Tag Archives: Phillips, Maceyko & Battock, PLLC

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

Posted on by

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 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.
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

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

23F-H052-REL Decision – 1071110.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:09:14 (50.2 KB)

23F-H052-REL Decision – 1071477.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:09:19 (58.2 KB)

23F-H052-REL Decision – 1074907.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:09:22 (40.0 KB)

23F-H052-REL Decision – 1088736.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:09:25 (113.8 KB)

This summary outlines the proceedings, arguments, and final decision in the consolidated matters of R.L. Whitmer, Petitioner, v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners, Respondent (Nos. 23F-H052-REL and 23F-H064-REL). The hearing took place at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on August 11, 2023, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brian Del Vecchio.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The consolidated case involved two separate petitions filed by Petitioner R.L. Whitmer, an owner and member of the Association.

  1. Late Annual Meeting (23F-H052-REL): Alleged the Association failed to hold the 2023 Annual Meeting by March 31st, violating Article III Section 3 of the Bylaws, as the meeting was held on April 27, 2023.
  2. In-Person Voting (23F-H064-REL): Alleged the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C) by holding the Annual Meeting via Zoom video conferencing and failing to provide members the opportunity to vote "in person".

Hearing Proceedings and Arguments

Respondent's (HOA) Arguments:

The Association stipulated to a technical violation regarding the late meeting (27 days late). The delay was attributed to a management company calendaring error and transition issues. The Respondent argued this issue was moot since the meeting had already occurred, and the OAH lacked jurisdiction to mandate the "impossible" (ordering the meeting to be held prior to March 31, 2023).

Regarding the voting issue, the Association acknowledged the meeting was held via Zoom but argued this was done for the convenience of out-of-town members and for fiscal responsibility, as in-person meetings required renting space. Crucially, the Association argued that the Petitioner waived his right to object to the voting procedure because he failed to lodge a complaint prior to the election, which is a requirement under established Arizona legal custom concerning procedural election challenges.

Petitioner's Arguments:

Petitioner argued that the OAH possesses statutory authority to issue an order requiring future compliance with the Bylaws (a forward-looking injunction) and to levy civil penalties. Petitioner presented testimony from Mr. Eli, a homeowner who stated he could not attend the Zoom-only meeting because he was not "tech-savvy" and was denied an in-person option, arguing this demonstrated the Association's discriminatory intent and warranted civil penalties.

Legal Points and Outcome

The ALJ issued a decision on August 28, 2023.

Issue 1 (Late Meeting): The ALJ affirmed the petition (23F-H052-REL), concluding that the Association did violate Article III Section 3 of the Bylaws based on the Respondent’s stipulation.

Issue 2 (In-Person Voting): The ALJ dismissed the petition (23F-H064-REL). The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving that the specific interpretation of "in person" must exclude remote video attendance. The decision referenced the alternative interpretation of "in person" utilized during the COVID-19 pandemic, which allowed remote meetings in compliance with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C).

Civil Penalties: The ALJ denied the Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against the Association, finding that the evidence did not give rise to the awarding of civil penalties.

Final Order:

The ALJ ordered that Petitioner’s petition in matter 23F-H064-REL be dismissed. The Petitioner’s petition in matter 23F-H052-REL was affirmed, and the Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which he prevailed.

Questions

Question

If my HOA fails to hold the annual meeting by the specific deadline in the bylaws, is that considered a legal violation?

Short Answer

Yes. If the HOA misses the deadline mandated by the bylaws, it is a violation, even if the meeting is held later.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that missing the specific deadline set in the bylaws constitutes a violation. In this case, the bylaws required a meeting by March 31, but it was held on April 27. The HOA stipulated to the failure, and the ALJ affirmed the petition regarding this violation.

Alj Quote

Respondent stipulated it failed to adhere to Article III Section 3 of the Bylaws when it held the Annual Meeting on April 27, 2023, 27 days after the deadline. Thus, Petitioner met their burden in matter number 23F-H052-REL.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Article III Section 3

Topic Tags

  • annual meetings
  • bylaws compliance
  • deadlines

Question

Does a statutory requirement for 'in person' voting prevent the HOA from holding meetings via video conference?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The term 'in person' does not strictly exclude remote attendance via technology like Zoom.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that the phrase 'in person' is open to interpretation (e.g., social distancing protocols). Unless the homeowner provides sufficient evidence that 'in person' must strictly mean 'corporeal presence in a defined space,' holding a meeting via video conference does not violate the statute.

