Tag Archives: Shaw & Lines, LLC

Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H035-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-08-09
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show the Association violated the purported Bylaws amendment, and therefore, the petition was denied.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jesse Freeman Counsel —
Respondent Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Counsel Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article II, Section 8, as amended October 18, 2000

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show the Association violated the purported Bylaws amendment, and therefore, the petition was denied.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the validity or implementation of the purported Bylaws amendment, and the language of the amendment itself was found not to be compulsory in requiring a subsequent meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged failure to hold a second and subsequent meeting of the membership with a diminished quorum.

Petitioner alleged the Association violated its Bylaws by failing to hold a second meeting with a diminished 15% quorum after failing to meet the initial 25% quorum at the Annual Meeting on January 16, 2024, despite a motion and second being made to adjourn and reset the meeting.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Bylaws, Quorum, Annual Meeting, Burden of Proof, Invalid Document, Continuance
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

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

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163387.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:35 (48.4 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163395.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:40 (7.2 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165696.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:43 (49.1 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165699.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:46 (7.3 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179128.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:50 (53.7 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179136.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:53 (7.6 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1209016.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:57 (146.3 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163387.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:04 (48.4 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163395.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:08 (7.2 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165696.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:11 (49.1 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165699.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:13 (7.3 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179128.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:15 (53.7 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179136.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:19 (7.6 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1209016.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:23 (146.3 KB)

This summary details the hearing held before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in the matter of *Jesse Freeman, Petitioner, vs. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association, Respondent*, Case No. 24F-H035-REL. The hearing was presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark on July 24, 2024, concerning an HOA dispute.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The core issue was whether the Respondent, Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association (the Association), failed to comply with Article II, Section 8 of its Bylaws, as purportedly amended on October 18, 2000, by refusing to hold a subsequent membership meeting with a diminished quorum.

The dispute arose after the Annual Meeting on January 16, 2024, failed to reach the required 25% quorum (only 89 votes were present, short of the 126 needed). Petitioner Jesse Freeman alleged that when quorum failed, the membership made and seconded a motion to adjourn and reconvene the meeting 60 days later with a reduced quorum requirement of 15% (76 votes), but the Association's Board President and attorney abruptly denied the motion and ended the meeting. Petitioner sought an Order compelling the Association to hold a meeting with the 15% diminished quorum requirement.

Key Arguments

Petitioner’s Case:

Petitioner Freeman, a property owner and former board member, argued that the amendment decreasing the quorum requirement for subsequent meetings to 15% was valid, asserting that its validity was established because it was dated October 18, 2000, and archived on the Association’s public website (Exhibit Y). Petitioner contended that the bylaw language was "compulsory" and mandated that the membership be allowed to adjourn and reconvene the meeting under the diminished quorum rule.

Respondent’s Case:

Respondent’s counsel and witnesses (Community Manager Brandon Moore and former Board President Chris Redden) presented two main arguments.

  1. Invalidity: The amendment was never formally adopted, ratified, or implemented by the Association. Witnesses testified that there were no ballots, meeting minutes, signatures, or stamps in the Association's records to substantiate the amendment’s validity. Furthermore, Petitioner conceded that during his two-year tenure on the Board (2017-2018), the Board never utilized the purported amendment, despite often failing to meet quorum, supporting the argument that the document was either a failed proposal or unknown.
  2. Non-Compulsory Language: Even if the amendment were valid, its language is not mandatory. The amendment states that the second meeting "shall require fifteen percent quorum". Respondent argued that this language simply sets the quorum requirement *if* a second meeting is held; it does not contain binding words (such as "shall" or "must" directed at the Association) that compel the Board to *call* a second meeting.

Outcome and Legal Conclusion

The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof—that the contention was "more probably true than not".

The ALJ issued an Order denying the Petitioner's petition.

The legal conclusions supporting the denial were:

  1. Lack of Corroboration: Petitioner failed to present sufficient credible evidence that the Association had voted on, ratified, or implemented the amendment to Bylaw Article II, Section 8. The document’s mere presence on the Association’s website was insufficient to establish validity.
  2. Non-Compulsory Language: The ALJ concluded that the language of the purported amendment was not compulsory. It does not contain verbiage inherently binding, such as "shall" or "must," that would require the Respondent to hold a second meeting.

