 1”, “topic_tags”: [ “attorney fees”, “fines and penalties”, “collection costs” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA did something wrong in a hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) filing the complaint bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “When a homeowner petitions the Department of Real Estate alleging a violation by the HOA, it is up to the homeowner to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Jarzabek bears the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal procedure”, “hearing standards” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA’s enforcement policy legally considered a binding contract?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the policy is treated as part of the contract between the HOA and the homeowners.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge affirmed that community policies are part of the contractual agreement between the parties, meaning both the homeowner and the HOA are legally required to follow the terms written in that policy.”, “alj_quote”: “The Policy is part of contract between the parties and the parties are required to comply with its terms.”, “legal_basis”: “Contract Law; Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract law”, “governing documents”, “policy enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge cancel the specific debt or fees I owe the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily; the tribunal’s jurisdiction may be limited to determining if a violation of documents occurred, not the validity of the debt itself.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ explicitly noted in a footnote that while they can determine if the HOA violated its policy, they did not have the jurisdiction to decide if the specific attorney’s fees charged constituted a valid debt.”, “alj_quote”: “it is not within this tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine whether the attorney’s fees levied against Ms. Jarzabek are a valid debt, and the tribunal offers no opinion on that issue.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “debt validity”, “tribunal limitations” ] }, { “question”: “What standard of evidence is used to make a decision in an HOA dispute?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the evidence must show it is more likely than not that the claim is true. It is described as the greater weight of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “evidence”, “administrative hearing” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Susan L Jarzabek (petitioner, witness)

Respondent Side

Haidyn DiLorenzo (HOA attorney)
Counsel for Respondent
Robert Cody (board president, witness)
Hillcrest Improvement Association #2
Beth Mulcahy (HOA attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
Recipient of transmission; firm engaged by Association

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Louis Dettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission (via email)
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission (via email)
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission (via email)
vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission (via email)
Miranda Alvarez (OAH staff)
Transmitter of Decision

Other Participants

John Jarzabek (spouse)
Petitioner's husband, named on certified letter sent by Association

David Carr vs. Sunset Plaza Condominium Association

Posted on September 9, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	16F-H1616011-BFS
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-09-09
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Association did not violate the By-Laws regarding the special meeting request and that the homeowners' attempted amendments were invalid because authority to amend rests with the Board.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	David Carr	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sunset Plaza Condo Association	Counsel	Paige Hulton

Alleged Violations

Article VI, Section 2 of By-Laws

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Association did not violate the By-Laws regarding the special meeting request and that the homeowners' attempted amendments were invalid because authority to amend rests with the Board.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove a violation of the By-Laws; the Board had authority to set the meeting schedule and the governing documents did not grant homeowners the power to amend By-Laws without Board action.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to call special meeting and recognize amendments

Petitioner alleged the HOA Board violated the By-Laws by denying a request for a special meeting and refusing to adopt amendments passed by homeowners at a meeting they organized themselves.

Orders: Petition dismissed. Respondent deemed prevailing party. Respondent's request for civil penalty against Petitioner denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

16F-H1616011-BFS Decision – 517259.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:58:21 (44.0 KB)

16F-H1616011-BFS Decision – 517327.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:58:27 (89.5 KB)

16F-H1616011-BFS Decision – 525294.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:58:32 (62.1 KB)

16F-H1616011-BFS Decision – 517259.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:17 (44.0 KB)

16F-H1616011-BFS Decision – 517327.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:17 (89.5 KB)

16F-H1616011-BFS Decision – 525294.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:17 (62.1 KB)

Briefing on Administrative Law Judge Decision: Carr v. Sunset Plaza Condo Association

Executive Summary

This briefing outlines the administrative legal proceedings and final decision in the matter of David Carr v. Sunset Plaza Condo Association (No. 16F-H1616011-BFS). The case originated from a dispute regarding the rights of homeowners to call special meetings and unilaterally amend association By-Laws and Rules.

The Petitioner, David Carr, alleged that the Sunset Plaza Condo Association violated its own By-Laws by refusing to schedule a requested special meeting and subsequently failing to recognize amendments passed by a subset of homeowners during an unsanctioned meeting. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Thomas Shedden, determined that the Association acted within its authority and that the power to amend By-Laws resides with the Board of Management, not the general membership. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the decision was certified as final by the Department of Real Estate on October 26, 2016.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Governance and Amendment Authority

The central conflict in this matter involved a misunderstanding of which body holds the authority to amend governing documents. The Petitioner argued that amendments passed by nine homeowners (a quorum of the sixteen-home association) at an unofficial meeting should be binding.

However, the analysis of the Association’s governing documents revealed a clear hierarchy:

By-Law Amendments: Article XIII of the By-Laws stipulates that amendments are made by a majority of a quorum of the Board at regular or special meetings, provided notice is given.
Rule Amendments: The Association’s Declaration [paragraph 3(K)] grants the Board authority to make and amend rules, which become binding once a majority of homeowners approve them in writing.
Petitioner Error: The ALJ noted that the Petitioner failed to provide legal authority showing homeowners have the power to independently amend By-Laws or Rules without Board action.

2. Procedural Compliance for Special Meetings

The dispute was triggered by a request for a special meeting under Article VI, Section 2 of the By-Laws, which allows five or more homeowners to apply in writing to the Board Chairman for such a meeting.

The Board's actions were found to be compliant because:

The homeowners' request letter explicitly stated that if their proposed date (February 13, 2016) was unacceptable, the meeting should be held within thirty days.
The Board denied the February 13 date but scheduled an open meeting for February 22, 2016—within the requested thirty-day window.
The Board provided an agenda and invited homeowners to submit additional items for discussion, thereby fulfilling the spirit and letter of the meeting request.

3. Evidentiary Standards and Burden of Proof

As the Petitioner, Mr. Carr carried the burden of proof to demonstrate a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The Association carried the same burden regarding its request for civil penalties against Mr. Carr.

Preponderance of the Evidence: Defined in the proceedings as evidence with "the most convincing force" and "superior evidentiary weight."
Findings: The ALJ ruled that Mr. Carr did not meet his burden of proof regarding the alleged violations. Conversely, while the Board prevailed, it failed to prove that Mr. Carr’s actions warranted a civil penalty, as misconstruing documents does not necessarily constitute a violation of those documents.

4. Administrative Jurisdiction and Reassignment

The case highlights a shift in Arizona administrative oversight. Originally, the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety issued the Notice of Hearing. However, effective July 1, 2016, responsibilities for such matters were reassigned to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote	Context
"A special meeting of the membership may be called upon written application to the Board of Management’s Chairman by five or more homeowners."	Context: The specific provision (Article VI, Section 2) of the By-Laws that the Petitioner claimed the Association violated.
"Mr. Carr was confused as to the nature of the condominium documents at issue, frequently referring to the Articles of Incorporation, but because the Association is not incorporated, there are no Articles."	Context: ALJ Shedden noting the Petitioner's lack of legal clarity regarding the Association's corporate status and governing structure.
"The By-Laws and Declaration show that this authority [to amend] rests with the Board… Consequently, there is no authority for the Board to make the changes that were purportedly passed on February 13, 2016."	Context: The legal reasoning for dismissing the claim that the homeowners' "vote" to change rules was valid.
"Although Mr. Carr has misconstrued the condominium documents at issue, the Association has not shown that he violated any of these documents."	Context: The ALJ’s reasoning for denying the Association’s request to assess a civil penalty against the Petitioner.

Actionable Insights

For Association Boards

Strict Adherence to Timelines: When homeowners request a special meeting, the Board should respond within the requested timeframe or the timeframe dictated by the By-Laws. In this case, offering an alternative date within 30 days was sufficient to avoid a violation.
Document Hierarchy: Boards must maintain clear distinctions between the Declaration and the By-Laws. Consistency between these documents is vital to defending against claims of "conflict" between provisions.
Procedural Transparency: Providing an open meeting agenda and allowing homeowner input can serve as a defense against claims that the Board is "declining" to address member concerns.

For Homeowners

Verification of Amendment Power: Before attempting to vote on changes to association rules, members must verify through the By-Laws whether the power to amend lies with the membership or the Board.
Official vs. Unofficial Meetings: "Special meetings" held by homeowners without Board sanction—even if a quorum of members is present—may not have the legal authority to effect changes to governing documents.
Administrative Recourse: Parties dissatisfied with an ALJ decision have the right to request a rehearing from the Department of Real Estate or seek judicial review in Superior Court, provided they act within the statutory timeframes (typically within 30 days of the decision being certified).

Final Administrative Status

The decision rendered by ALJ Thomas Shedden on September 9, 2016, was transmitted to the Department of Real Estate. Because the Department took no action to reject or modify the decision by October 17, 2016, it was officially certified as the final administrative decision on October 26, 2016.

Study Guide: Administrative Law and Condominium Association Disputes

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and administrative principles found within the case of David Carr vs. Sunset Plaza Condo Association. It covers the regulatory framework, the nature of condominium governance, and the standards of proof applied in Arizona administrative hearings.

I. Case Overview and Key Entities

The Dispute

The case involves a petition filed by David Carr (Petitioner) against the Sunset Plaza Condo Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute centered on whether the Association's Board of Management violated its own By-Laws by denying a request for a special meeting and refusing to incorporate changes to the By-Laws and Rules voted upon by a subset of homeowners.

Principal Entities and Figures

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH): The Phoenix-based office responsible for conducting hearings on administrative matters.
Arizona Department of Real Estate: The agency with authority over this matter as of July 1, 2016. It assumed responsibilities previously held by the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
Thomas Shedden: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the hearing and issued the decision.
David Carr: The Petitioner, a homeowner who represented himself in the proceedings.
Sunset Plaza Condo Association: The Respondent, an unincorporated association represented by legal counsel.

II. Key Legal and Procedural Concepts

1. Regulatory Jurisdiction

Under ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11, the Department of Real Estate holds the authority to oversee disputes involving condominium documents and community associations.

2. Condominium Governing Documents

The hierarchy and authority of an association are defined by specific documents:

By-Laws: Regulations governing the internal management of the association. In this case, Article VI, Section 2 governed the calling of special meetings, and Article XIII governed the amendment process.
Declaration: A document outlining the broader powers of the Board and the Association. At Sunset Plaza, paragraph 3(K) of the Declaration granted the Board authority to make and amend rules, subject to homeowner approval.
Articles of Incorporation: These were notably absent in this case because the Sunset Plaza Condo Association is not incorporated.