Alj Quote

While 'in person' could be interpreted as corporeal presence in a defined space, Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence said definition ought to be used, not the COVID-19 social distancing definition of 'in person,' or some other definition of the phrase 'in person.'

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)

Topic Tags

  • virtual meetings
  • voting rights
  • statutory interpretation

Question

Will the judge automatically fine the HOA (civil penalties) if they are found to have violated the bylaws?

Short Answer

No. A violation does not automatically result in civil penalties; the evidence must justify such a penalty.

Detailed Answer

Even though the ALJ confirmed the HOA violated the bylaws by holding the meeting late, the request for a civil penalty was denied because the evidence presented did not warrant it (e.g., lack of bad faith).

Alj Quote

Because Petitioner met their burden they sought civil penalties, pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02. Here, the evidence did not give rise to the awarding of civil penalties.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • civil penalties
  • fines
  • remedies

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get reimbursed for the filing fees?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee for the specific issues where the homeowner prevailed.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered the HOA to pay back the $500 filing fee to the homeowner for the petition regarding the late meeting (which he won), but dismissed the petition regarding the virtual meeting.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which he prevailed.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

What standard of proof does a homeowner need to meet to prove the HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The burden is on the petitioner (homeowner) to show that their claim is 'more probably true than not.' This is the standard evidentiary weight required in these administrative hearings.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence… '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

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

Does the Office of Administrative Hearings have the power to interpret the HOA's contract (CC&Rs/Bylaws)?

Short Answer

Yes. The tribunal has the explicit authority to interpret the contract between the homeowner and the association.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that the OAH is authorized by statute to hear these disputes and specifically has the authority to interpret the governing documents (contract) between the parties.

Alj Quote

OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • contract interpretation
  • OAH authority

Case

Docket No
23F-H052-REL / 23F-H064-REL
Case Title
R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
Decision Date
2023-08-28
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If my HOA fails to hold the annual meeting by the specific deadline in the bylaws, is that considered a legal violation?

Short Answer

Yes. If the HOA misses the deadline mandated by the bylaws, it is a violation, even if the meeting is held later.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that missing the specific deadline set in the bylaws constitutes a violation. In this case, the bylaws required a meeting by March 31, but it was held on April 27. The HOA stipulated to the failure, and the ALJ affirmed the petition regarding this violation.

Alj Quote

Respondent stipulated it failed to adhere to Article III Section 3 of the Bylaws when it held the Annual Meeting on April 27, 2023, 27 days after the deadline. Thus, Petitioner met their burden in matter number 23F-H052-REL.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Article III Section 3

Topic Tags

  • annual meetings
  • bylaws compliance
  • deadlines

Question

Does a statutory requirement for 'in person' voting prevent the HOA from holding meetings via video conference?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The term 'in person' does not strictly exclude remote attendance via technology like Zoom.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that the phrase 'in person' is open to interpretation (e.g., social distancing protocols). Unless the homeowner provides sufficient evidence that 'in person' must strictly mean 'corporeal presence in a defined space,' holding a meeting via video conference does not violate the statute.

Alj Quote

While 'in person' could be interpreted as corporeal presence in a defined space, Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence said definition ought to be used, not the COVID-19 social distancing definition of 'in person,' or some other definition of the phrase 'in person.'

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)

Topic Tags

  • virtual meetings
  • voting rights
  • statutory interpretation

Question

Will the judge automatically fine the HOA (civil penalties) if they are found to have violated the bylaws?

Short Answer

No. A violation does not automatically result in civil penalties; the evidence must justify such a penalty.

Detailed Answer

Even though the ALJ confirmed the HOA violated the bylaws by holding the meeting late, the request for a civil penalty was denied because the evidence presented did not warrant it (e.g., lack of bad faith).

Alj Quote

Because Petitioner met their burden they sought civil penalties, pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02. Here, the evidence did not give rise to the awarding of civil penalties.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • civil penalties
  • fines
  • remedies

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get reimbursed for the filing fees?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee for the specific issues where the homeowner prevailed.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered the HOA to pay back the $500 filing fee to the homeowner for the petition regarding the late meeting (which he won), but dismissed the petition regarding the virtual meeting.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which he prevailed.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

What standard of proof does a homeowner need to meet to prove the HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The burden is on the petitioner (homeowner) to show that their claim is 'more probably true than not.' This is the standard evidentiary weight required in these administrative hearings.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence… '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

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

Does the Office of Administrative Hearings have the power to interpret the HOA's contract (CC&Rs/Bylaws)?