The ALJ Decision was issued on August 09, 2024.

Questions

Question

If a document appears on the HOA's website, is it automatically considered a valid governing document?

Short Answer

No. The presence of a document on a website does not prove it was voted on or adopted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that simply finding a document on the association's website is insufficient to prove it is a valid, adopted amendment. There must be evidence that members participated in a vote or that the association officially adopted it.

Alj Quote

The document’s presence on the Association’s website does not establish or tend to suggest that members participated in a vote on or about October 18, 2000, or that the Association adopted an amendment to Bylaw Article II Section 8 thereafter.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • website
  • validity

Question

What specific features does a bylaw amendment need to be considered valid and enforceable?

Short Answer

It generally requires signatures, stamps, seals, or filing receipts to prove it isn't just a draft.

Detailed Answer

To be considered a valid governing document rather than a failed proposal or draft, the document should ideally have an embossed stamp, seal, or at least one signature indicating it was finalized and adopted.

Alj Quote

Moreover, the document itself does not have an embossed stamp or seal, or reflect at least one (1) signature that would reasonably suggest it was indeed a valid governing document, rather than a failed proposal or draft, which is supported by the fact that a filing receipt was not affixed.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • signatures
  • enforceability

Question

If the bylaws mention a reduced quorum for a 'second meeting', is the HOA required to hold that second meeting?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the language doesn't explicitly say the HOA 'must' hold the meeting, it may be optional.

Detailed Answer

Even if a bylaw provision states that a second meeting 'shall require' a lower quorum, this does not automatically compel the HOA to hold that meeting. Unless words like 'shall' or 'must' apply specifically to the act of holding the meeting itself, the HOA may not be required to schedule it.

Alj Quote

There are no accompanying words that are inherently binding such as shall or must that would require Respondent to hold a second meeting based on the aforementioned verbiage used.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 8

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • quorum
  • bylaw interpretation

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA committed the alleged violation.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law No. 3

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

Does it matter if the HOA hasn't followed a specific rule for many years?

Short Answer

Yes. Long-term non-enforcement or lack of awareness by the board can be evidence that the rule was never validly adopted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ considered the fact that the petitioner and board members were unaware of the amendment for years, and had failed to use it during previous quorum failures, as evidence weighing against the document's validity.

Alj Quote

Petitioner conceded that during his tenure on the Board and thereafter he was unaware of the purported amendment’s existence, notwithstanding several instances over a number of years where voting members failed to meet quorum requirements and did not utilize the provisions of the alleged amendment.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • past practice
  • board conduct
  • validity

Question

What standard of proof is used in these HOA hearings?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that a contention is more probably true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.

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

Conclusions of Law No. 4

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence

Case

Docket No
24F-H035-REL
Case Title
Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2024-08-09
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If a document appears on the HOA's website, is it automatically considered a valid governing document?

Short Answer

No. The presence of a document on a website does not prove it was voted on or adopted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that simply finding a document on the association's website is insufficient to prove it is a valid, adopted amendment. There must be evidence that members participated in a vote or that the association officially adopted it.

Alj Quote

The document’s presence on the Association’s website does not establish or tend to suggest that members participated in a vote on or about October 18, 2000, or that the Association adopted an amendment to Bylaw Article II Section 8 thereafter.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • website
  • validity

Question

What specific features does a bylaw amendment need to be considered valid and enforceable?

Short Answer

It generally requires signatures, stamps, seals, or filing receipts to prove it isn't just a draft.

Detailed Answer

To be considered a valid governing document rather than a failed proposal or draft, the document should ideally have an embossed stamp, seal, or at least one signature indicating it was finalized and adopted.

Alj Quote

Moreover, the document itself does not have an embossed stamp or seal, or reflect at least one (1) signature that would reasonably suggest it was indeed a valid governing document, rather than a failed proposal or draft, which is supported by the fact that a filing receipt was not affixed.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • signatures
  • enforceability

Question

If the bylaws mention a reduced quorum for a 'second meeting', is the HOA required to hold that second meeting?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the language doesn't explicitly say the HOA 'must' hold the meeting, it may be optional.