3. Burden of Proof: Preponderance of the Evidence

In administrative hearings under ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119, the standard of proof is the "preponderance of the evidence." This is defined as the greater weight of evidence that has the most convincing force. It does not require the elimination of all reasonable doubt but must incline an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

4. Administrative Decision Certification

An ALJ's decision is not always the final word immediately. The process includes:

Transmittal: The ALJ transmits the decision to the relevant agency (Department of Real Estate).
Review Period: The agency has a set timeframe (in this case, approximately 35 days) to accept, reject, or modify the decision.
Certification: If the agency takes no action within the statutory timeframe, the ALJ’s decision is certified as the final administrative decision by operation of law (A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D)).

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

Which agency originally issued the Notice of Hearing for this matter, and which agency eventually took over its responsibilities?
According to Article VI, Section 2 of the Sunset Plaza By-Laws, what is the requirement for calling a special meeting of the membership?
On what grounds did the Board deny the homeowners' request for a special meeting on February 13, 2016?
What was the outcome of the unofficial meeting held by nine homeowners on February 13, 2016?
How many homes are in the Sunset Plaza Condo Association, and how many homeowners constitute a quorum?
According to Article XIII of the By-Laws, who has the authority to amend the By-Laws, and what is required?
Why was David Carr's argument regarding the "Articles of Incorporation" dismissed?
What is the effective date of an ALJ decision once it has been certified by the Director?
The Association requested a civil penalty against Mr. Carr. Why did the ALJ deny this request?
What are the two primary options for a party who loses an administrative decision and wishes to challenge it?

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

The Balance of Authority: Analyze the conflict between the homeowners' attempt to self-govern and the Board's established legal authority. In the context of Carr vs. Sunset Plaza, explain why the homeowners' vote to change the By-Laws was deemed invalid despite achieving a quorum.
Procedural Fairness in Administrative Actions: Discuss the Board’s response to the request for a special meeting. Did the Board’s decision to schedule an open meeting on February 22 instead of the requested February 13 meet the "sufficient facts and circumstances" threshold to avoid a violation of the By-Laws? Support your argument with the ALJ's findings.
The Standard of Evidence: Define "preponderance of the evidence" as used in this case. Contrast it with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal law. Why is the preponderance standard appropriate for administrative disputes between homeowners and associations?
The Finality of Administrative Decisions: Describe the lifecycle of an administrative decision from the hearing to certification. Explain the significance of A.R.S. § 41-1092.08 regarding agency inaction and the resulting "final agency action."

V. Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	An official who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies.
ALJCERT	A designation indicating that an ALJ decision has been certified as the final agency action.
By-Laws	The rules and regulations adopted by an organization for its administration and management.
Civil Penalty	A financial fine imposed by an administrative judge for violations of statutes or community documents.
Declaration	A legal document that defines the rights and obligations of property owners within a common interest development.
Petitioner	The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, David Carr).
Preponderance of the Evidence	Evidence that has superior weight or convincing force, making a fact more likely than not.
Quorum	The minimum number of members of an assembly that must be present to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.
Respondent	The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, Sunset Plaza Condo Association).
Superior Court	The court of general jurisdiction where parties may seek judicial review of a final administrative decision.

Understanding the Limits of Homeowner Autonomy: Lessons from the Sunset Plaza Case

1. Introduction: The Conflict at Sunset Plaza

In the complex landscape of community association governance, a recurring friction point exists between the elected Board of Directors and homeowners who feel their interests are being sidelined. This tension reached a legal flashpoint in the case of Carr v. Sunset Plaza Condo Association, where a group of homeowners attempted a "rebel" takeover of the community’s governing documents.

Frustrated by what they perceived as Board inaction, these owners organized a "special meeting" to force a slate of amendments. However, as this case demonstrates, passion for reform does not supersede the rule of law. David Carr’s subsequent legal challenge provides a masterclass in the common pitfalls of pro se litigants—most notably illustrated by his persistent confusion regarding the association's legal status, as he repeatedly referenced nonexistent "Articles of Incorporation" for an unincorporated association. The central question remains: Can homeowners unilaterally rewrite community rules when they feel the Board is being unresponsive?

2. The Catalyst: A Request for Action

The dispute began in early 2016 with a lack of formality that would later undermine the homeowners' legal standing. Six homeowners submitted an undated letter to the Board of Management requesting a special meeting for February 13, 2016, to vote on various community issues. The letter did, however, provide a concession: if the proposed date was unacceptable, the meeting should be held "within thirty days."

The Board, exercising its administrative discretion, issued a notice on February 4, 2016, denying the February 13th request. Instead, they pointed to a scheduled open meeting on February 22, 2016, providing an agenda and an invitation for members to submit discussion items. This move was a tactical and legal fulfillment of their duties under the By-Laws.

Article VI, Section 2 "A special meeting of the membership may be called upon written application to the Board of Management’s Chairman by five or more homeowners."

3. The "Rebel" Meeting of February 13

Refusing to accept the Board's alternative, the homeowners opted for "self-help" governance. On February 5, 2016, homeowner Leslie Grant notified the community that the February 13th meeting would proceed regardless of Board approval. To further this unsanctioned effort, Ms. Grant distributed "replacement ballots" to the membership on February 10, just three days before their gathering.

On February 13, nine homeowners—representing a quorum of the sixteen-home association—met and voted to pass eleven revisions to the By-Laws and Rules. When the Board predictably refused to recognize these votes, the battle moved to the courts. It is worth noting that while this dispute brewed, the Board demonstrated proper procedural authority by formally amending the By-Laws themselves, effective March 24, 2016—a sharp contrast to the homeowners' informal maneuvers.

4. The Legal Battle: Carr v. Sunset Plaza Condo Association

On April 4, 2016, David Carr filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. Following a legislative shift, jurisdiction was transferred to the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 1, 2016. To prevail, Carr had to meet the "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard.

Preponderance of the Evidence: The greater weight of the evidence… evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Thomas Shedden, found that the "greater weight" of evidence favored the Association. The Board’s decision to offer the February 22nd meeting was deemed a reasonable and timely response to the homeowners' own request for a meeting "within thirty days."

Petitioner’s Claims vs. Court Findings

Petitioner’s Claims	Court Findings
The Board violated Article VI, Section 2 by refusing the February 13th special meeting.	No Violation: The Board acted reasonably by providing a meeting on Feb 22, which fell within the "thirty-day" window suggested in the homeowners' own letter.
The Feb 13th vote was valid because a quorum of homeowners was present.	Invalid Action: Per Article XIII, the authority to amend By-Laws is reserved for the Board, not a quorum of homeowners acting independently.
The Board must be forced to incorporate the eleven revisions passed on Feb 13th.	No Legal Basis: Under Paragraph 3(K) of the Declaration, homeowners lack the authority to initiate and pass By-Law amendments unilaterally.

5. Key Legal Takeaway: Who Truly Holds the Power?

The ALJ’s ruling underscores the "hierarchy of documents" that serves as the bedrock of community law. Expert review of the Sunset Plaza records even revealed a clerical mess: the re-typed Declaration contained a typographical error, featuring two "Paragraph 2s" and no "Paragraph 3," meaning the Board’s rule-making authority (Paragraph 3(K)) was often cited as 2(K) in correspondence. Despite such record-keeping flaws, the legal hierarchy remained clear:

Article XIII of the By-Laws: Explicitly reserves the power to amend By-Laws to a majority of a quorum of the Board.
Paragraph 3(K) of the Declaration: Confirms the Board’s authority to make and amend rules.

The ALJ clarified a nuanced distinction: while the Board drafts and amends rules, those rules only become binding once approved by a majority of homeowners in writing. Crucially, this is a veto or confirmation power, not a legislative power. Homeowners cannot bypass the Board to create their own laws.

6. The Final Verdict and Certification

On September 9, 2016, ALJ Shedden dismissed David Carr’s petition. While the Association pushed for Carr to be hit with civil penalties for filing a "frivolous" petition, the Judge declined. He noted that while Carr was legally mistaken and had "misconstrued" the documents—largely due to his confusion over the association's lack of incorporation—his actions did not rise to the level of a fineable violation.

The procedural finality of the case is a reminder of administrative timelines. The decision was transmitted to the Department of Real Estate on September 12, 2016. Because the Department took no action to modify or reject the decision by the October 17, 2016 deadline, the ALJ’s decision was officially certified as final on October 26, 2016.

7. Conclusion: Navigating Condo Governance

The Carr v. Sunset Plaza case is a cautionary tale for those who favor "rebel" governance over established procedure. For homeowners and boards, three critical takeaways emerge:

Adhere to the Document Hierarchy: The Declaration and By-Laws are not mere suggestions; they are binding contracts. Amendments must originate from the body granted authority by those documents—usually the Board.
A Quorum is Not a Mandate: While a quorum allows a meeting to conduct business, it does not grant homeowners the power to perform acts (like amending By-Laws) that the governing documents specifically reserve for the Board of Directors.
Reasonable Alternatives Prevent Litigation: The Association’s strongest defense was the Board's willingness to facilitate dialogue. By offering the February 22nd meeting as a reasonable alternative to the homeowners' demand, the Board neutralized the claim that they were "refusing" to meet.

Effective change in a community association is achieved through the ballot box and formal amendment processes, not through unsanctioned meetings and "replacement ballots." Following the law is always more cost-effective than a failed day in court.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

David Carr (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Paige Hulton (attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
Attorney for Respondent at hearing
Beth Mulcahy (attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
Listed on mailing list for final certification

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presiding Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the decision
Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Processed mailing of certification

Other Participants

Leslie Grant (homeowner)
Wrote letters regarding special meeting; provided replacement ballot

Sawicki, Carl A. vs. Clearwater Farms Estates

Posted on January 29, 2009 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	08F-H089015-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2009-01-29
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	The ALJ granted the Respondent's request to dismiss the petition, finding that the Petitioner's single issue did not give rise to a cause of action because the governing documents did not prohibit the Association from holding a second vote to amend the By-Laws.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Carl A. Sawicki	Counsel	—
Respondent	Clearwater Farms Estates	Counsel	Beth Mulcahy

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Paragraph 5; Article X, Paragraph 3

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the Respondent's request to dismiss the petition, finding that the Petitioner's single issue did not give rise to a cause of action because the governing documents did not prohibit the Association from holding a second vote to amend the By-Laws.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to identify any provision in the By-Laws that prohibited the Respondent from conducting a second vote after the first vote failed.

