R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners

Posted on November 12, 2024 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H001-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2024-11-12
Administrative Law Judge	Samuel Fox
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	R.L. Whitmer	Counsel	—
Respondent	Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners	Counsel	Emily H. Mann

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found the Respondent HOA in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1) for failing to contain the name of the association in the Declaration. The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $500.00 filing fee, but no civil penalty was imposed.

Key Issues & Findings

Declaration requirements for naming the condominium and association.

Petitioner claimed the Declaration failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1) because it lacked the formal name of the association. Respondent argued the existing reference to the 'Council of Co-owners' was sufficient because case law established the current association was the successor entity. The Tribunal found the Declaration did not contain the name of the association as required.

Orders: Respondent shall pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days and shall comply with A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1) going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 12-550
A.R.S. § 33-1202(15)
A.R.S. § 33-1219(A)
London v Carrick
Schaefer v Pro Keanti AZ2 LP
Eli v Cro County A

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium Act, Declaration, Statute of Limitations

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 12-550
A.R.S. § 33-1202(15)
A.R.S. § 33-1219(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 41-1092
London v Carrick
Schaefer v Pro Keanti AZ2 LP
Eli v Cro County A

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H001-REL Decision – 1235116.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:12:40 (44.0 KB)

25F-H001-REL Decision – 1241814.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:12:47 (115.8 KB)

Briefing Doc – 25F-H001-REL

Briefing on Administrative Hearing Case No. 25F-H001-REL

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative hearing case R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners (No. 25F-H001-REL). The central issue was whether the Respondent Homeowners Association’s (HOA) governing Declaration complied with Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1215(A)(1), which mandates that the Declaration contain both the name of the condominium (with the word “condominium”) and the specific name of the association.

In a decision issued on November 12, 2024, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Samuel Fox ruled in favor of the Petitioner, R.L. Whitmer. The ALJ found that while the Declaration’s associated plat satisfied the requirement for the condominium’s name, the Declaration failed to contain the association’s actual, current legal name, “Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners.”

The Respondent HOA advanced three primary defenses, all of which were rejected by the tribunal:

1. Constructive Compliance: The HOA argued that the Declaration’s reference to its predecessor entity (“Council of Co-owners”), combined with numerous court rulings affirming the current HOA as its legal successor, constituted compliance. The ALJ dismissed this, stating the statute requires the actual name to be present and that “constructive compliance” is not sufficient.

2. Statute of Limitations: The HOA claimed the petition was barred by a four-year statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-550), as the Petitioner had notice of the Declaration’s contents since 2014. The ALJ ruled that this statute applies only to “actions” in a “court,” and that proceedings before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an executive branch agency, do not qualify.

3. Impossibility of Unilateral Action: The HOA contended that it could not be ordered to amend the Declaration because such an action requires a membership vote and is not unilaterally achievable. The ALJ found this was not a valid legal defense, as the procedural requirements for achieving statutory compliance do not excuse non-compliance.

The final order declared the Petitioner the prevailing party, ordered the Respondent to pay the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee, and mandated that the Respondent comply with A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1). No civil penalty was imposed.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 25F-H001-REL

• Forum: Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), State of Arizona

• Petitioner: R.L. Whitmer

• Respondent: Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox

• Respondent’s Counsel: Emily H. Mann

• Core Legal Issue: Whether the Respondent’s Declaration of Horizontal Property Regime for Hilton Casitas violates A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1), which states:

Procedural History

• Petition Filed: On or about June 27, 2024, R.L. Whitmer filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging the violation.

• Motion to Dismiss: On October 1, 2024, the Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment (or to dismiss), which was denied by the OAH on October 18, 2024.

• Evidentiary Hearing: A hearing was held on October 25, 2024, though the hearing transcript is dated October 26, 2024.

• ALJ Decision Issued: The final Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued on November 12, 2024.

Analysis of Key Arguments and Rulings

The case centered on three distinct legal arguments presented by the Respondent HOA and the subsequent rulings by the ALJ.

1. Statutory Compliance of the Declaration

The fundamental dispute was whether the Declaration, as written, satisfied the plain language of A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1).

Argument / Position

Supporting Evidence / Rationale

Petitioner (Whitmer)

The Declaration is non-compliant because the legal name “Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners” is not present anywhere in the document.

The Declaration refers to the “Council of Co-owners,” an unincorporated association created in 1972. The current non-profit corporation, formed in 1994, is not named. The Petitioner argued, “It’s just not there.”

Respondent (HOA)

The Declaration is compliant when its constituent parts are read together with established case law.

1. Condominium Name: The plat, which is legally part of the Declaration per A.R.S. § 33-1219(A), contains the phrase “HILTON CASITAS A CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT.”
2. Association Name: Section 1.4 of the Declaration defines “Council” as the “Council of Co-owners.” Multiple Arizona Court of Appeals decisions have held that the “Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners” is the legal successor entity to the “Council of Co-owners.” Therefore, a reference to the old name legally constitutes a reference to the current name.

ALJ Ruling

Violation Established. The Declaration does not contain the name of the association as required.

The ALJ agreed with the Respondent that the plat satisfied the condominium name requirement. However, the judge rejected the “successor entity” argument for the association’s name, concluding: > “The statute requires ‘the name of the association,’ not merely a reference to it. Even if the current association was the entity with standing, its name was not present in the Declaration. Assuming that there is some purpose for the statutory requirement, a reader should be able to identify the association from the declaration. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not willing to accept constructive compliance.”

2. The Statute of Limitations Defense

The Respondent argued that even if a violation existed, the Petitioner’s claim was filed too late.

Argument / Position

Supporting Evidence / Rationale

Petitioner (Whitmer)

The statute of limitations does not apply because the violation is a continuous act.

The Petitioner framed the non-compliant Declaration as a “cloud on the title,” a type of defect to which a statute of limitations is never a bar.

Respondent (HOA)

The claim is time-barred by the four-year default statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-550.