Detailed Answer

Even if a bylaw provision states that a second meeting 'shall require' a lower quorum, this does not automatically compel the HOA to hold that meeting. Unless words like 'shall' or 'must' apply specifically to the act of holding the meeting itself, the HOA may not be required to schedule it.

Alj Quote

There are no accompanying words that are inherently binding such as shall or must that would require Respondent to hold a second meeting based on the aforementioned verbiage used.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 8

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • quorum
  • bylaw interpretation

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA committed the alleged violation.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law No. 3

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

Does it matter if the HOA hasn't followed a specific rule for many years?

Short Answer

Yes. Long-term non-enforcement or lack of awareness by the board can be evidence that the rule was never validly adopted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ considered the fact that the petitioner and board members were unaware of the amendment for years, and had failed to use it during previous quorum failures, as evidence weighing against the document's validity.

Alj Quote

Petitioner conceded that during his tenure on the Board and thereafter he was unaware of the purported amendment’s existence, notwithstanding several instances over a number of years where voting members failed to meet quorum requirements and did not utilize the provisions of the alleged amendment.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • past practice
  • board conduct
  • validity

Question

What standard of proof is used in these HOA hearings?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that a contention is more probably true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.

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

Conclusions of Law No. 4

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence

Case

Docket No
24F-H035-REL
Case Title
Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2024-08-09
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jesse Freeman (petitioner)
    Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Member
    Spelling varies as 'Jesse Freemen' in some sources; also served as Treasurer on the Board 2017-2018.
  • Nicholas Belisi (witness)
    Potential witness for Petitioner; seconded the motion to adjourn and reconvene the meeting.

Respondent Side

  • Augustus H. Shaw IV (HOA attorney)
    Shaw & Lines, LLC
    Counsel for Respondent Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association.
  • Brandon David Moore (senior community manager/witness)
    Brown Property Management
    Senior Community Manager for Respondent Millett Ranch HOA, testified as a witness.
  • Christopher Redden (Board President/witness)
    Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
    Former Board President (9 years) and Board Member (13-14 years), testified as a witness.
  • Mark Saul (HOA attorney)
    Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
    Identified by Petitioner as the association's attorney who abruptly ended the January 16, 2024 meeting.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • vnunez (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • djones (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • labril (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • mneat (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • akowaleski (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • gosborn (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • OAH Staff (OAH Staff)
    OAH
    Transmitted documents/Final Order.

Other Participants

  • Rebecca Cook-Klaus (observer)
    Observed the hearing.
  • Millie Lton (unknown)
    Petitioner received a copy of the bylaws amendment from this person in May 2023.

Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Kim. M. Grill

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222039-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-10-03
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the HOA failed to prove the homeowner violated the CC&Rs regarding leasing/occupancy rules, as the homeowner and her roommate's arrangement met the undefined term 'common household' required for a 'Single Family' occupancy.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc. Counsel Augustus H. Shaw, IV
Respondent Kim M. Grill Counsel Lawrence J. Felder

Alleged Violations

Article 2, Section 2.11 of the Restatement of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the HOA failed to prove the homeowner violated the CC&Rs regarding leasing/occupancy rules, as the homeowner and her roommate's arrangement met the undefined term 'common household' required for a 'Single Family' occupancy.

Why this result: The HOA failed to meet the burden of proving that the homeowner's temporary roommate agreement constituted a violation of CC&R Article 2, Section 2.11.

Key Issues & Findings

Residential Use/Leasing Restrictions

Petitioner HOA alleged Respondent homeowner violated CC&R Article 2, Section 2.11 by entering into a roommate agreement while residing in the home, interpreting this as leasing less than the entire unit and arguing the parties did not constitute a 'Single Family' maintaining a 'common household.'