Key Issues & Findings

Validity of Second Vote to Amend By-Laws

Petitioner argued that because a quorum was present at the first vote (which failed), the Respondent was precluded from holding a second vote to amend the By-Laws in December 2008.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Article IV, Paragraph 5
Article X, Paragraph 3

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H089015-BFS Decision – 206857.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:36:40 (63.8 KB)

08F-H089015-BFS Decision – 206857.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:13 (63.8 KB)

Briefing on Administrative Decision: Sawicki v. Clearwater Farms Estates

Executive Summary

This briefing examines the administrative decision in the case of Carl A. Sawicki vs. Clearwater Farms Estates (No. 08F-H089015-BFS), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings on January 29, 2009. The dispute centered on whether a homeowners’ association is prohibited from conducting a subsequent vote to amend its By-Laws shortly after an initial vote on the same amendment failed to pass despite reaching a quorum.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Respondent, Clearwater Farms Estates, dismissing the petition. The core finding was that the association’s By-Laws did not contain any provisions restricting or prohibiting multiple votes on amendments. Furthermore, the ruling clarified the limited jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings, noting it only has the power to address specific violations of planned community documents or state statutes as granted by law.

Case Overview and Parties

Entity

Carl A. Sawicki

Petitioner

Clearwater Farms Estates

Respondent

Lewis D. Kowal

Administrative Law Judge

Office of Administrative Hearings

Adjudicating Agency

Decision Date

January 29, 2009

Factual Timeline and Dispute

The controversy arose from two distinct attempts by the Clearwater Farms Estates Board of Directors to amend the association’s By-Laws to align with changes in Arizona State law regarding planned communities.

1. The First Vote (November 6, 2008)

• Status: A quorum of members was present, satisfying Article IV, Paragraph 5 of the By-Laws.

• Outcome: The amendment failed to pass.

• Reason for Failure: The vote did not reach the 2/3 majority of the membership required by Article X, Paragraph 3 of the By-Laws.

2. The Second Vote (December 4, 2008)

• Status: A quorum of members was present.

• Outcome: The amendment passed.

• Reason for Success: A 2/3 majority of the membership voted in favor of the amendment.

The Petitioner’s Argument

Petitioner Carl A. Sawicki did not dispute the mathematical results of the second vote. Instead, he argued that because a quorum was present during the first (failed) vote, the Respondent was legally or procedurally precluded from holding a second vote on the same amendment so soon after the first.

The Respondent’s Argument

Respondent Clearwater Farms Estates contended that the act of holding a second vote did not constitute a violation of the association’s By-Laws.

Legal Analysis and Jurisdictional Framework

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision rested on two primary pillars: the statutory limits of the agency’s authority and the specific language of the association’s governing documents.

Statutory Authority and Jurisdiction

The decision emphasized that the Office of Administrative Hearings is a creature of statute and lacks broad judicial powers.

• Limited Powers: The OAH does not possess “common law or inherent powers.” Its duties are strictly limited to those granted by statute (Ayala v. Hill, 136 Ariz. 88).

• Scope of Review: Under A.R.S. §§ 41-2198 and 41-2198.01(B), the agency’s jurisdiction is limited to determining if an association violated:

◦ Articles of Incorporation

◦ Bylaws

◦ Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

◦ A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9 or 16

Determination of the Issue

Upon review of the By-Laws and arguments, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to state a valid cause of action.

• Absence of Prohibition: The ALJ found that none of the By-Law provisions relied upon by the Petitioner—nor any other provisions in the documents—prohibit or restrict the membership from holding a second vote to amend the By-Laws.

• Lack of Violation: Because there was no rule against a second vote, the association could not have committed a violation.

Final Order

The Office of Administrative Hearings issued the following mandates:

1. Dismissal: The Respondent’s Request to Dismiss Petition was granted.

2. Removal from Docket: The matter was vacated from the OAH docket.

3. Finality: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A), the order serves as the final administrative decision. It is not subject to requests for rehearing.

Key Legal Citations

Study Guide: Sawicki v. Clearwater Farms Estates Administrative Decision

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative case Carl A. Sawicki v. Clearwater Farms Estates (No. 08F-H089015-BFS). It is designed to assist in understanding the legal arguments, the jurisdiction of administrative bodies in Arizona, and the specific outcomes regarding the governance of planned communities.

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided source context.

1. Who are the parties involved in this case and what is their legal relationship?

2. What occurred during the First Vote on November 6, 2008, regarding the Respondent’s By-Laws?

3. Why did the Clearwater Farms Estates Board of Directors seek to amend the By-Laws?

4. How did the outcome of the Second Vote on December 4, 2008, differ from the First Vote?

5. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument against the validity of the Second Vote?

6. According to the decision, how are the powers and duties of administrative agencies limited?

7. What specific documents or statutes does the Office of Administrative Hearings have the jurisdiction to review in cases involving planned communities?

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s claim that a second vote was prohibited?

9. What was the final order issued by Judge Lewis D. Kowal on January 29, 2009?

10. What is the status of this decision regarding further administrative appeals or rehearings?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. Who are the parties involved in this case and what is their legal relationship? The Petitioner is Carl A. Sawicki, and the Respondent is Clearwater Farms Estates. The case was heard in the Office of Administrative Hearings to determine if the Respondent violated its planned community documents or state statutes.

2. What occurred during the First Vote on November 6, 2008, regarding the Respondent’s By-Laws? A quorum was present for the First Vote as required by Article IV, Paragraph 5 of the By-Laws. However, the amendment failed to pass because it did not receive the 2/3 majority vote of the membership required by Article X, Paragraph 3.

3. Why did the Clearwater Farms Estates Board of Directors seek to amend the By-Laws? The Board of Directors initiated the amendment process to ensure the community’s internal rules were updated. Specifically, the amendment was sought to conform the By-Laws to changes in Arizona State law regarding planned communities.

4. How did the outcome of the Second Vote on December 4, 2008, differ from the First Vote? Unlike the first attempt, the Second Vote held on December 4, 2008, was successful. While both votes met the quorum requirement, the Second Vote achieved the necessary 2/3 majority of the membership in favor of the amendment.

5. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument against the validity of the Second Vote? The Petitioner argued that because a quorum was present during the failed First Vote, the Respondent was precluded from holding another vote on the same amendment so soon. He contended that the failure of the first vote effectively blocked a subsequent vote in December 2008.

6. According to the decision, how are the powers and duties of administrative agencies limited? Administrative agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings, are limited strictly to the powers granted to them by statute. They do not possess any common law or inherent powers beyond what is explicitly defined in legislation.

7. What specific documents or statutes does the Office of Administrative Hearings have the jurisdiction to review in cases involving planned communities? The OAH has jurisdiction to determine violations of a community’s Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, or Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Additionally, it can review violations of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9 or 16.

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s claim that a second vote was prohibited? The Judge concluded that the Petitioner’s issue did not give rise to a cause of action because no By-Law provisions restricted or prohibited a second vote. Since no specific provision was violated, there was no legal basis for the Petitioner’s complaint.

9. What was the final order issued by Judge Lewis D. Kowal on January 29, 2009? The Judge ordered that the Respondent’s Request to Dismiss Petition be granted. Furthermore, the matter was vacated from the docket of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

10. What is the status of this decision regarding further administrative appeals or rehearings? Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A), this order constitutes the final administrative decision. As a final decision, it is explicitly not subject to any requests for rehearing.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the provided source text to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Role of Quorum and Majority Thresholds: Analyze the importance of Article IV, Paragraph 5 and Article X, Paragraph 3 in the context of the Clearwater Farms Estates governance. How did these specific rules dictate the outcomes of both the November and December votes?

2. Administrative Jurisdiction and Statutory Limitations: Discuss the limitations of the Office of Administrative Hearings as outlined in the decision. Why is it significant that administrative agencies lack “common law or inherent powers” when adjudicating disputes between homeowners and associations?

3. Interpreting Planned Community Documents: Examine the Judge’s reasoning for dismissing the petition. How does the absence of a specific prohibitory provision in the By-Laws influence the legality of the Board’s actions?

4. Legislative Conformity: Explore the Board of Directors’ motivation for the amendment—conforming to State law. Why might a planned community prioritize aligning its By-Laws with state statutes, and how does this process intersect with membership voting rights?

5. The Finality of Administrative Decisions: Reflect on the procedural conclusion of this case. What are the implications for a petitioner when a decision is rendered “final” and “not subject to a request for rehearing” under A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A)?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding officer who conducts hearings and issues decisions for administrative agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. Title 33

The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that contains laws pertaining to property, including planned communities (Chapters 9 and 16).

By-Laws

The internal rules and regulations established by an organization, such as a planned community, to govern its administration and the conduct of its members.

Cause of Action

A set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party.

Common Law

Law derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes; the document notes administrative agencies do not have these powers.

Jurisdiction

The official power of a legal body to make legal decisions and judgments over a specific subject matter or geographic area.

Petitioner

The party who presents a petition to a court or administrative body (in this case, Carl A. Sawicki).

Planned Community Documents

The collective set of governing documents for a development, including Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Quorum

The minimum number of members of an assembly or society that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is taken (in this case, Clearwater Farms Estates).

Vacate

To cancel or render void a legal proceeding or a scheduled matter on a court’s docket.

Here is a concise summary of the administrative hearing decision in Carl A. Sawicki v. Clearwater Farms Estates (Case No. 08F-H089015-BFS).

Case Overview

This matter was heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Petitioner Carl A. Sawicki and Respondent Clearwater Farms Estates1. On January 20, 2009, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal held a pre-hearing conference where both parties presented arguments regarding the potential dismissal of the Petition12.

Key Facts and Arguments

The dispute arose from the Respondent’s attempts to amend its By-Laws to conform with changes in State law3.