Short Answer

Yes. The tribunal has the explicit authority to interpret the contract between the homeowner and the association.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that the OAH is authorized by statute to hear these disputes and specifically has the authority to interpret the governing documents (contract) between the parties.

Alj Quote

OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • contract interpretation
  • OAH authority

Case

Docket No
23F-H052-REL / 23F-H064-REL
Case Title
R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
Decision Date
2023-08-28
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

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.

Gregory Ehle V. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222031-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-07-11
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome 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.
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 2026-04-24T11:47:06 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964973.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:11 (18.9 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965150.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:22 (44.4 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965339.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:28 (40.0 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967084.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:34 (55.7 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967089.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:38 (45.1 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967102.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:41 (7.1 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 973304.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:44 (47.0 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 977404.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:47 (50.3 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 982867.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:50 (106.4 KB)

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)

This summary details the proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the administrative hearing case of *Gregory Ehle v. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association* (No. 22F-H2222031-REL), held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson.

Key Facts and Procedural History

Petitioner Gregory Ehle filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (AZDRE) around February 2, 2022, alleging four separate violations by the Respondent, Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association (Fulton Ranch). Ehle paid a $500 filing fee, but the tribunal ordered him to remit an additional $1,500 for the four claims. Ehle failed to pay the outstanding fee by the deadline (May 6, 2022). Consequently, and because Ehle failed to notify the tribunal of his preferred single issue, the ALJ determined that the sole issue to be addressed at the June 21, 2022, hearing was an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning an emergency meeting of the board members.

Hearing Proceedings and Main Arguments

The hearing took place on June 21, 2022. Petitioner Ehle, appearing on his own behalf, initially failed to appear, but the hearing proceeded after he connected virtually.

Petitioner's Argument: Ehle contended that a November 12, 2020, notice issued by Fulton Ranch regarding the cessation of responses to his emails constituted a matter of urgency that should have necessitated an emergency board meeting. Ehle alleged that if an emergency meeting had been conducted, the required minutes were not published at the next regular board meeting. However, under examination, Ehle conceded that he was unaware of whether an emergency board meeting was actually held.

Respondent's Argument: Fulton Ranch, represented by Emily Mann, Esq., argued for dismissal on multiple grounds, including a potential bar by the one-year statute of limitations. The primary argument, supported by testimony from Kevin Hearty (Division Vice President for the community manager, CCMC), was that no emergency board meeting occurred between September 2020 and November 12, 2020. Fulton Ranch asserted that A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) governs the *procedure* for an emergency meeting, and since no meeting was held, no violation of the procedure could have occurred.

Outcome and Legal Decision

The ALJ issued the decision on July 11, 2022.

Key Legal Points and Findings:

  1. Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
  2. The weight of the evidence showed that Fulton Ranch did not hold an emergency board meeting regarding the decision concerning Mr. Ehle's emails.
  3. The ALJ explicitly concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) allows the Board to conduct an emergency meeting, but the statute does not require the Board to hold one. Ehle failed to provide legal authority supporting his contention that a meeting was mandatory.

Final Decision: Because Ehle failed to establish that Fulton Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2), the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition.

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

The ALJ determined that while state law permits a board to call an emergency meeting for issues that cannot wait 48 hours, the homeowner failed to prove there is any legal requirement forcing the board to hold one. The board has the discretion to call such meetings but is not obligated to do so.

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

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the complaint must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

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

If a homeowner alleges multiple violations but only pays the filing fee for one, the tribunal may dismiss the unpaid claims and order the homeowner to choose a single issue to proceed with at the hearing.

Alj Quote

The tribunal ordered Petitioner to pay an additional $1,500 for the four issues claimed. However, Petitioner failed to do so… IT IS ORDERED that the single issue to be addressed at hearing is an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)…

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

The weight of the evidence shows that Fulton Ranch did not hold an emergency board meeting… Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Mr. Ehle has failed to establish that Fulton Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) and the petition should be dismissed.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)

Topic Tags

  • meeting minutes
  • evidence

Question

What qualifies as an 'emergency' for an HOA board meeting?

Short Answer

Matters that cannot be delayed for the standard 48-hour notice period.