The Petitioner acquired his property in August 2014 and thus had constructive notice of the Declaration’s contents. The four-year period to file a claim expired in August 2018, making the 2024 petition six years too late.

ALJ Ruling

Defense Rejected. The statute of limitations does not apply to OAH proceedings.

The ALJ performed a statutory analysis, noting that A.R.S. § 12-550 applies to an “action” which is defined as “any matter or proceeding in a court.” Because the OAH is an agency of the executive branch and not a court, its proceedings are not “actions” under the statute. Therefore, the general statute of limitations is inapplicable.

3. The “Impossibility” of Unilateral Compliance

The Respondent argued that the relief sought by the Petitioner—an order to amend the Declaration—was not something the tribunal could grant because the HOA Board could not comply on its own.

Argument / Position

Supporting Evidence / Rationale

Petitioner (Whitmer)

The HOA has a clear path to compliance.

The Petitioner stated that the HOA simply needs to “call the election, amend the… or propose an amendment that cures this problem and ask the membership to approve it.” He offered to stipulate that he would not seek a contempt order if the HOA made a good-faith effort.

Respondent (HOA)

An order to amend would be inappropriate because the HOA cannot unilaterally amend the Declaration.

Amending the Declaration requires a vote of the membership (either 51% or 67%) and consent from an entity referred to as “the corporation.” If a vote failed, the HOA could not comply with the order, exposing it to further litigation from the Petitioner seeking to hold it in contempt.

ALJ Ruling

Defense Rejected. Procedural requirements for compliance do not constitute a legal defense against non-compliance.

The ALJ noted that it is ordinary for an HOA board or membership to have to vote to enact compliance with a statute. The ruling states: > “Technical procedures and responsibility for amending the Declaration, under a condominium’s documents and Arizona statues, is not a legal defense in this matter.” The tribunal’s role is to determine compliance and order it where it is lacking.

Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge Decision concluded with the following orders:

1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, R.L. Whitmer, is deemed the prevailing party.

2. Filing Fee: The Respondent must pay the Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the order.

3. Compliance: The Respondent shall comply with A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1) going forward.

4. Civil Penalty: No civil penalty was found to be appropriate in the matter.

The decision is binding unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days.

Study Guide – 25F-H001-REL

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H001-REL”, “case_title”: “R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners”, “decision_date”: “2024-11-12”, “alj_name”: “Samuel Fox”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does the 4-year statute of limitations for civil lawsuits apply to HOA disputes filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?”, “short_answer”: “No. The general statute of limitations applies to court ‘actions,’ and administrative hearings are not considered court actions.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the general 4-year statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-550) does not apply to petitions filed with the Department of Real Estate/OAH. This is because the Office of Administrative Hearings is part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch, and its proceedings are not defined as ‘actions’ by the legislature.”, “alj_quote”: “Accordingly, proceedings before OAH are not ‘actions’ as defined by the legislature, and the general statute of limitations does not apply.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 12-550; A.R.S. § 1-215”, “topic_tags”: [ “statute of limitations”, “jurisdiction”, “filing deadlines” ] }, { “question”: “Must the HOA’s Declaration explicitly state the full legal name of the Association?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The Declaration must contain the actual name of the association, not just a definition or reference like ‘The Council’.”, “detailed_answer”: “State law requires the Declaration to contain the specific name of the association. The Judge rejected the argument that defining a term like ‘Council’ to mean the association was sufficient. The actual name must appear to ensure a reader can identify the association from the document.”, “alj_quote”: “The statute requires ‘the name of the association,’ not merely a reference to it. The name of the association as stated in the defined term ‘Council’ is not the name of the association.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&Rs”, “governing documents”, “HOA name” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA avoid an order to amend its documents by claiming it requires a vote of the membership?”, “short_answer”: “No. Procedural difficulties, such as needing a membership vote, are not a valid legal defense for non-compliant documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “An HOA cannot use the difficulty of obtaining a membership vote as a defense against a violation finding. If the documents are non-compliant with state law, the Tribunal can order compliance regardless of the internal procedures required to fix them.”, “alj_quote”: “Technical procedures and responsibility for amending the Declaration, under a condominium’s documents and Arizona statues, is not a legal defense in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Authority”, “topic_tags”: [ “amendments”, “voting”, “defenses” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, will I be reimbursed for the filing fee?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee to the prevailing homeowner.”, “detailed_answer”: “When a homeowner prevails in proving a violation, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the filing fee directly to the Petitioner.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Remedy”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “remedies”, “costs” ] }, { “question”: “Does proving an HOA violation automatically result in a civil penalty (fine) against the Association?”, “short_answer”: “No. A violation does not automatically trigger a civil penalty unless the Judge deems it appropriate.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if a homeowner proves that the HOA violated a statute or the community documents, the Judge has discretion regarding civil penalties. In this case, despite finding a violation regarding the naming in the Declaration, the Judge decided no civil penalty was necessary.”, “alj_quote”: “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “fines”, “civil penalties”, “enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a petition against their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for providing enough evidence to show that their contention is ‘more probably true than not.'”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “burden of proof”, “legal standards” ] } ] }

Blog Post – 25F-H001-REL

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

R.L. Whitmer (petitioner)
fulcrumgroup.biz

Respondent Side

Emily H. Mann Phillips (HOA attorney)
Phillips, Maceyko & Battock, PLLC
Robert Westbrook (HOA president)
Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners

Neutral Parties

Samuel Fox (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners

Posted on May 30, 2024 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	24F-H034-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2024-05-30
Administrative Law Judge	Amy M. Haley
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	R.L. Whitmer	Counsel	—
Respondent	Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners	Counsel	Emily H. Mann

Alleged Violations

Section 23.9

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition, finding that the Petitioner's claim regarding the August 2016 adoption of rules was a breach of contract claim barred by the six-year statute of limitations.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to file the petition within the six-year statute of limitations applicable to breach of contract claims in Arizona.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Rule Adoption

Petitioner alleged the HOA board breached Section 23.9 of the CC&Rs by adopting rules and regulations on August 19, 2016 without proper authority.