• The First Vote: On November 6, 2008, the Respondent held an initial vote to amend the By-Laws2. While a quorum was present, the amendment failed because it did not receive the required 2/3 vote of the membership23.

• The Second Vote: On December 4, 2008, the Respondent held a second vote3. This time, a quorum was present, and the amendment passed with the necessary 2/3 majority3.

Petitioner’s Argument: The Petitioner did not dispute the results of the second vote or the presence of a quorum3. Instead, he argued that because the first vote had a quorum but failed, the Respondent was precluded from holding another vote on the amendment as soon as it did in December 20084.

Respondent’s Argument: The Respondent contended that the actions complained of did not constitute a violation of the community’s By-Laws4.

Legal Analysis and Decision

The Administrative Law Judge noted that the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings is limited to determining if an Association has violated its planned community documents (such as By-Laws or Articles of Incorporation) or specific statutes under A.R.S. Title 335.

Upon reviewing the documents and arguments, the Judge concluded the following:

• No Violation Found: None of the By-Law provisions relied upon by the Petitioner prohibited or restricted the membership from conducting a second vote to amend the By-Laws6.

• No Cause of Action: Because the Respondent did not violate any provision of the By-Laws, the Petitioner’s complaint lacked a valid basis67.

The Administrative Law Judge granted the Respondent’s Request to Dismiss the Petition and vacated the matter from the docket7. This Order constituted a final administrative decision not subject to a request for rehearing7.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Carl A. Sawicki (Petitioner)
,

Respondent Side

Beth Mulcahy (Attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
Esq. listed in mailing distribution

Neutral Parties

Lewis D. Kowal (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Robert Barger (Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Mailing list recipient
Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Mailing list recipient

Carnes, Ray -v- Casa Campa Homeowners Association

Posted on April 23, 2007 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	07F-H067024-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2007-04-23
Administrative Law Judge	Michael K. Carroll
Outcome	The parties reached a settlement agreement. The Respondent acknowledged technical violations of the governing documents and instituted procedural changes to prevent recurrence. The Respondent agreed to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Ray Carnes	Counsel	—
Respondent	Casa Campa Homeowners Association	Counsel	Beth Mulcahy

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Outcome Summary

The parties reached a settlement agreement. The Respondent acknowledged technical violations of the governing documents and instituted procedural changes to prevent recurrence. The Respondent agreed to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Technical violations of governing documents

Respondent acknowledged technical violations of the governing documents and instituted procedural changes to prevent recurrence.

Orders: Respondent agreed to pay Petitioner's filing fee; Respondent acknowledged violations and instituted procedural changes.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

07F-H067024-BFS Decision – 166731.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:30:31 (62.4 KB)

07F-H067024-BFS Decision – 166731.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:20:07 (62.4 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Carnes v. Casa Campa Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document details the resolution of a legal dispute between Ray Carnes (Petitioner) and the Casa Campa Homeowners Association (Respondent) adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (Case No. 07F-H067024-BFS). On April 23, 2007, a hearing presided over by Administrative Law Judge Michael K. Carroll resulted in a settlement agreement before formal testimony commenced. The Respondent acknowledged technical violations of Association governing documents and implemented procedural changes to ensure future compliance. The matter concluded with an order for the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee and the cessation of all claims within the petition.

Case Overview and Proceedings

The administrative hearing was convened to address allegations brought by Ray Carnes against the Casa Campa Homeowners Association. The proceedings were characterized by a shift from litigation to mediation at the outset of the scheduled hearing.

Case Metadata

Element

Detail

Case Number

07F-H067024-BFS

Petitioner

Ray Carnes (Pro se)

Respondent

Casa Campa Homeowners Association

Legal Counsel (Respondent)

Beth Mulcahy, Mulcahy Law Firm, PC

Presiding Judge

Michael K. Carroll, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Date

April 23, 2007

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Settlement and Resolution Terms

At the commencement of the April 23 hearing, both parties requested a conference to discuss a potential settlement. This conference successfully resulted in a mutual agreement that was memorialized on the record, effectively resolving the dispute without the need for a full evidentiary hearing.

Key Provisions of the Agreement

The settlement comprised three primary components that addressed the Petitioner’s grievances and provided a framework for future operational compliance by the Association:

1. Acknowledgment of Violations: The Respondent acknowledged that the Petition alleged “technical violations” of the documents governing the Homeowners Association.

2. Procedural Remedies: To address these violations, the Respondent reported that it had already “instituted procedural changes” designed to prevent any recurrence of the issues raised in the Petition.

3. Release of Claims: In exchange for the procedural changes and the reimbursement of costs, the Petitioner acknowledged he would not proceed further with any allegations against the Respondent related to the Petition.

Final Administrative Order

Following the memorialization of the settlement, the Administrative Law Judge issued a formal order to close the matter and ensure the financial terms were met.

Judicial Mandates

• Conclusion of Matters: The Judge ordered that all matters subject to the Petition were officially concluded.

• Reimbursement of Fees: Under the authority of A.R.S. § 41-2198.01, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee.

Involved Entities and Contact Information

The final decision was transmitted to the following individuals and agencies involved in the administrative process:

• Robert Barger, Director: Department of Fire Building and Life Safety (Attn: Joyce Kesterman).

• Ray Carnes: Ray Carnes Enterprises, Glendale, Arizona.

• Beth Mulcahy, Esq.: Mulcahy Law Firm, PC, Phoenix, Arizona.

Administrative Law Study Guide: Carnes v. Casa Campa Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative proceedings and settlement reached in the matter of Ray Carnes vs. Casa Campa Homeowners Association. The materials are based on the official decision issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.

Section 1: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2–3 sentences based on the provided source context.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in case No. 07F-H067024-BFS?

2. What was the official role of Michael K. Carroll in these proceedings?

3. How did the parties resolve the dispute at the start of the hearing?

4. What did the Respondent acknowledge concerning the allegations in the Petition?

5. What proactive steps did the Homeowners Association take to prevent future issues?

6. What specific financial restitution was the Respondent ordered to provide?

7. What did the Petitioner, Ray Carnes, agree to as part of the settlement terms?

8. Which Arizona Revised Statute was cited regarding the payment of the filing fee?

9. Who provided legal representation for the Respondent during the hearing?

10. What was the final status of the matters that were the subject of the Petition?

——————————————————————————–

Section 2: Answer Key

Question

Answer

The Petitioner was Ray Carnes, appearing on his own behalf. The Respondent was the Casa Campa Homeowners Association.

Michael K. Carroll served as the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the Office of Administrative Hearings. He presided over the hearing and issued the final decision memorializing the settlement.

At the commencement of the hearing, the parties requested a conference to discuss a possible settlement. Following this conference, they reached an agreement that was memorialized on the record.

The Respondent acknowledged that the Petition alleged technical violations of the documents governing the Association. These allegations were addressed through the subsequent settlement agreement.

The Respondent instituted procedural changes designed to prevent a recurrence of the technical violations. This action was taken prior to or as part of the settlement reaching its final form.

The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee. This requirement was explicitly stated in the ALJ’s final order.

The Petitioner acknowledged that because of the agreement reached, he would not proceed further against the Respondent. This applied to all allegations contained within the original Petition.

The filing fee was required and ordered pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01. This statute governs the financial obligations regarding the initiation of the administrative matter.

The Casa Campa Homeowners Association was represented by Beth Mulcahy, an attorney from the Mulcahy Law Firm, PC.

The Administrative Law Judge ordered that all matters which were the subject of the Petition were concluded. This finalized the agency action regarding the dispute.

——————————————————————————–

Section 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the provided source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Role of Mediation in Administrative Law: Analyze the process by which the parties moved from a scheduled hearing to a settlement conference. Discuss how this process facilitates the resolution of disputes without the need for a full evidentiary hearing.

2. Accountability and Procedural Reform: Examine the Respondent’s decision to institute procedural changes in response to alleged technical violations. Evaluate how such changes serve as a remedy in administrative disputes between homeowners and associations.

3. Legal Representation and Pro Se Petitioners: Compare the representation of the two parties in this case. Discuss the implications of a Petitioner appearing “on his own behalf” versus a Respondent appearing with professional legal counsel.

4. The Finality of ALJ Decisions: Discuss the significance of the phrase “ALJ Decision final by statute” and the judge’s order that all matters are “hereby concluded.” What does this suggest about the binding nature of settlements reached in the Office of Administrative Hearings?

5. Financial Burdens in Administrative Petitions: Using the case as a reference, discuss the importance of A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 regarding filing fees. Why is the reimbursement of these fees a critical component of the settlement reached between Carnes and the Association?

——————————————————————————–

Section 4: Glossary of Key Terms

• A.R.S. § 41-2198.01: The specific Arizona Revised Statute governing the filing fees and potentially other procedural requirements for matters brought before this administrative body.

• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A presiding officer (in this case, Michael K. Carroll) who conducts hearings and issues decisions for an administrative agency.

• Appearances: The formal record of the individuals present at the hearing and whom they represent (e.g., Ray Carnes for himself, Beth Mulcahy for the Respondent).

• Governing Documents: The legal instruments (such as bylaws or declarations) that dictate the rules and operations of the Casa Campa Homeowners Association.

• Memorialized on the Record: The act of formally recording the terms of an agreement or statement so that it becomes part of the official legal transcript and history of the case.

• Office of Administrative Hearings: The Arizona state agency responsible for conducting independent and impartial hearings for administrative disputes.

• Petition: The formal document filed by the Petitioner (Ray Carnes) to initiate the legal process and outline allegations against the Respondent.

• Petitioner: The party who initiates the legal action or appeal (Ray Carnes).

• Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed or an action is brought (Casa Campa Homeowners Association).

• Technical Violations: Specific failures to adhere to the exact procedural or administrative requirements set forth in the association’s governing documents.

The Settlement Strategy: How a Pro Se Homeowner Outmaneuvered His HOA

The tension was palpable at the Office of Administrative Hearings when Ray Carnes, appearing “on his own behalf,” stood his ground against a professional attorney from the Mulcahy Law Firm. While many homeowners fear that a legal battle against an HOA is a David vs. Goliath mismatch, the case of Ray Carnes vs. Casa Campa Homeowners Association proves that procedural savvy can level the playing field. This 2007 dispute offers a masterclass in how a homeowner can leverage the administrative process to force systemic accountability without ever needing a final trial verdict.