Orders: Petitioner’s petition denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Rental Restriction, Common Household, Single Family, Roommate, CC&R Enforcement, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article 2, Section 2.11

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 1003618.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:49:13 (125.6 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 972982.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:49:22 (47.8 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 973826.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:49:27 (50.2 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 974120.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:49:30 (50.6 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 1003618.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:15 (125.6 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 972982.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:18 (47.8 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 973826.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:21 (50.2 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 974120.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:24 (50.6 KB)

This case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer at the Office of Administrative Hearings on August 4, 2022, concerning a dispute referred by the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner, Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc., sought enforcement against the Respondent, property owner Kim M. Grill.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent Grill violated Article 2, Section 2.11 of the Restatement of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). This section requires that residential units be used exclusively by a "Single Family" and prohibits an owner from leasing "less than the entire unit" or using the unit for transient purposes, mandating a minimum 30-day lease term.

The dispute focused on a "Temporary roommate agreement" between Respondent Grill and Ken Snyder, a semi-retired attorney, for a period exceeding 30 days, where Mr. Snyder was afforded "full access to all living spaces" of the home. Although the Association's Disclosure Statement, signed by Grill, stated an owner "may NOT occupy a home at the same time as renting out the home," this statement was determined by the ALJ not to constitute a binding agreement, but merely the Association's interpretation.

Legal Arguments and Proceedings

  1. Jurisdiction: Initially, the question of whether the Association met the statutory definition of a planned community, vesting jurisdiction in the OAH, was raised. After receiving additional briefing, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner did meet the statutory definition, confirming jurisdiction.
  2. Petitioner’s Argument: The Association argued that Grill's co-occupancy while receiving rent constituted a violation, primarily because she was leasing less than the entire unit to a non-family member while residing there. Witnesses argued that the owner's presence simultaneously with renters "is what causes the damage or detriment," asserting that failure to comply with the letter of the law harms the community scheme.
  3. Respondent’s Argument: Respondent argued the arrangement complied because the CC&Rs define "Single Family" to include a "group of not more than three (3) persons not all so related, who maintain a common household". Since the agreement was long-term and provided Mr. Snyder full access, the key legal question was whether Grill and Snyder maintained a "common household". Respondent emphasized that there was no evidence of noise, disturbance, or actual detriment caused by Mr. Snyder.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Petitioner bore the burden of proving the CC&R violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ noted that the term "common household" was not defined in the CC&Rs and was "open to different interpretations". The arrangement, involving Mr. Snyder paying a share of living expenses (including utilities, internet, and cable TV) and having full access to the entire property, could "reasonably be interpreted to constitute evidence of a 'common household'".

The Administrative Law Judge Decision concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agreement with Mr. Snyder violated Article 2, Section 2.11 of the CC&Rs. Therefore, the Petitioner's petition was denied. The decision was issued on October 3, 2022.

Questions

Question

Who has the burden of proof when an HOA alleges a violation of the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

The HOA (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

In a dispute before the OAH between an owner and an association, the HOA must prove that the homeowner violated the specific provision of the CC&Rs. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 2, Section 2.11 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • dispute resolution

Question

Can an HOA enforce a rule interpretation found in a 'Disclosure Statement' that isn't explicitly in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

No, a disclosure statement representing the HOA's interpretation is not necessarily a binding agreement.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner acknowledges a disclosure statement during purchase, if that statement merely reflects the HOA's interpretation of the governing documents (e.g., claiming an owner cannot occupy the home while renting it), it does not constitute a binding contract separate from the CC&Rs themselves.

Alj Quote

Notably, Petitioners assertion on the Disclosure Statement that '[a]n owner may NOT occupy a home at the same time as renting out the home' did not constitute a binding agreement between Petitioner and Respondent, but was merely Respondent’s statement indicating its interpretation of the governing documents.

Legal Basis

Contract Law Principles

Topic Tags

  • disclosure statements
  • enforceability
  • governing documents

Question

If my CC&Rs prohibit leasing 'less than the entire unit,' can I still have a roommate?

Short Answer

Potentially yes, if the roommate has full access to the entire property and shares living expenses.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that a 'roommate agreement' granting the tenant full access to all living spaces and sharing expenses (utilities, internet, etc.) did not violate a ban on leasing less than the entire unit, as the tenant was not restricted to a specific portion of the home.