Orders: Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied and Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was granted. The complaint was dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. 12-548(A)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553

Decision Documents

24F-H034-REL Decision – 1169191.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-28T18:27:56 (49.5 KB)

24F-H034-REL Decision – 1170407.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-28T18:27:57 (53.9 KB)

24F-H034-REL Decision – 1179078.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-28T18:27:57 (72.0 KB)

**Case Title:** R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners (No. 24F-H034-REL)

**Hearing Overview**
On May 13, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Amy M. Haley held an oral argument regarding Petitioner R.L. Whitmer's Motion for Summary Judgment. The core dispute centered on whether the respondent's Board of Directors possessed the legal and contractual authority to adopt association rules and regulations on August 19, 2016.

**Key Arguments**
* **Petitioner's Argument:** Petitioner, representing himself, argued that the HOA's Declaration of Horizontal Property Regime is a contract, and Section 23.9 reserves the right to adopt and amend rules exclusively to the "Council" (defined as all unit owners). Petitioner asserted that Article 9, Section 2 of the association's bylaws, which grants rule-making authority to the board, inherently conflicts with the Declaration. Citing A.R.S. § 33-1213, Petitioner argued that when such a conflict exists, the Declaration supersedes the bylaws. Consequently, Petitioner requested the tribunal declare the 2016 rules invalid and sought to impose a civil penalty against the HOA. Petitioner additionally argued that the statute of limitations should be tolled based on a 2023 lower court of appeals decision regarding discovery.
* **Respondent's Argument:** The Respondent moved to dismiss the petition entirely, asserting it was barred by the statute of limitations. Counsel noted that HOA governing documents are considered contracts under Arizona law, which are subject to a six-year statute of limitations. Because the contested rules were adopted on August 19, 2016, Respondent argued the deadline to file a claim was August 19, 2022. Substantively, Respondent argued that the Declaration and the bylaws govern different subject matters and, under established Arizona law, must be read together and harmonized rather than interpreted as conflicting. Furthermore, Respondent argued there was no bad faith or punitive action to justify a civil penalty.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
On May 30, 2024, the Administrative Law Judge issued a final decision resolving the matter entirely on the statute of limitations defense.
* **Legal Findings:** The judge ruled that the HOA's governing documents (CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Rules) constitute contracts under Arizona law, meaning any related claims are subject to a six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract.
* **Ruling:** Because Petitioner alleged the breach occurred when the Board voted to adopt the rules on August 19, 2016, he was legally required to assert his claim on or before August 19, 2022. Having failed to file within this requisite six-year window, Petitioner's claim was time-barred.
* **Outcome:** The ALJ officially denied Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, granted Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

R.L. Whitmer (petitioner)
Representing himself

Respondent Side

Emily H. Mann (HOA attorney)
Phillips, Maceyko & Battock, PLLC

Neutral Parties

Amy M. Haley (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners (ROOT)

Posted on September 1, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H052-REL No. 23F-H064-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-08-28
Administrative Law Judge	Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,000.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	R.L. Whitmer	Counsel	—
Respondent	Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners	Counsel	Emily H. Mann

Alleged Violations

Article III Section 3 of the Bylaws of Hilton Casitas Council of Co-owners
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the petition regarding the Bylaws violation (annual meeting held 27 days late, 23F-H052-REL) but denied the request for civil penalties. The ALJ dismissed the petition regarding the alleged statutory violation of in-person voting requirements (23F-H064-REL), finding Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof. Petitioner was reimbursed the $500 filing fee for the prevailing issue.

Why this result: Petitioner lost the statutory claim (23F-H064-REL) due to failure to provide sufficient evidence for a narrow interpretation of 'in person' voting. Petitioner failed to prove that civil penalties were warranted for the Bylaws violation (23F-H052-REL).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold the annual meeting prior to March 31, 2023 (23F-H052-REL)

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to hold the annual meeting by the Bylaws' deadline of March 31, 2023. Respondent stipulated that the meeting, held on April 27, 2023, was late, constituting a violation.

Orders: Respondent violated Article III Section 3 of the Bylaws; Petition affirmed. Petitioner was denied civil penalties but was reimbursed the $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02

Alleged violation for failing to allow in-person voting (23F-H064-REL)

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated the statute by allowing voting only through video conferencing and failing to provide an opportunity for in-person voting. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a narrow interpretation of 'in person' that excludes remote video attendance.

Orders: Respondent did not violate ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C). Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Annual Meeting Deadline, Bylaws Violation, HOA Voting Procedure, In-Person Voting, Video Conferencing Voting, Civil Penalties, Mootness Defense, Waiver Defense

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H052-REL Decision – 1071110.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:50 (50.2 KB)

23F-H052-REL Decision – 1071477.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:50 (58.2 KB)

23F-H052-REL Decision – 1074907.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:50 (40.0 KB)

23F-H052-REL Decision – 1088736.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:51 (113.8 KB)

Briefing Doc – 23F-H052-REL

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “23F-H052-REL, 23F-H064-REL”,
“case_title”: “R.L. Whitmer v Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners”,
“decision_date”: “August 28, 2023”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “R.L. Whitmer”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Emily H. Mann”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Phillips, Maceyko & Battock, PLLC”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Robert Westbrook”,
“role”: “HOA President/witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Sedack Eli”,
“role”: “witness/homeowner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Also referred to as Sebeck Eli [1].”
},
{
“name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “ALJ for final decision [2, 3]; also referred to as Joe Delveio [4].”
},
{
“name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “Issued orders on July 6, 2023 [5, 6].”
},
{
“name”: “Alyssa Leverette”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “Issued Minute Entry on July 18, 2023 [7].”
},
{
“name”: “Susan Nicolson”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Liard”,
“role”: “community manager”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Affidavit attached to exhibits; first name unknown [8, 9].”
},
{
“name”: “John Brookke”,
“role”: “board member”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Attended annual meeting [10].”
},
{
“name”: “Jay Panzer”,
“role”: “board member”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Attended annual meeting [10].”
},
{
“name”: “Joanna O’Neal”,
“role”: “board member”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Attended annual meeting [10].”
},
{
“name”: “Stadilla Stadilla”,
“role”: “homeowner/attendee”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Attended annual meeting [10].”
},
{
“name”: “Mike Denson”,
“role”: “homeowner/attendee”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Attended annual meeting [10].”
},
{
“name”: “Rick Walker”,
“role”: “homeowner/attendee”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Attended annual meeting [10].”
},
{
“name”: “Mary Griffith”,
“role”: “homeowner/attendee”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Attended annual meeting [10].”
},
{
“name”: “A. Hansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission [3, 5-7].”
},
{
“name”: “V. Nunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission [3, 5-7].”
},
{
“name”: “D. Jones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission [3, 5-7].”
},
{
“name”: “L. Abril”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission [3, 5-7].”
}
]
}