### 2. Takeaway 1: The “Courthouse Steps” Resolution

At the very commencement of the scheduled hearing, the parties made a strategic pivot by requesting a conference with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to discuss a settlement. This maneuver allowed the ALJ to serve as a mediator, facilitating a pragmatic agreement that avoided the risks and costs of a formal ruling. For the HOA, settling is often an “inside baseball” tactic to avoid a published Final Decision that could set a binding legal precedent for the entire community.

### 3. Takeaway 2: Technical Violations Lead to Systemic Change

A key tactical nuance in this settlement was the HOA’s acknowledgment that violations had been alleged, rather than admitting to specific guilt—a common “no-fault” strategy in legal resolutions. However, the real victory for Carnes was the revelation that the Association had already instituted procedural changes to prevent these issues from happening again. By forcing the HOA to correct its behavior before the hearing even began, the petitioner achieved a systemic win that is far more impactful than a simple apology or a one-time ruling.

### 4. Takeaway 3: The Cost of Accountability (The Filing Fee)

Accountability in these hearings is often cemented by the “fee-shifting” mechanism found in A.R.S. § 41-2198.01, which allows the successful party to recover their costs. Even though the case was settled, the ALJ specifically ordered the Respondent to pay Carnes’ filing fee, ensuring the homeowner was “made whole” financially. For a pro se petitioner, securing this reimbursement against a professional law firm is a significant validation of the merits of the case and a tangible reminder that HOAs are financially responsible for their procedural lapses.

### 5. Conclusion: A Blueprint for Resolution

The resolution of Carnes vs. Casa Campa provides a clear blueprint for any homeowner seeking to reform their community’s governance: prioritize procedural change and financial restitution over prolonged litigation. By focusing on “technical” compliance and using the ALJ conference as a mediation tool, you can secure meaningful reforms that outlast any single dispute. Is your own community’s board adhering to its governing documents, or could a focused demand for technical compliance be the key to the better governance you deserve?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Ray Carnes (Petitioner)
Ray Carnes Enterprises
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Beth Mulcahy (Attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
Attorney for Respondent

Neutral Parties

Michael K. Carroll (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Robert Barger (Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Listed on distribution list
Joyce Kesterman (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Listed on distribution list (ATTN)

Hedden, Steven -v- Eagle Mountain Community Association (ROOT)

Posted on February 14, 2007 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	07F-H067010-BFS and 07F-H067011-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2007-02-14
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	The ALJ granted the petition, ruling that under CC&Rs § 11.4, the HOA's failure to issue a written decision within 45 days resulted in the automatic approval of the gate application. The HOA was ordered to approve the gate and refund filing fees. Requests for attorney's fees were denied.
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,100.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Steven Hedden	Counsel	Andrew D. Lynch
Respondent	Eagle Mountain Community Association	Counsel	Beth Mulcahy

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 11.4

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the petition, ruling that under CC&Rs § 11.4, the HOA's failure to issue a written decision within 45 days resulted in the automatic approval of the gate application. The HOA was ordered to approve the gate and refund filing fees. Requests for attorney's fees were denied.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Issue Written Decision Within 45 Days

Petitioners submitted an application for an electronic gate. The DRC tabled the request and failed to issue a formal written decision within 45 days. The CC&Rs state that failure to furnish a written decision within 45 days results in the application being deemed approved.

Orders: Respondent must deem approved the application for the private gate; Respondent must reimburse Petitioners $1,100.00 for filing fees.

Filing fee: $1,100.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

CC&Rs § 11.2
CC&Rs § 11.4
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

07F-H067010-BFS Decision – 162264.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-28T10:13:50 (194.0 KB)

07F-H067010-BFS Decision – 162264.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:19:35 (194.0 KB)

Briefing Document: Administrative Law Judge Decision on Shared Driveway Gate Approval

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the administrative legal proceedings and ultimate ruling regarding a dispute between property owners Steven Hedden and Paul Ryan (Petitioners) and the Eagle Mountain Community Association (Respondent/HOA). The central conflict involved the HOA’s denial of the Petitioners’ application to install a private electronic gate on their shared driveway in the Aerie Cliffs subdivision.

While the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the HOA had substantive grounds to deny the request based on community standards and neighbor opposition, the HOA ultimately lost the case due to a procedural failure. Under the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), the Design Review Committee (DRC) is required to furnish a written decision within 45 days of an application. Because the HOA exceeded this timeframe (taking over 70 days), the application was “deemed approved” by law. The HOA was ordered to approve the gate and reimburse the Petitioners for $1,100.00 in filing fees.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview and Parties

• Case Numbers: 07F-H067010-BFS and 07F-H067011-BFS (Consolidated).

• Petitioners: Steven Hedden and Paul Ryan, owners of custom lots 14 and 15 in the Aerie Cliffs subdivision of Eagle Mountain.

• Respondent: Eagle Mountain Community Association (the HOA).

• Subject Property: A shared, 300-foot private driveway located off a cul-de-sac. Due to the topography (a small hill), the homes are not visible from the street.

——————————————————————————–

Governing Regulatory Framework: The CC&Rs

The rights and responsibilities of the parties are governed by the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions recorded in 1995.

Key CC&R Provisions

Section

Provision

Core Requirement/Authority

Purpose

To maintain uniformity of architectural and landscaping standards to enhance aesthetic and economic value.

Operation

The DRC must consider and act upon proposals. Crucially, if a written decision is not furnished within 45 days, the application is “deemed approved.”

Discretion

The DRC has broad discretionary powers and may disapprove applications for insufficient or inaccurate information.

Waiver

Approval of one plan does not constitute a waiver of the right to withhold approval for similar future plans.

——————————————————————————–

The Dispute: Arguments for and Against the Gate

Petitioners’ Rationale for Installation

• Security and Trespassing: Petitioners testified that vehicles frequently use the private driveway to turn around or make cell phone calls (due to superior reception at the hill’s crest).

• Safety: Concerns were raised regarding children playing on the driveway, as the hill creates a blind spot for vehicles backing out.

• Property Value: Mr. Ryan, a professional appraiser, estimated the gate would add approximately 3% to property values ($50,000 to $70,000).

• Community Precedent: Petitioners argued that most other custom homes in Eagle Mountain are “double gated,” though they acknowledged those gates are usually at subdivision entrances on common property.

HOA Rationale for Denial

• Lack of Precedent: No other private home in the 580-home community has an automatic gate on a private driveway. Existing secondary gates are at subdivision entrances.

• Aesthetics and Utility: The HOA argued the gate would be an aesthetic detraction and cited potential issues with noise of operation and maintenance.

• Neighbor Opposition: Five neighbors (Lots 12, 6, 8, 9, and 39) opposed the gate, citing concerns over noise and pollution from vehicles idling in the cul-de-sac while waiting for the gate to open.

• Adequate Security: The HOA contended that the two existing 24-hour manned main gates provided sufficient security.

——————————————————————————–

Chronology of Procedural Failure

The following timeline illustrates the HOA’s failure to adhere to the 45-day “deemed approved” window:

1. May 1, 2006: Petitioners submit the application for the electronic gate.

2. May 10, 2006: DRC tables the request, referring it to the Board.

3. May 17, 2006: Board reviews the request and expresses objections based on neighbor feedback and lack of precedent.

4. June 14, 2006: DRC meets with Petitioners. The application is tabled again to seek neighbor waivers.

5. July 5, 2006: DRC formally votes to disapprove the application. (Day 65 since submission).

6. July 11, 2006: HOA sends a formal written denial to the Petitioners. (Day 71 since submission).

——————————————————————————–

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Substantive Merits

The ALJ found that the HOA’s substantive reasons for denial were largely valid. The court noted:

• The Petitioners failed to consult neighbors or demonstrate how the gate enhanced the value of the community as a whole, as required by Section 11.2.

• The HOA’s requirement for a “compelling reason” to approve novel structures was not explicitly in the CC&Rs but aligned with the goal of maintaining uniformity.

The Decisive Procedural Error

Despite the validity of the HOA’s concerns, the ALJ ruled that Section 11.4 is absolute.

• The DRC admitted they did not provide a written decision within 45 days.

• The HOA’s argument that the application was “incomplete” (and thus the clock hadn’t started) was rejected because the HOA never informed the Petitioners in writing that the application was considered incomplete.

• The CC&Rs do not allow the DRC to hold an application in abeyance indefinitely; they must either approve it, deny it on the merits, or deny it for incompleteness within the 45-day window.

——————————————————————————–

Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:

1. Application Approval: The Respondent (HOA) must deem the application for the private gate approved due to the expiration of the 45-day limit.

2. Financial Reimbursement: The HOA must pay the Petitioners a total of $1,100.00 to reimburse their filing fees within 40 days of the order.

3. Legal Fees: Petitioners’ request for attorney’s fees was denied, as administrative proceedings do not qualify as an “action” under the relevant Arizona statutes (A.R.S. §§ 33-1807(H) or 12-341.01).

4. Future Precedent: The ALJ noted that this “deemed approved” status, resulting from a procedural error, should not prevent the DRC from denying similar applications in the future under Section 11.7, provided they follow proper timelines.

Case Study: Hedden and Ryan vs. Eagle Mountain Community Association

This study guide examines the administrative law proceedings between homeowners Steven Hedden and Paul Ryan and the Eagle Mountain Community Association regarding architectural approvals and the enforcement of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided administrative law judge decision.

1. What was the central issue being adjudicated in this case?

2. According to Section 11.2 of the CC&Rs, what is the primary purpose of the Design Review Committee (DRC)?

3. What is the significance of the “45-day rule” outlined in Section 11.4 of the CC&Rs?

4. What specific safety concerns did the Petitioners provide as a rationale for installing the electronic gate?

5. On what grounds did the neighbors of Lots 14 and 15 object to the proposed gate installation?

6. How did the Respondent distinguish the Petitioners’ proposed gate from existing secondary gates in the community?

7. What did the Petitioners argue regarding the economic impact of the proposed gate?

8. Why did the DRC claim it took more than 70 days to reach a formal decision on the application?

9. Despite finding that the Petitioners failed to prove the gate enhanced community value, why did the Administrative Law Judge rule in their favor?