Alj Quote

By its terms, the Agreement was for a period of greater than 30 days and afforded Mr. Snyder access to the entire unit.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • rentals
  • roommates
  • leasing restrictions

Question

How does an HOA define a 'Single Family' if unrelated people live together?

Short Answer

It may depend on whether the group maintains a 'common household.'

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs define 'Single Family' to include a group of unrelated persons maintaining a 'common household,' acts like sharing utility costs, living expenses, and having full access to the property can serve as evidence of a common household.

Alj Quote

This arrangement, together with the fact that Mr. Snyder had full access to the entire property, could reasonably be interpreted to constitute evidence of a 'common household.'

Legal Basis

CC&R Definitions

Topic Tags

  • single family definition
  • occupancy limits
  • common household

Question

What happens if a key term like 'common household' is not defined in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Undefined terms are open to different reasonable interpretations.

Detailed Answer

When the governing documents fail to define a critical term, it creates ambiguity. In this case, the lack of a definition for 'common household' allowed for an interpretation that included a homeowner and a roommate sharing expenses.

Alj Quote

The term 'common household' was not defined in the CC&Rs and is open to different interpretations.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • ambiguity
  • definitions
  • legal interpretation

Question

Can I rent out a room if my CC&Rs require leases to be for a minimum of 30 days?

Short Answer

Yes, as long as the lease meets the time requirement and grants access to the whole unit (if partial leasing is banned).

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled in favor of the homeowner where the roommate agreement was for 12 months (satisfying the 30-day minimum) and granted access to the entire home, distinguishing it from short-term transient use or partial leasing.

Alj Quote

By its terms, the Agreement was for a period of greater than 30 days and afforded Mr. Snyder access to the entire unit.

Legal Basis

CC&R Compliance

Topic Tags

  • rental restrictions
  • lease terms
  • minimum stay

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222039-REL
Case Title
Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc. vs Kim M. Grill
Decision Date
2022-10-03
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who has the burden of proof when an HOA alleges a violation of the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

The HOA (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

In a dispute before the OAH between an owner and an association, the HOA must prove that the homeowner violated the specific provision of the CC&Rs. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 2, Section 2.11 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • dispute resolution

Question

Can an HOA enforce a rule interpretation found in a 'Disclosure Statement' that isn't explicitly in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

No, a disclosure statement representing the HOA's interpretation is not necessarily a binding agreement.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner acknowledges a disclosure statement during purchase, if that statement merely reflects the HOA's interpretation of the governing documents (e.g., claiming an owner cannot occupy the home while renting it), it does not constitute a binding contract separate from the CC&Rs themselves.

Alj Quote

Notably, Petitioners assertion on the Disclosure Statement that '[a]n owner may NOT occupy a home at the same time as renting out the home' did not constitute a binding agreement between Petitioner and Respondent, but was merely Respondent’s statement indicating its interpretation of the governing documents.

Legal Basis

Contract Law Principles

Topic Tags

  • disclosure statements
  • enforceability
  • governing documents

Question

If my CC&Rs prohibit leasing 'less than the entire unit,' can I still have a roommate?

Short Answer

Potentially yes, if the roommate has full access to the entire property and shares living expenses.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that a 'roommate agreement' granting the tenant full access to all living spaces and sharing expenses (utilities, internet, etc.) did not violate a ban on leasing less than the entire unit, as the tenant was not restricted to a specific portion of the home.

Alj Quote

By its terms, the Agreement was for a period of greater than 30 days and afforded Mr. Snyder access to the entire unit.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • rentals
  • roommates
  • leasing restrictions

Question

How does an HOA define a 'Single Family' if unrelated people live together?

Short Answer

It may depend on whether the group maintains a 'common household.'

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs define 'Single Family' to include a group of unrelated persons maintaining a 'common household,' acts like sharing utility costs, living expenses, and having full access to the property can serve as evidence of a common household.

Alj Quote

This arrangement, together with the fact that Mr. Snyder had full access to the entire property, could reasonably be interpreted to constitute evidence of a 'common household.'