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

R.L. Whitmer (petitioner)
Sedack Eli (witness/homeowner)
Also referred to as Sebeck Eli.

Respondent Side

Emily H. Mann (HOA attorney)
Phillips, Maceyko & Battock, PLLC
Robert Westbrook (HOA President/witness)
Liard (community manager)
Affidavit attached to exhibits; first name unknown.
John Brookke (board member)
Attended annual meeting.
Jay Panzer (board member)
Attended annual meeting.
Joanna O’Neal (board member)
Attended annual meeting.

Neutral Parties

Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
OAH
ALJ for final decision; also referred to as Joe Delveio.
Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
OAH
Issued orders on July 6, 2023.
Alyssa Leverette (ALJ)
OAH
Issued Minute Entry on July 18, 2023.
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
ADRE
A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of transmission.
V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of transmission.
D. Jones (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of transmission.
L. Abril (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of transmission.

Other Participants

Stadilla Stadilla (homeowner/attendee)
Attended annual meeting.
Mike Denson (homeowner/attendee)
Attended annual meeting.
Rick Walker (homeowner/attendee)
Attended annual meeting.
Mary Griffith (homeowner/attendee)
Attended annual meeting.

Anthony T Horn v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

Posted on August 22, 2022 by [email protected]

Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2221017-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-08-22
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Anthony T Horn	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.	Counsel	Emily H. Mann, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's single-issue petition, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) regarding the July 6, 2021 board meeting, and alternatively, any potential violation was cured by the proper notice and vote taken at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.

Why this result: The ALJ concluded that the HOA properly notified members of the matter to be discussed at the July 6, 2021 meeting (tennis court upgrade/repair). Furthermore, any potential violation was cured by the explicit notice and second unanimous vote taken at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meetings/Notice/Ability to Speak (July 6, 2021 Board Meeting)

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated ARS 33-1804(F) because the July 6, 2021 agenda item 'Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair' did not adequately disclose the conversion of one tennis court into four pickleball courts. The ALJ found the initial notice was sufficient, and alternatively, any violation was cured by a subsequent November 9, 2021 meeting with explicit notice and a second vote.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021 board meeting. Petitioner's petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARS 33-1804(F)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meeting Violation, Notice and Agenda Requirement, Cure Doctrine, Tennis Court Conversion, Pickleball

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 33-1803

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 964044.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:32 (50.6 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 970320.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:36 (58.5 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 974011.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:41 (58.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 982006.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:46 (54.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 982097.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:53 (7.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 994010.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:57 (108.6 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2221017-REL/948254.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:00 (68.7 KB)

Briefing Doc – 22F-H2221017-REL-RHG

Briefing Document: Horn v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal dispute, procedural history, and final judgment in the case of Anthony T. Horn (Petitioner) versus Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. (Respondent), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute centers on the petitioner’s allegation that the respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(F) by failing to provide adequate notice for its July 6, 2021, Board of Directors meeting.

The petitioner claimed that the agenda item “Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair” was insufficient to inform members of the board’s plan to convert a tennis court into four pickleball courts, a decision that “blindsided” affected homeowners. In response, the HOA maintained a two-pronged defense: first, that the notice was legally sufficient, and second, that any potential procedural error was “unequivocally cured” by a subsequent board meeting on November 9, 2021, which featured an explicit agenda item detailing the conversion and at which the petitioner was present.

Following an initial dismissal and a subsequent rehearing, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson strictly limited the scope of the proceedings to the single alleged statutory violation. Ultimately, the judge dismissed the petition, issuing a definitive two-part ruling: 1) the notice for the July 6, 2021, meeting did comply with state law, and 2) even if it had not, the violation was cured by the actions taken for the November 9, 2021, meeting.

Case Overview

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Petitioner

Anthony T. Horn

Respondent

Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

Respondent Counsel

Emily H. Mann, Esq.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson

Case Chronology

• July 6, 2021: The HOA Board of Directors holds an open meeting and unanimously approves “Motion 3: Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair,” which includes the conversion of one tennis court to four pickleball courts.

• August 2021: Petitioner Anthony T. Horn files a dispute regarding the meeting.

• October 13, 2021: The Arizona Department of Real Estate receives Horn’s formal petition alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F).

• November 9, 2021: The HOA holds a second board meeting to vote again on the conversion. The agenda explicitly details the plan, and the board unanimously re-approves it. Horn attends this meeting.

• February 15, 2022: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) grants the HOA’s motion for summary judgment and dismisses the petition due to a lack of response from the petitioner.

• Post-February 15, 2022: Horn files a timely request for a rehearing.

• May 26, 2022: A telephonic pre-hearing conference is held to clarify issues and the scope of the rehearing.

• July 6, 2022: The ALJ issues an order limiting the rehearing to the single alleged violation concerning the July 6, 2021, meeting, while allowing the HOA’s “cure” defense related to the November 9 meeting.

• August 1, 2022: The evidentiary rehearing is conducted.

• August 22, 2022: The ALJ issues a final decision dismissing the petitioner’s petition.