Detailed Answer

State law defines an emergency meeting as one called to discuss business or take action that is too urgent to wait for the standard 48 hours required for notice of a regular meeting.

Alj Quote

An emergency meeting of the board of directors may be called to discuss business or take action that cannot be delayed for the forty-eight hours required for notice.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)

Topic Tags

  • emergency meetings
  • definitions

Question

Can I attend my HOA dispute hearing virtually?

Short Answer

Yes, hearings can be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.

Detailed Answer

The Office of Administrative Hearings allows parties to appear either in person or virtually (e.g., via Google Meet) for the proceedings.

Alj Quote

Either party may appear virtually or in person for the hearing.

Legal Basis

Procedural Order

Topic Tags

  • hearings
  • procedure

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

This is the standard of proof used in these hearings. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence that inclines an impartial mind to one side.

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

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

The ALJ determined that while state law permits a board to call an emergency meeting for issues that cannot wait 48 hours, the homeowner failed to prove there is any legal requirement forcing the board to hold one. The board has the discretion to call such meetings but is not obligated to do so.

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

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the complaint must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

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

If a homeowner alleges multiple violations but only pays the filing fee for one, the tribunal may dismiss the unpaid claims and order the homeowner to choose a single issue to proceed with at the hearing.

Alj Quote

The tribunal ordered Petitioner to pay an additional $1,500 for the four issues claimed. However, Petitioner failed to do so… IT IS ORDERED that the single issue to be addressed at hearing is an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)…

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

The weight of the evidence shows that Fulton Ranch did not hold an emergency board meeting… Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Mr. Ehle has failed to establish that Fulton Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) and the petition should be dismissed.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)

Topic Tags

  • meeting minutes
  • evidence

Question

What qualifies as an 'emergency' for an HOA board meeting?

Short Answer

Matters that cannot be delayed for the standard 48-hour notice period.

Detailed Answer

State law defines an emergency meeting as one called to discuss business or take action that is too urgent to wait for the standard 48 hours required for notice of a regular meeting.

Alj Quote

An emergency meeting of the board of directors may be called to discuss business or take action that cannot be delayed for the forty-eight hours required for notice.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)

Topic Tags

  • emergency meetings
  • definitions

Question

Can I attend my HOA dispute hearing virtually?

Short Answer

Yes, hearings can be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.

Detailed Answer

The Office of Administrative Hearings allows parties to appear either in person or virtually (e.g., via Google Meet) for the proceedings.

Alj Quote

Either party may appear virtually or in person for the hearing.

Legal Basis

Procedural Order

Topic Tags

  • hearings
  • procedure

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

This is the standard of proof used in these hearings. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence that inclines an impartial mind to one side.

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 by

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 Decision – 964044.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:40:20 (50.6 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 970320.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:40:24 (58.5 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 974011.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:40:27 (58.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 982006.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:40:30 (54.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 982097.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:40:33 (7.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 994010.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:40:36 (108.6 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 948254.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:40:41 (68.7 KB)

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: 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.

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)
    Homeowner and member of Sun Lakes HOA
  • Ralph Howlen (witness / homeowner)
    Spelled Howland in some transcript passages.
  • Felicia Kuba (potential witness / homeowner)
    Potential witness regarding court injury/conditions.
  • Ed Campy (former tennis club president)
    Notified Horn of the November meeting.
  • Robert Miller (homeowner)
    Former tennis club member who asked a question at the July 6 meeting.

Respondent Side

  • Emily H. Mann (HOA attorney)
    Phillips, Maceyko and Battock, PLLC
  • Chris Johnston (HOA representative / Account Manager)
    USI Insurance Services LLC
    Senior Account Manager; listed as point of contact for Respondent
  • Kelly Haynes (general manager / witness)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
  • Janice Cornoyer (HOA president / witness)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
  • Jimmy Burns (facilities maintenance manager / witness)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
  • Emily Jones (HOA employee)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
    Employee who works with computers in the HOA office.
  • Steve Howell (board member)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
    Read in the motion at the July 6 meeting.

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitted documents.
  • c. serrano (Transmitting Agent)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitted documents.
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as email recipient/attn.
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as email recipient/attn.
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as email recipient/attn.
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as email recipient/attn.
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as email recipient/attn.

Other Participants

  • Dennis Anderson (observer)
    Joined hearing via Google Meet.
  • Mark Gotman (observer)
    Joined hearing via Google Meet.