10. What was the final ruling regarding the payment of attorney’s fees and filing fees?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. What was the central issue being adjudicated in this case? The case addressed whether the Eagle Mountain Community Association (HOA) acted appropriately when it denied a request by homeowners Steven Hedden and Paul Ryan to install a private electronic gate at the entrance of their shared driveway. The Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated specific sections of the community’s CC&Rs during the review and denial process.

2. According to Section 11.2 of the CC&Rs, what is the primary purpose of the Design Review Committee (DRC)? The DRC’s purpose is to maintain uniform architectural and landscaping standards throughout the Eagle Mountain development. By doing so, the committee aims to enhance both the aesthetic and economic value of the community.

3. What is the significance of the “45-day rule” outlined in Section 11.4 of the CC&Rs? Section 11.4 mandates that the DRC must furnish a written decision within 45 calendar days after a complete application is submitted. If the committee fails to provide a written response within this timeframe, the application is automatically “deemed approved.”

4. What specific safety concerns did the Petitioners provide as a rationale for installing the electronic gate? The Petitioners expressed concern for their children and grandchildren playing in the driveway, as the driveway’s crest prevents drivers from seeing the area from the cul-de-sac. They also noted that unauthorized drivers frequently use the private driveway to turn around or make cellular phone calls due to the high elevation.

5. On what grounds did the neighbors of Lots 14 and 15 object to the proposed gate installation? Neighbors opposed the gate based on concerns regarding noise and pollution. Specifically, they feared that vehicles waiting for the electronic gate to open would back up and idle in the common-area cul-de-sac.

6. How did the Respondent distinguish the Petitioners’ proposed gate from existing secondary gates in the community? The HOA argued that existing secondary gates are located on common areas at the entrances to entire subdivisions, whereas the Petitioners’ request was for a private gate on private land. Furthermore, the HOA noted that several other custom home subdivisions in the community, such as Mira Vista, function without secondary gates.

7. What did the Petitioners argue regarding the economic impact of the proposed gate? Petitioner Paul Ryan, a real estate appraiser, testified that a private gate increases privacy and safety, which directly correlates to property value. He estimated that the gate would add approximately 3% to the value of the homes, amounting to an increase of $50,000 for his home and $70,000 for Mr. Hedden’s home.

8. Why did the DRC claim it took more than 70 days to reach a formal decision on the application? The DRC claimed the delay was intended to be “lenient” toward the homeowners by giving them extra time to obtain written waivers from their neighbors. The committee argued that it wanted to perform due diligence on a novel request that would set a community-wide precedent.

9. Despite finding that the Petitioners failed to prove the gate enhanced community value, why did the Administrative Law Judge rule in their favor? The judge ruled that the HOA’s failure to adhere to the procedural requirements of Section 11.4 was the deciding factor. Because the DRC did not issue a written disapproval within 45 days, the application was “deemed approved” by operation of the CC&Rs, regardless of the merits of the gate itself.

10. What was the final ruling regarding the payment of attorney’s fees and filing fees? The judge denied the request for attorney’s fees because an administrative proceeding is not considered an “action” under the relevant Arizona statutes. However, the HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for their filing fees, totaling $1,100.00.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. Procedural Rigidity vs. Discretionary Power: Analyze the tension between the DRC’s “broad discretionary powers” granted in Section 11.4 and the strict 45-day notification deadline. How does this case demonstrate the potential consequences when a governing body prioritizes deliberations over procedural deadlines?

2. The Definition of Community Value: Section 11.2 of the CC&Rs focuses on enhancing the “aesthetic and economic value” of the community. Evaluate the arguments made by both the Petitioners and the Respondent regarding whether a private gate fulfills or contradicts this mandate.

3. The Role of Neighborhood Consensus: The HOA Board and the DRC placed significant weight on neighbor objections and the lack of written “waivers.” Discuss the extent to which a homeowner’s association should allow neighbor sentiment to influence architectural decisions not explicitly forbidden by the CC&Rs.

4. Custom vs. Tract Home Dynamics: The source context highlights differences in the values, sizes, and architectural rules for custom versus tract homes within Eagle Mountain. Discuss how these distinctions influenced the Petitioners’ expectations and the HOA’s concerns regarding precedent.

5. Contractual Nature of CC&Rs: The Administrative Law Judge noted that by accepting a deed, homeowners enter a “contractual relationship” with the HOA. Explain how the principles of contract interpretation, such as giving words their “ordinary meaning,” dictated the outcome of this specific legal dispute.

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S.

Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona used to govern administrative and civil proceedings.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over hearings and renders decisions regarding disputes involving government agencies or specific statutory petitions.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and limitations for property use within a common interest development.

Common Area

Land or amenities within a development (such as cul-de-sacs or subdivision entrances) owned collectively by the HOA rather than individual homeowners.

Custom Lot

A plot of land within a development designated for a unique, owner-designed home, typically associated with higher property values than tract homes.

Deemed Approved

A legal status where an application is granted automatic approval because the governing body failed to act or respond within a contractually or legally mandated timeframe.

Design Review Committee (DRC)

A specific body within an HOA responsible for reviewing architectural plans to ensure they meet community standards.

Master-Planned Community

A large-scale residential development that is pre-designed with specific subdivisions, amenities, and uniform architectural guidelines.

Precedent

An action or decision that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent cases; in this context, the HOA feared private gates would lead to widespread requests.

Tract Home

A type of housing where multiple similar houses are built on a single tract of land by a developer, often at a lower price point than custom homes.

Waiver

In the context of this case, a written statement from neighbors indicating they do not object to a proposed architectural change.

The 45-Day Rule: How a Ticking Clock Won a Homeowner’s Battle Against Their HOA

In the world of master-planned communities, the tension between individual expression and architectural “uniformity” is a constant battleground. But in the case of Steven Hedden and Paul Ryan vs. Eagle Mountain Community Association, the conflict wasn’t just about aesthetics—it was about a 300-foot shared driveway and a ticking clock that the HOA board simply forgot to watch.

Petitioners Hedden and Ryan owned two adjacent custom homes in the Aerie Cliffs subdivision, valued between $1.6 million and $2.2 million. Their homes sat at the end of a private drive so long and steep that the houses were invisible from the cul-de-sac. Seeking to stop unwanted traffic from using their driveway as a turnaround point and to ensure the safety of their children and grandchildren, they applied for a private electronic gate.

The HOA board fought them every step of the way, citing “community standards” and neighbor objections. However, as an investigative consultant in the HOA space, I see this case as a masterclass in how administrative disarray can strip a board of its power. You can win against an HOA even if they have a valid reason to say “no”—if you catch them sleeping on the procedural requirements of their own governing documents.

The “Compelling Reason” Trap: When Boards Invent Their Own Power

One of the most common “ultra vires” moves—acting beyond one’s legal authority—occurs when an HOA board or Design Review Committee (DRC) invents a standard that doesn’t exist in the CC&Rs. In this case, the Eagle Mountain DRC and Board demanded that the homeowners provide a “compelling reason” for the gate, defined as “something abnormal” about the property.

This was a hurdle designed to give the board maximum gatekeeping power. However, when the case reached the Office of Administrative Hearings, Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky saw right through it.

Homeowners should take note: Boards often use “unwritten rules” to maintain control where the CC&Rs are silent. If your HOA is demanding a “compelling reason” for your modification, they may be stepping outside their legal jurisdiction.

The “Deemed Approved” Clause: The 71-Day Self-Inflicted Wound

The central “smoking gun” in this case wasn’t the design of the gate, but the calendar. Section 11.4 of the Eagle Mountain CC&Rs contains a “deemed approved” clause—a common but frequently ignored provision that acts as a guillotine for slow-moving boards.

The homeowners submitted their application on May 1, 2006. The HOA spent the next two months in a state of internal confusion, shuffling the application between the DRC and the Board. They claimed they were being “lenient” by keeping the application open while the homeowners sought neighbor waivers. But the clock doesn’t stop for “lenience.”

By the time the HOA issued a formal denial on July 11, 71 days had passed. Because the HOA failed to act within the 45-day window, the merits of the gate—whether it caused an “aesthetic detraction” or not—became legally irrelevant. The clock had already ruled.

A Community Divided: Custom Estates vs. Tract Home Standards

This case highlights the friction inherent in mixed-product communities. Eagle Mountain contains 440 tract homes and 140 custom lots spread across subdivisions like Solitude Canyon, Crimson Canyon, and the Estates.

The petitioners argued that “uniformity” (required by Section 11.2) should be measured against other custom lots. They pointed out that almost every other custom lot in the community was “double-gated.” The HOA counter-argued by pointing to the Mira Vista subdivision, which also featured high-value custom homes but remained ungated.

This creates a “uniformity paradox.” The homeowners estimated the gate would add $50,000 to $70,000 in value to their properties. The HOA, perhaps looking at the community through the lens of its more modest tract homes, saw only a “precedent” they were afraid to set.

The “Confidential” Neighbor Strategy Backfires

In an attempt to bolster their denial, the HOA Board cited objections from five specific lots—12, 6, 8, 9, and 39—claiming neighbors feared “noise and pollution” from cars waiting at the gate. However, in a move that reeks of administrative opaqueness, the board refused to identify these neighbors to the petitioners at the time, claiming the identities were “confidential” to avoid feuds.

This lack of transparency is a high-risk gamble. The petitioners couldn’t address concerns they weren’t allowed to see. When an HOA hides behind “confidential” objections while the 45-day procedural clock is running, they lose the ability to use those objections as a defense once the deadline passes.

Administrative Disarray: “Poor Choice of Words” and Reflective Signs

The most damning evidence of the HOA’s failure came from their own internal records. Richard Kloster, Vice President of the Board and DRC member, admitted during testimony that the meeting minutes were often paraphrased and, in one instance, contained a “poor choice of words” regarding whether the homeowners were actually told their application was incomplete (Finding of Fact #24).

Furthermore, the board’s “alternative” to a security gate for these $2 million properties was nothing short of insulting: they recommended “Reflective signs” as a solution for trespassing (Finding of Fact #29). This total lack of understanding of the homeowners’ investment only underscored the board’s arbitrary stance.