Core Legal Dispute: A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)

The central legal question revolved around compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1804(F), which establishes the state’s policy on open meetings for planned communities. The statute requires that:

“…notices and agendas be provided for those meetings that contain the information that is reasonably necessary to inform the members of the matters to be discussed or decided and to ensure that members have the ability to speak after discussion of agenda items, but before a vote of the board of directors or members is taken.”

The statute further mandates that its provisions be construed “in favor of open meetings.”

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments (Anthony T. Horn)

Primary Allegation: Insufficient Notice

The petitioner’s case was predicated on the argument that the agenda for the July 6, 2021, meeting was misleading. The motion was described as: Motion 3: Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair – Fiscal Impact $76,439 from the Reserve Fund. Horn contended that this language failed to inform homeowners of the board’s intent to make a “major change” by converting a tennis court to pickleball courts.

• Key Quote: During the rehearing, Horn described his reaction at the July 6 meeting: “We were shocked. Just a complete uh something coming from the left field. We had no idea that anything like this was planned.”

Argument Against the “Cure” Defense

Horn argued that the November 9, 2021, meeting should not be considered a valid cure because it only occurred as a direct result of his formal dispute. He framed this as an unfair “catch 22.”

• Key Quote: In his closing argument, Horn stated: “The only reason that November 9th meeting and that motion ever showed up there was because of my dispute. So, it’s kind of a catch 22. Uh you in other words, I file a dispute and then they just change the language and then my dispute is nullified and I just lose my $500 and go away. That ain’t fair.”

Ancillary Issues Ruled Out of Scope

Throughout the proceedings, Horn attempted to introduce several related grievances, which the ALJ consistently ruled were outside the narrow scope of his single-issue petition. These included:

• Allegations of discrimination, claiming pickleball members were included in vendor discussions while tennis club members were excluded.

• Concerns about the HOA’s method of communication, arguing that “eblasts” are inappropriate for a senior community and that mail or hand delivery should be used.

• Disagreement with the soundness of the board’s decision itself.

Respondent’s Position and Defense (Sun Lakes HOA)

Defense of the July 6 Meeting

The HOA, through its counsel Emily Mann and witness Kelly Haynes, argued that the notice for the July 6 meeting was fully compliant with the statute. The term “upgrade and repair” was deemed sufficient to encompass the conversion. They presented the petitioner’s own attendance at the meeting as prime evidence that the notice was effective in informing members that tennis courts would be a topic of discussion.

Affirmative Defense of “Cure”

The HOA’s primary defense was that, even assuming a procedural flaw in the first meeting’s notice, the error was “unequivocally cured” by the November 9, 2021, meeting. The notice for that meeting was explicit: Motion #3 – Clarification of Motion 3 of the July 6, 2021 Board Meeting – Conversion of Court 1 to four Permanent Pickleball Courts. The petitioner attended, members were given the opportunity to speak, and the board voted again, removing any ambiguity.

Characterization of Petitioner’s Motive

Respondent’s counsel portrayed the petition as being driven by dissatisfaction with the board’s decision rather than a genuine concern for procedural integrity. It was noted that the association had spent thousands of dollars defending the petition and had twice offered to pay Horn $500—the maximum penalty available—to resolve the matter, both of which he rejected.

• Key Quote: In her opening statement, counsel stated: “This hearing today is about Mr. Horn seeking revenge against the association for the tennis court conversion. He couldn’t stop the conversion from taking place. So punishing the association by filing a meritless petition was the next best thing.”

Final Decision and Rationale

In the final decision dated August 22, 2022, ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson dismissed the petition. The ruling was based on a two-part conclusion that fully supported the respondent’s position.

1. The July 6 Notice Was Sufficient: The ALJ concluded that the “preponderance of the evidence” showed the notice provided the “information that was reasonably necessary.” The decision explicitly states: “Sun Lakes was not required to specify the method of upgrade: a conversion to pickleball courts.”

2. The Violation, If Any, Was Cured: The decision further established that, even if the first notice had been deficient, the HOA rectified the situation. “Even if Sun Lakes had violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021, Sun Lakes cured the violation when it provided timely notice that the tennis court conversion would be discussed and voted on at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.”

Based on these findings, the order was issued: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Anthony T. Horn’s petition against Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc., is dismissed.”

Study Guide – 22F-H2221017-REL-RHG

Study Guide: Horn v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case between Petitioner Anthony T. Horn and Respondent Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. It includes a quiz to test comprehension, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the case documents.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based solely on the provided source documents.

1. What was the specific statute and section that Petitioner Anthony T. Horn alleged the Sun Lakes HOA violated?

2. Describe the central disagreement over the agenda for the July 6, 2021, board meeting.

3. What was the Respondent’s primary legal defense, arguing that even if a violation occurred, it was later corrected?

4. Why was Mr. Horn’s initial petition dismissed in February 2022, leading to a request for a rehearing?

5. What ruling did the Administrative Law Judge make during the pre-hearing conference regarding Mr. Horn’s desire to introduce evidence of discrimination?

6. According to testimony, what methods did the Sun Lakes HOA use to provide notice of its board meetings to the membership?

7. What key difference existed between the agenda for the July 6, 2021 meeting and the agenda for the November 9, 2021 meeting?

8. During the August 1, 2022 rehearing, what was the fate of subpoenas that had been issued for the original, vacated hearing?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion in the August 22, 2022 decision regarding the alleged violation?

10. What did the Respondent’s counsel, Emily Mann, suggest was Mr. Horn’s true motivation for pursuing the petition?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner, Anthony T. Horn, alleged that the Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. had violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(F). This statute pertains to the policy of open meetings and the requirement that notices and agendas contain information reasonably necessary to inform members of matters to be discussed.

2. The central disagreement was whether the agenda item “Motion 3: Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair” provided sufficient notice that the board would be discussing and voting on the conversion of a tennis court into four pickleball courts. Mr. Horn argued this description was misleading and withheld critical information, while the HOA contended it was adequate.

3. The Respondent’s primary defense was that any potential procedural error or lack of clarity in the July 6, 2021 meeting notice was “unequivocally cured.” They argued this cure was accomplished through a subsequent board meeting on November 9, 2021, which had a more explicit agenda item about the court conversion.

4. The initial petition was dismissed because the Petitioner, Anthony T. Horn, did not file a response to the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss, and Motion for Summary Disposition. The Administrative Law Judge granted these motions, leading Mr. Horn to file for a rehearing.

5. The judge ruled that the issue of alleged discrimination was a separate legal matter from the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F). To include the discrimination claim, Mr. Horn would have to file a separate petition and pay an additional $500 filing fee.

6. General Manager Kelly Haynes testified that the HOA provided notice via e-blasts to members who signed up for them, posting on monitors in the clubhouse, inclusion in the monthly newsletter (“The Laker”), and posting on the association’s website.

7. The agenda for the July 6 meeting listed “Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair.” In contrast, the agenda for the November 9 meeting provided a much more specific item: “Clarification of Motion 3 of the July 6, 2021 Board Meeting – Conversion of Court 1 to four Permanent Pickleball Courts.”

8. The Administrative Law Judge informed Mr. Horn that the subpoenas issued for the original hearing would not apply to the new rehearing. To compel witness testimony, Mr. Horn was required to request and serve new subpoenas, which would be a significant additional expense.

9. The ALJ concluded that the Sun Lakes HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021 board meeting. The decision further stated that even if a violation had occurred, it was cured by the proper notice and subsequent vote at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.

10. The Respondent’s counsel stated that Mr. Horn’s petition was not about seeking justice or ensuring compliance with statutes, but was an act of “revenge against the association for the tennis court conversion.” She argued that since he could not stop the conversion, he filed a “meritless petition” to punish the association.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate your answers based on a comprehensive review of the case details and legal arguments presented in the source documents.

1. Analyze the legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F). Discuss how each party applied the statute’s requirement for “information that is reasonably necessary to inform the members” to the facts of the case.

2. Trace the procedural history of the case from the initial petition filing in 2021 to the final decision in August 2022. Identify at least three key procedural moments or rulings and explain their significance to the case’s progression and ultimate outcome.

3. Discuss the legal concept of a “cure” as it applied in this administrative hearing. Evaluate the strength of the Respondent’s argument that the November 9, 2021 meeting cured any potential defects from the July 6, 2021 meeting, and explain how the Petitioner attempted to rebut this defense.

4. The scope of the hearing was a contentious issue. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge limited the scope of the case and excluded certain topics, such as alleged discrimination and the soundness of the board’s business decision. Why are such limitations important in legal proceedings?

5. Based on the testimony and arguments presented in the August 1, 2022 rehearing, compare and contrast the remedies sought by the Petitioner with the relief available in the administrative hearing venue. What does this reveal about the limitations of this specific legal process for a homeowner’s grievances?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions in disputes involving government agencies. In this case, Judge Velva Moses-Thompson from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The collection of laws passed by the Arizona state legislature. The specific statute at issue was A.R.S. § 33-1804, which governs open meetings for planned communities.

A legal concept where a party corrects a prior procedural error or violation. In this case, the Respondent argued that any deficiency in the July 6 meeting notice was corrected, or “cured,” by holding the November 9 meeting with a more explicit agenda.

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request made by a party to a court or tribunal to dismiss a case. The Respondent filed this motion, which was initially granted.

Motion for Summary Judgment

A request made by a party for a decision on the merits of a case before a full hearing, arguing that there are no genuine disputes as to material facts and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Motion for Summary Disposition

A request, similar to a motion for summary judgment, asking the tribunal to rule in a party’s favor without a full hearing.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this matter, Anthony T. Horn was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof to convince the trier of fact that their contention is more probably true than not.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case, granted after an initial decision has been made. Mr. Horn was granted a rehearing after his petition was initially dismissed.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. was the Respondent.

Sua Sponte Order

An order made by a judge on their own initiative, without a request from either party. The order to continue the rehearing to August 1, 2022, was a sua sponte order due to the judge’s jury duty.

Subpoena

A legal order compelling a person to attend a hearing to give testimony. The Petitioner had to request new subpoenas for the rehearing as the original ones were no longer valid.

Blog Post – 22F-H2221017-REL-RHG

Your HOA Did What? 4 Shocking Lessons from One Homeowner’s Fight Over a Tennis Court

Introduction: The Notice on the Bulletin Board

Anyone who lives in a planned community is familiar with the official notices from their Homeowners Association (HOA). Often tacked onto a bulletin board or sent in a mass email, these communications can be models of bureaucratic brevity, full of formal language that is both vague and oddly specific. It’s easy to glance at an agenda item and assume you know what it means. But what happens when you’re wrong?

This was the situation faced by Anthony T. Horn, a homeowner in Sun Lakes, Arizona. In 2021, he filed a formal dispute against his HOA over a meeting notice he believed was deceptive, kicking off a year-long legal battle. His story provides a rare look “under the hood” of HOA procedures and power dynamics. Here are four surprising and impactful takeaways from his fight that every homeowner should understand.

1. A Notice for “Repairs” Can Mean a Total Transformation

The dispute began simply enough. The HOA posted a notice for a July 6, 2021 board meeting with a specific agenda item: “Motion 3: Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair – Fiscal Impact $76,439 from the Reserve Fund.”

Mr. Horn, an active tennis player, attended the meeting expecting a discussion about much-needed repairs to the community’s dangerous and unplayable courts. Instead, he testified that he was “shocked” when the board announced that the “upgrade” included permanently converting one tennis court into four pickleball courts.

His core legal argument was that this notice failed to provide information “reasonably necessary to inform the members” of the true matter being decided, a requirement under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1804(F). The final ruling from the Administrative Law Judge, however, was counter-intuitive.

Sun Lakes was not required to specify the method of upgrade: a conversion to pickleball courts.

This decision reveals a critical gap between a homeowner’s plain-language understanding and the law’s procedural interpretation. The ruling effectively places the burden on homeowners to be deeply skeptical of vague agenda items and to anticipate the broadest possible definition of terms like “upgrade.” As this case demonstrates, the law may not protect a resident’s more intuitive and narrow reading of a notice.