The legal nail in the coffin, however, was Conclusion of Law #9 and #10. The judge noted that while the HOA could have disapproved the application for being “incomplete,” they failed to do so in writing within the 45-day window.

Conclusion: The Price of Accountability

Steven Hedden and Paul Ryan won the right to build their gate not because they proved it was an aesthetic masterpiece, but because their HOA failed to follow its own rulebook. The HOA’s desire to “perform due diligence” and “be fair” was actually a cover for administrative lethargy.

This victory cost the homeowners an $1,100 filing fee—a small price to pay for holding a board’s feet to the fire. It serves as a warning to every HOA board in the country: If you expect homeowners to follow the CC&Rs, you must be prepared to follow the clock.

Is your HOA board following the very rules they use to restrict you, or are they hiding behind “compelling reasons” and “confidential” complaints? In the battle between community aesthetics and procedural deadlines, the clock is often the only judge that truly matters.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Steven Hedden (petitioner)
Classic Stellar Homes
Owner of custom lot 15; Executive Vice President of Classic Stellar Homes
Paul Ryan (petitioner)
Owner of custom lot 14; real estate appraiser
Andrew D. Lynch (petitioner attorney)
The Lynch Law Firm, LLC

Respondent Side

Beth Mulcahy (respondent attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
Richard V. Kloster (board member)
Eagle Mountain Community Association
Vice President of Board; DRC member; witness
Burt Fischer (board member)
Eagle Mountain Community Association
President of Board; witness
Elaine Anghel (property manager)
Eagle Mountain Community Association
General Manager

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Robert Barger (agency director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Director receiving copy of decision
Joyce Kesterman (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Receiving copy of decision

Ryan, Paul -v- Eagle Mountain Community Association

Posted on February 14, 2007 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	07F-H067010-BFS and 07F-H067011-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2007-02-14
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, ruling that the Design Review Committee's failure to issue a written decision within 45 days of the application submission required the application to be deemed approved under CC&Rs § 11.4. The HOA was ordered to approve the gate and refund the petitioners' filing fees.
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,100.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Steven Hedden	Counsel	Andrew D. Lynch
Respondent	Eagle Mountain Community Association	Counsel	Beth Mulcahy

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 11.4

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, ruling that the Design Review Committee's failure to issue a written decision within 45 days of the application submission required the application to be deemed approved under CC&Rs § 11.4. The HOA was ordered to approve the gate and refund the petitioners' filing fees.

Why this result: The Respondent failed to comply with the strict 45-day deadline in the CC&Rs to issue a written decision or explicitly deem the application incomplete in writing.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to issue timely decision on architectural application

Petitioners submitted an application for a private electronic gate. The HOA Design Review Committee tabled the application and failed to issue a written decision within the 45-day timeframe mandated by the CC&Rs, resulting in a 'deemed approved' status.

Orders: Respondent is ordered to deem approved the application for the private gate at the end of Petitioners' shared driveway and reimburse $1,100.00 in filing fees.

Filing fee: $1,100.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

CC&Rs § 11.2
CC&Rs § 11.4
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

07F-H067011-BFS Decision – 162264.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T04:43:40 (191.5 KB)

07F-H067011-BFS Decision – 162264.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:19:38 (194.0 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Hedden and Ryan v. Eagle Mountain Community Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from the consolidated administrative hearing between Petitioners Steven Hedden and Paul Ryan and the Eagle Mountain Community Association (the HOA). The central dispute concerned the HOA’s denial of the Petitioners’ application to install an electronic gate at the entrance of their shared private driveway.

While the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Petitioners failed to prove the gate would enhance the community’s overall aesthetic or economic value, the HOA was ultimately ordered to approve the application. This decision rested on a procedural failure: the HOA’s Design Review Committee (DRC) violated Article 11, Section 11.4 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to provide a written decision within the mandated 45-day window. Consequently, the application was “deemed approved” by operation of law.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview and Community Context

The dispute took place within the Eagle Mountain Community, a master-planned development in Fountain Hills consisting of 580 homes (140 custom and 440 tract homes).

Property Specifications

• Subdivision: Aerie Cliffs, which contains 17 tract homes and three custom homes.

• The Lots: Petitioners own Lots 14 and 15, which are custom homes sharing an approximately 300-foot-long driveway off a cul-de-sac.

• Geography: The driveway traverses a small hill, rendering the homes invisible from the cul-de-sac and vice versa.

Governance Framework

The community is governed by a Declaration of CC&Rs recorded in 1995. Architectural and landscaping standards are overseen by the Design Review Committee (DRC), which has the authority to approve or disapprove proposals to maintain community uniformity and value.

——————————————————————————–

The Dispute: Proposed Private Electronic Gate

On May 1, 2006, the Petitioners submitted an application for a “Driveway Renovation” to install a 22-foot-wide electronic gate at the entrance of their shared driveway.

Arguments for Approval (Petitioners)

• Security and Trespassing: Petitioners reported issues with unauthorized vehicles using the long driveway to turn around or to gain better cellular reception at the crest of the hill.

• Safety: Concerns were raised regarding children playing on the driveway, as visibility is obstructed by the hill.

• Property Value: Petitioners, one of whom is a master appraiser, estimated the gate would add 3% to their home values (approximately $50,000 to $70,000).

• Precedent for Custom Homes: Petitioners argued that nearly all other custom homes in Eagle Mountain are “double-gated” (accessed through a secondary subdivision gate), whereas Aerie Cliffs lacks such a feature.

Arguments for Denial (Respondent HOA)

• Lack of Precedent: No other home in the 580-unit community has a private electronic gate on a driveway; all existing secondary gates are located on common areas at subdivision entrances.

• Neighbor Opposition: Several neighbors objected to the gate, citing concerns over noise, pollution, and traffic backups in the cul-de-sac.

• Adequate Security: The HOA contended that the two main 24-hour manned gates for the entire community provided sufficient security.

• Aesthetics: The HOA argued the gate was an “esthetic detraction” and that no “compelling reason” (such as a unique property abnormality) existed to justify the installation.

——————————————————————————–

Procedural Timeline and Delays

A critical factor in the ruling was the timeline of the DRC’s review process, which exceeded the 45-day limit established in the CC&Rs.

May 1, 2006

Petitioners submit the architectural application.

May 10, 2006

DRC tables the application and refers it to the HOA Board.

May 17, 2006

HOA Board reviews the request and refers it back to the DRC.

May 18, 2006

General Manager informs Petitioners approval is “highly unlikely.”

June 14, 2006

DRC meets with Petitioners; application is tabled again to seek neighbor waivers.

July 5, 2006

DRC formally votes to disapprove the application.

July 11, 2006

Formal written denial is sent to the Petitioners (71 days after submission).

July 26, 2006

HOA Board denies the Petitioners’ appeal.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Analysis and Conclusions of Law

Interpretation of the CC&Rs

The ALJ examined two primary sections of the CC&Rs to determine the outcome:

1. Section 11.2 (Purpose): The DRC’s role is to maintain uniformity and enhance aesthetic/economic value. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners failed to show the gate would enhance the value of the community as a whole, rather than just their own properties. Petitioners also failed to consult neighbors, which contradicted the goal of community enhancement.

2. Section 11.4 (Operation/Authority): This section contains a strict procedural requirement: “If a Design Review Committee fails to furnish a written decision within 45 calendar days after a complete application has been submitted… the application… shall be deemed approved.”

The “Compelling Reason” Standard

The HOA argued that Petitioners needed a “compelling reason” for the gate. The ALJ found that the CC&Rs contain no such requirement. While the HOA has broad discretionary power, they cannot impose standards not supported by the language of the restrictive covenants.

The Procedural Default

The HOA admitted that the review process took over 70 days. The HOA’s defense was that they were being “lenient” by holding the application open to allow Petitioners to gather neighbor support. However, the ALJ ruled that the CC&Rs do not allow the DRC to hold an application in abeyance indefinitely. If the DRC deemed the application incomplete, it was required to disapprove it in writing within the 45-day window.

——————————————————————————–

Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioners based solely on the procedural violation of Section 11.4.

• Application Approval: The HOA is ordered to deem the application for the private electronic gate approved.

• Reimbursement of Fees: The Respondent HOA must reimburse each Petitioner for their $550.00 filing fee, totaling $1,100.00.

• Attorneys’ Fees: The request for attorneys’ fees was denied, as administrative proceedings do not qualify as “actions” under the relevant Arizona statutes (A.R.S. §§ 33-1807(H) or 12-341.01).

• Precedent: The ALJ noted that this “deemed approved” status, resulting from a procedural error, does not prevent the DRC from disapproving similar future applications on their merits, provided they adhere to the 45-day timeline (pursuant to Section 11.7).

Study Guide: Hedden and Ryan vs. Eagle Mountain Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case between homeowners Steven Hedden and Paul Ryan and the Eagle Mountain Community Association. It focuses on the application of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the procedural requirements of homeowner association (HOA) governance.

Understanding the Dispute: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the source context.

1. What was the core request submitted by Steven Hedden and Paul Ryan to the Design Review Committee (DRC)?

2. According to Section 11.4 of the CC&Rs, what is the consequence if the DRC fails to provide a written decision within 45 days?

3. How did the DRC justify its use of the “compelling reason” standard when evaluating the Petitioners’ application?

4. What was the specific physical justification provided by the Petitioners for needing a gate on their shared driveway?

5. Why did the HOA Board of Directors initially object to the placement of the electronic gate?

6. What distinction did the source make between the locations of existing secondary gates in Eagle Mountain versus the gate proposed by the Petitioners?

7. How did the DRC view the potential approval of a private gate in terms of future community standards?

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) finding regarding the DRC’s claim that the application was “incomplete”?

9. Why were the Petitioners’ requests for attorney’s fees denied despite their victory in the case?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge regarding the gate application and filing fees?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioners requested approval to install a private electronic gate at the entrance of their shared driveway, which served two custom homes in the Aerie Cliffs subdivision. They intended the gate to match the aesthetic of existing gates in the Crimson Canyon development while complying with all safety and utility requirements.

2. Section 11.4 states that if the DRC fails to furnish a written decision within 45 calendar days after a complete application is submitted, the application is “deemed approved.” This clause serves as a procedural deadline to ensure the committee acts timely on homeowner proposals.