2. An HOA Can Get a “Mulligan” on Procedural Errors

After Mr. Horn filed his petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the HOA board pursued a powerful defense strategy: a do-over. The board scheduled a second meeting for November 9, 2021.

The notice for this second meeting was far more specific. Its purpose was explicitly stated as a “Clarification of Motion 3 of the July 6, 2021 Board Meeting – Conversion of Court 1 to four Permanent Pickleball Courts.” At this meeting, the board held the vote again, and it passed again.

Legally, this is known as “curing” a potential violation. The HOA argued that even if their first notice was flawed (which they did not concede), this second, properly-noticed meeting made the original issue moot. The judge agreed.

Even if Sun Lakes had violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021, Sun Lakes cured the violation when it provided timely notice that the tennis court conversion would be discussed and voted on at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.

This reveals that “curing” is not just a simple correction; it is a powerful strategic tool for an HOA board. It creates a nearly risk-free path to test the limits of procedural compliance. A board can issue a vague notice, and only if a homeowner is willing to invest the time and money to file a formal complaint does the board need to “cure” the potential error with a more specific follow-up. This dynamic shifts the entire risk and cost of ensuring compliance onto the individual homeowner.

3. Fighting on Multiple Fronts Can Be Cost-Prohibitive

During the legal process, Mr. Horn wanted to introduce other arguments. He alleged discrimination against tennis players and claimed the board had ignored other viable locations for new pickleball courts.

The judge, however, repeatedly shut down these lines of argument. The hearing was strictly limited to the single issue identified in the original petition: the alleged violation of the open meeting notice statute. The reason for this limitation was procedural and financial. In the Arizona Department of Real Estate’s dispute system, each separate allegation requires its own petition and, crucially, a separate $500 filing fee.

This creates a significant financial barrier for the homeowner, as Mr. Horn explained during the hearing.

And I probably have five, six or seven of them inaccuracies and misstatements and what so would be $500 each.

This rule exposes a stark asymmetry of resources. The individual homeowner must pay out-of-pocket for each separate alleged violation, forcing them to pick only their single strongest—or most affordable—argument. The HOA, by contrast, defends itself using a legal fund paid for by the entire community, including the very homeowner who is filing the dispute.

4. You Can Win the Argument, Lose the Case, and Still Pay for It

The ultimate outcome presented a paradox, which Mr. Horn articulated in his closing argument. He laid out a sequence of events that created a frustrating “Catch-22” for the homeowner:

1. He identified what he believed was a clear procedural violation at the July 6th meeting.

2. He paid a $500 filing fee to formally dispute it.

3. His dispute directly caused the HOA to hold the second, more specific, and legally “cured” meeting on November 9th.

4. The HOA then used that very “cured” meeting as the legal basis to have his petition dismissed.

He saw it as a no-win situation where his own action to seek accountability provided the HOA with the tool to defeat his claim.

The only reason that November 9th meeting and that motion ever showed up there was because of my dispute. So, it’s kind of a catch 22. …I file a dispute and then they just change the language and then my dispute is nullified and I just lose my $500 and go away. That ain’t fair.

This outcome reveals the ultimate procedural paradox. It is a system where a homeowner’s successful action—forcing the HOA to correct its error—becomes the very instrument of their legal defeat. The legal system, in this context, prioritized the correction of a procedural flaw over the merits of the original grievance or the fairness of the outcome for the individual who forced the correction.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

The story of one homeowner’s fight over a tennis court reveals that the nuances of HOA law are complex and can often favor the established procedures of the board. From the broad interpretation of “reasonable notice” to the board’s ability to “cure” its own mistakes, the system contains mechanisms that can be challenging for an individual resident to overcome.

This case is not about taking sides on the issue of tennis versus pickleball. It is a valuable case study in the realities of community governance. It underscores the importance for homeowners to understand not just the rules, but the procedures that enforce them. This leads to a final, critical question for every member of an HOA to consider:

Given the systems in place, how can an individual homeowner ensure their voice is truly heard when the stakes feel this high?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Anthony T. Horn (petitioner)
Appeared on behalf of himself
Ralph Howland (witness)
Sun Lakes Homeowner
Testified for Petitioner; name spelled 'Howlen' in some findings
Ed Campy (tennis club president)
Informed Petitioner Horn of the November meeting
Robert Miller (homeowner)
Asked a question at the July 6th board meeting
Felicia Kuba (witness)
Homeowner proposed as witness by Petitioner

Respondent Side

Emily H. Mann (HOA attorney)
Phillips, Maceyko & Battock, PLLC
Appeared on behalf of Respondent Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1
Kelly Haynes (general manager)
Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
Testified as a witness for Respondent
Janice Cornoyer (board president)
Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
Called as a witness by Petitioner
Jimmy Burns (facilities manager)
Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
Called as a witness by Petitioner
Chris Johnston (Senior Account Manager)
USI Insurance Services LLC
Listed as c/o for Respondent HOA
Steve Howell (board member)
Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
Read in motion at board meeting
Emily Jones (HOA employee)
Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
Employee of General Manager Kelly Haynes

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre (Commissioner ADRE)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
OAH/ADRE
Transmitted copies of orders
c. serrano (transmitting agent)
OAH/ADRE
Transmitted copies of orders
Mark Gotman (observer)
Observed pre-hearing conference/hearing via Google Meet
Dennis Anderson (observer)
Observed pre-hearing conference/hearing via Google Meet
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed as recipient of copies (Attn:)
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed as recipient of copies (Attn:)
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed as recipient of copies (Attn:)
vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed as recipient of copies (Attn:)
labril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed as recipient of copies (Attn:)

Gregory Ehle V. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on July 11, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2222031-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-07-11
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Gregory Ehle	Counsel	—
Respondent	Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association	Counsel	Emily H. Mann, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition after finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to show that the Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning an emergency board meeting. The evidence established that no such meeting took place, and the statute does not require the Board to hold one.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, as he conceded he did not know if an emergency meeting was held and could not provide legal authority showing that one was required.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation regarding an emergency meeting of the board members.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning the procedures for an emergency board meeting, specifically regarding a message sent out by the HOA's managing agent. The case proceeded on this single issue after Petitioner failed to pay the required additional filing fees for four total issues claimed.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA did not hold an emergency board meeting and was not required by A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) to hold one.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: emergency meeting, board of directors, failure to pay filing fee, burden of proof, dismissal, A.R.S. 33-1804

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964714.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:36 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964973.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:39 (18.9 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965150.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:42 (44.4 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965339.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:46 (40.0 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967084.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:50 (55.7 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967089.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:54 (45.1 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967102.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:59 (7.1 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 973304.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:02 (47.0 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 977404.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:06 (50.3 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 982867.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:09 (106.4 KB)

legal definitions
evidence

Case

Docket No: 22F-H2222031-REL
Case Title: Gregory Ehle v. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date: 2022-07-11
Alj Name: Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Is my HOA board legally required to hold an emergency meeting for urgent matters?

Short Answer

No, the statute allows for emergency meetings but does not mandate them.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Mr. Ehle failed to provide any legal authority in his petition or at hearing to support his contention that the Board was required to hold an emergency board meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)

Topic Tags

emergency meetings
board obligations

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the Act or Respondent’s CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standards

Question

Can I be penalized if I don't pay the full filing fees for all my complaints?

Short Answer

Yes, the tribunal will limit the hearing to only the issues covered by the paid fees.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Procedural Order

Topic Tags

filing fees
procedure

Question

Can I punish my HOA for failing to produce minutes for a meeting they claim never happened?

Short Answer

No, if no meeting was held, there are no minutes to produce.

Detailed Answer

You cannot successfully claim a procedural violation (like missing minutes) for a meeting that did not take place. If the evidence shows no meeting occurred, the claim will be dismissed.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)

Topic Tags

meeting minutes
evidence

Alj Quote

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

legal definitions
evidence

Case

Docket No: 22F-H2222031-REL
Case Title: Gregory Ehle v. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date: 2022-07-11
Alj Name: Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Gregory Ehle (petitioner)
Appeared on behalf of himself.

Respondent Side

Emily H. Mann (HOA attorney)
Phillips, Maceyko & Battock, PLLC
Appeared on behalf of Respondent Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association.
Kevin Hardy (witness)
CCMC
Division Vice President for Fulton Ranch's Community Manager (CCMC).

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
OAH
Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
ADRE
Miranda Alvarez (legal secretary)
OAH
Handled document transmission.
c. serrano (staff)
OAH
Handled document transmission.
A. Hansen (staff)
ADRE
Listed as contact for ADRE.
v. nunez (staff)
ADRE
Listed as contact for ADRE.
d. jones (staff)
ADRE
Listed as contact for ADRE.
l. abril (staff)
ADRE
Listed as contact for ADRE.

Other Participants

Natasha Bell (community manager)
CCMC
Former CCMC employee who served as the association's community manager in 2020.

Anthony T Horn v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

Posted on February 18, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2221017-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-08-22
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Anthony T Horn	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.	Counsel	Emily H. Mann, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meetings/Notice/Ability to Speak (July 6, 2021 Board Meeting)

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021 board meeting. Petitioner's petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARS 33-1804(F)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meeting Violation, Notice and Agenda Requirement, Cure Doctrine, Tennis Court Conversion, Pickleball

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 33-1803

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 948254.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:07:23 (68.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 964044.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:27 (50.6 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 970320.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:27 (58.5 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 974011.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:27 (58.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 982006.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:28 (54.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 982097.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:28 (7.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 994010.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:28 (108.6 KB)

Briefing Doc – 22F-H2221017-REL

Briefing Document: Horn v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

Executive Summary

Case Overview

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Petitioner

Anthony T. Horn

Respondent

Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

Respondent Counsel

Emily H. Mann, Esq.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson

Case Chronology

• August 2021: Petitioner Anthony T. Horn files a dispute regarding the meeting.

• October 13, 2021: The Arizona Department of Real Estate receives Horn’s formal petition alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F).

• February 15, 2022: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) grants the HOA’s motion for summary judgment and dismisses the petition due to a lack of response from the petitioner.

• Post-February 15, 2022: Horn files a timely request for a rehearing.

• May 26, 2022: A telephonic pre-hearing conference is held to clarify issues and the scope of the rehearing.

• August 1, 2022: The evidentiary rehearing is conducted.

• August 22, 2022: The ALJ issues a final decision dismissing the petitioner’s petition.

Core Legal Dispute: A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)

The central legal question revolved around compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1804(F), which establishes the state’s policy on open meetings for planned communities. The statute requires that:

The statute further mandates that its provisions be construed “in favor of open meetings.”

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments (Anthony T. Horn)

Primary Allegation: Insufficient Notice

Argument Against the “Cure” Defense

Horn argued that the November 9, 2021, meeting should not be considered a valid cure because it only occurred as a direct result of his formal dispute. He framed this as an unfair “catch 22.”

Ancillary Issues Ruled Out of Scope

Throughout the proceedings, Horn attempted to introduce several related grievances, which the ALJ consistently ruled were outside the narrow scope of his single-issue petition. These included:

• Allegations of discrimination, claiming pickleball members were included in vendor discussions while tennis club members were excluded.

• Concerns about the HOA’s method of communication, arguing that “eblasts” are inappropriate for a senior community and that mail or hand delivery should be used.

• Disagreement with the soundness of the board’s decision itself.

Respondent’s Position and Defense (Sun Lakes HOA)

Defense of the July 6 Meeting

Affirmative Defense of “Cure”

Characterization of Petitioner’s Motive

Final Decision and Rationale

In the final decision dated August 22, 2022, ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson dismissed the petition. The ruling was based on a two-part conclusion that fully supported the respondent’s position.

Based on these findings, the order was issued: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Anthony T. Horn’s petition against Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc., is dismissed.”

Study Guide – 22F-H2221017-REL