3. The DRC argued that a “compelling reason,” defined as something “abnormal” about a property, was necessary for granting applications for novel or unusual requests that might set a community precedent. However, the ALJ noted that the CC&Rs do not actually contain a legal requirement for a “compelling reason” to approve a departure from original plans.

4. The Petitioners cited safety concerns, noting that their 300-foot driveway goes over a hill, making it impossible to see children playing from the cul-de-sac. They also reported that strangers frequently used the driveway to turn around or to seek better cellular phone reception, creating trespassing and security issues.

5. The HOA Board objected primarily because several neighbors in the cul-de-sac expressed opposition to the gate, citing concerns over noise and vehicle idling. Additionally, the Board felt there was no “compelling reason” for the installation, as the community already had two manned security gates.

6. The evidence showed that all other secondary gates in Eagle Mountain were constructed on common areas at the entrances to entire subdivisions. In contrast, the Petitioners proposed a private gate on a shared driveway located on private land for the exclusive use of two specific lots.

7. The DRC was concerned that approving a private gate would set a precedent, potentially leading to a proliferation of private gates throughout the community. They believed this would deviate from the existing architectural uniformity where no other private automatic gates existed on individual driveways.

8. The ALJ found that while the DRC claimed the application was incomplete because neighbor “waivers” were missing, the committee never informed the Petitioners of this in writing. Furthermore, the DRC eventually voted to deny the application on its merits on July 5, 2006, undermining the argument that the application was too incomplete to act upon.

9. The ALJ ruled that an administrative proceeding does not qualify as an “action” under Arizona statutes that allow for the awarding of attorney’s fees. Therefore, while the Petitioners prevailed on the merits of the case, they were legally ineligible to recover their legal costs.

10. The ALJ ordered the Respondent HOA to deem the gate application approved because they failed to meet the 45-day written response deadline. Additionally, the HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for their filing fees, totaling $1,100.00.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the source context to develop detailed responses to the following prompts.

1. Procedural vs. Substantive Compliance: Discuss how the “deemed approved” status in Section 11.4 functioned as a “trap” for the HOA. Even if the DRC had valid substantive reasons for denial (such as neighbor opposition or aesthetic uniformity), how did their procedural delays invalidate their decision?

2. The Interpretation of “Uniformity”: Analyze the Petitioners’ argument that the gate would maintain uniformity because other custom homes in Eagle Mountain are “double gated.” Contrast this with the HOA’s argument that uniformity meant no private gates on individual driveways.

3. The Rights of the Individual vs. the Community: Using the testimony regarding neighbor objections and “confidentiality,” evaluate the DRC’s duty to balance the desires of an individual lot owner with the concerns of the surrounding neighbors.

4. The Role of Developer Precedent: Explore the testimony of Mr. Hedden regarding Classic Stellar Homes and why certain subdivisions (like Aerie Cliffs) were not originally gated. How did the developer’s original intent influence the HOA’s later refusal to allow private gates?

5. Evidence of Value: Compare and contrast the Petitioners’ claims regarding the economic value added by the gate (approximately 3% or 50,000–70,000) with the DRC’s purpose under Section 11.2 to “enhance the aesthetic and economic value” of the community as a whole.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Aerie Cliffs

A subdivision within Eagle Mountain consisting of seventeen tract homes and three custom homes, where the Petitioners’ properties are located.

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B)

The Arizona Revised Statute under which the Petitioners filed their Petitions for Relief to the Department of Fire, Building & Life Safety.

Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the legal document that outlines the rules and architectural standards for the community.

Custom Home

Generally larger, more expensive homes (in this context, valued between $1.6M and $2.2M) that often have different DRC approval rules than tract homes.

Deemed Approved

A legal status where an application is automatically granted because the governing body (DRC) failed to issue a decision within the contractually mandated timeframe.

Design Review Committee (DRC)

The body responsible for maintaining architectural and landscaping standards and reviewing homeowner applications for property modifications.

Double Gated

A term used to describe homes that require passing through both a primary community gate and a secondary subdivision gate.

Precedent

A decision or action that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent cases; the HOA feared approving one gate would require them to approve others.

Tract Home

Standardized homes built in large numbers by a developer (in this context, typically smaller and valued lower than custom homes).

Waiver (Neighbor)

A written statement from potentially affected neighbors indicating they do not object to a proposed architectural change.

When Bureaucracy Backfires: 4 Lessons from a Shared Driveway Showdown

1. The High-Stakes Gatekeeping of Eagle Mountain

Eagle Mountain, a premier master-planned community in Fountain Hills, Arizona, is a study in architectural prestige. With 580 residences—ranging from tract homes to multi-million dollar custom estates—the community’s aesthetic integrity is guarded by a Design Review Committee (DRC) and a Board of Directors. For homeowners Steven Hedden and Paul Ryan, the residents of two custom homes on a shared 300-foot driveway in the Aerie Cliffs subdivision, a private electronic gate was a logical upgrade for security and privacy.

However, their request triggered a classic administrative standoff. The HOA viewed the gate as a threat to community uniformity, while the homeowners viewed it as an essential component of their property’s “custom” status. As a Senior Legal Analyst, I see this case not merely as a dispute over wrought iron and motors, but as a masterclass in how fiduciary negligence and a lack of procedural due process can strip a board of its discretionary power. In this multi-million dollar dispute, the final verdict didn’t hinge on the gate’s design, but on a simple, ticking clock.

2. The 71-Day Failure: The “Deemed Approved” Trap

The most impactful takeaway from the Eagle Mountain dispute is the absolute supremacy of procedural deadlines over aesthetic preferences. Under the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), the DRC is not merely encouraged to be prompt; they are legally bound by a “deemed approved” clause.

Section 11.4 of the CC&Rs states:

Hedden and Ryan submitted their application on May 1, 2006. The DRC and Board engaged in a series of internal referrals, “tabling” the matter to seek neighbor input and debating the “precedent” a gate might set. By the time a formal written denial was issued on July 11, 2006, 71 days had elapsed.

By overshooting their deadline by 26 days, the HOA fell victim to administrative estoppel. Strategically, the Board’s attempt to be “lenient” by holding the application open was their undoing. In community governance, a board must understand that process must always precede politeness. If an application is incomplete or controversial, the Board should issue a formal denial “without prejudice” to stop the clock, rather than tabling the motion into a legal forfeit.

3. The Myth of the “Compelling Reason”

During the review, the DRC applied a standard that was nowhere to be found in the CC&Rs: the “compelling reason” requirement. The Board testified that for a novel request like a private gate, they required “something abnormal about the property” to justify approval.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) identified this as a critical error. The HOA had essentially invented an arbitrary standard, attempting to enforce “Board culture” as if it were codified law. For governance strategists, this is a glaring red flag. When a board applies unwritten rules, they invite litigation.

Strategic Advice for Boards: Conduct regular “document audits.” If your Board requires “compelling reasons” or “abnormal circumstances” for certain approvals, these standards must be formally adopted as Supplemental Design Guidelines. Without codification, these requirements are legally flimsiness and unenforceable in a challenge.

4. Uniformity vs. Economic Value: The “Custom” Conflict

The HOA’s primary defense was rooted in Section 11.2, which tasks the DRC with maintaining “uniformity” to protect the community’s aesthetic. They argued that because no other private driveway in the 580-home community had an automatic gate, approving one would be a “slippery slope.”

The homeowners countered by highlighting the specific geography of Eagle Mountain. As owners of high-end custom homes, they pointed out that they were surrounded by other custom subdivisions—specifically Crimson Canyon, Solitude Canyon, and the Estates—where “double-gating” (a secondary gate beyond the main community entrance) was the standard. Petitioner Paul Ryan, a master real estate appraiser, argued the gate would add $50,000 to $70,000 in market value.

The conflict here is between rigid uniformity and the protection of economic value. While the ALJ noted the petitioners failed to prove the gate benefited the entire community, the point became moot. The HOA’s failure to act within the 45-day window meant they lost the right to even argue the merits of uniformity.

5. The Anonymity Trap: Why Hidden Objections Paralyze Progress

The HOA attempted to justify its delay by citing “affected neighbors.” The Board claimed five neighbors (specifically from Lots 12, 6, 8, 9, and 39) opposed the gate due to concerns over noise and traffic. However, the Board refused to identify these neighbors to the petitioners to avoid “inciting feuds.”

This lack of transparency created a procedural deadlock. The DRC asked the petitioners to seek “waivers” from neighbors whose identities they were simultaneously concealing. This is the “Anonymity Trap.” By shielding the neighbors, the Board prevented the petitioners from addressing the specific objections (noise and pollution), which led the DRC to further delay their decision. That very delay—intended to be “fair” to the objecting neighbors—triggered the 45-day approval clause, effectively silencing those neighbors’ concerns forever.

Conclusion: The Cost of a Missed Deadline

The ALJ’s order was absolute: the HOA was forced to deem the gate application approved and reimburse the homeowners for $1,100 in filing fees. The Board spent months debating the definition of “uniformity” and the fears of neighbors, only to lose the case on a clerical failure.

However, there is a silver lining for the HOA. Under CC&R Section 11.7 (the Waiver clause), the ALJ noted that this specific “deemed approved” victory does not create a binding precedent for the rest of the community. The HOA preserved its right to deny gates to other homeowners in the future—provided they actually watch the clock next time.

In the world of community law, the lesson is clear: it is not enough for a board to be right in its aesthetics; it must be disciplined in its administration.

Does your community’s board have the administrative discipline to survive the “ticking clock” hidden within your own governing documents?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Steven Hedden (Petitioner)
Classic Stellar Homes
Owner of Lot 15; Executive Vice President of Classic Stellar Homes
Paul Ryan (Petitioner)
Owner of Lot 14; Real estate appraiser
Andrew D. Lynch (attorney)
The Lynch Law Firm, LLC

Respondent Side

Beth Mulcahy (attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
Richard V. Kloster (board member)
Eagle Mountain Community Association
Vice President of HOA Board; DRC member; Witness
Burt Fischer (board member)
Eagle Mountain Community Association
President of HOA Board; Witness
Elaine Anghel (General Manager)
Eagle Mountain Community Association

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Robert Barger (Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Recipient of order
Joyce Kesterman (agency staff)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Recipient of order