Legal Basis

CC&R Definitions

Topic Tags

  • single family definition
  • occupancy limits
  • common household

Question

What happens if a key term like 'common household' is not defined in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Undefined terms are open to different reasonable interpretations.

Detailed Answer

When the governing documents fail to define a critical term, it creates ambiguity. In this case, the lack of a definition for 'common household' allowed for an interpretation that included a homeowner and a roommate sharing expenses.

Alj Quote

The term 'common household' was not defined in the CC&Rs and is open to different interpretations.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • ambiguity
  • definitions
  • legal interpretation

Question

Can I rent out a room if my CC&Rs require leases to be for a minimum of 30 days?

Short Answer

Yes, as long as the lease meets the time requirement and grants access to the whole unit (if partial leasing is banned).

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled in favor of the homeowner where the roommate agreement was for 12 months (satisfying the 30-day minimum) and granted access to the entire home, distinguishing it from short-term transient use or partial leasing.

Alj Quote

By its terms, the Agreement was for a period of greater than 30 days and afforded Mr. Snyder access to the entire unit.

Legal Basis

CC&R Compliance

Topic Tags

  • rental restrictions
  • lease terms
  • minimum stay

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222039-REL
Case Title
Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc. vs Kim M. Grill
Decision Date
2022-10-03
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Augustus H. Shaw, IV (HOA Attorney)
    SHAW & LINES LLC
    Represented Petitioner Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc.
  • Lisa Frost (Board Member/Witness)
    Oak Creek Knolls POA
    Association Secretary and testifying witness
  • Brenda Keller (Board Member/Witness)
    Oak Creek Knolls POA
    Alternate Director/Chair of the Architectural Committee and testifying witness
  • Dana Shel (Board Member)
    Oak Creek Knolls POA
    Association Board President
  • Denise Dotto (Neighbor/Complainant)
    Adjacent property owner whose concerns were noted by Petitioner's witnesses

Respondent Side

  • Kim M. Grill (Respondent)
    Property owner and Association member
  • Lawrence J. Felder (Respondent Attorney)
    Doncaster Law, PLLC
    Represented Respondent Kim M. Grill

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    Transmitting administrative staff
  • c. serrano (Administrative Staff)
    Transmitting administrative staff

Other Participants

  • Ken Snyder (Housemate/Non-party)
    Individual renting under the temporary roommate agreement with Respondent
  • David Goldman (Housemate/Non-party)
    Another individual residing at Respondent's property
  • Bruce Eert (Neighbor)
  • Chris Green (Neighbor)

Debbie Westerman v. Bridgewood Townhomes

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818028-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-04-26
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome The ALJ denied the petition, concluding the Respondent HOA did not unreasonably deny the Petitioner's architectural request. The HOA's standard specification requiring 4” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks for courtyard walls was found to be reasonable for maintaining architectural continuity consistent with the original Al Beadle design of the community.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Debbie Westerman Counsel —
Respondent Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc. aka Bridgewood Townhomes Counsel Mark E. Lines and R. Patrick Whelan

Alleged Violations

CC&R § 5(G)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding the Respondent HOA did not unreasonably deny the Petitioner's architectural request. The HOA's standard specification requiring 4” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks for courtyard walls was found to be reasonable for maintaining architectural continuity consistent with the original Al Beadle design of the community.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove that the HOA's denial was unreasonable or that the specified 4” x 8” x 16” CMU block was inferior to the 8” x 8” x 16” CMU block she requested, and compliance with the HOA's reasonable specifications was required.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable denial of architectural request to build a courtyard wall

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R § 5(G) by unreasonably denying her request to construct a courtyard wall using 8” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks, which did not comply with the HOA's Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions requiring 4” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks.

Orders: Petition denied because Petitioner failed to establish that CC&R § 5(G) required the Respondent to approve her Architectural Request which did not comply with Respondent’s Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • 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)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • CC&R § 5(G)
  • CC&R § 7(B)
  • CC&R § 5(J)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Review, Wall Construction, CMU block, Architectural Standard
Additional Citations:

  • 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)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818028-REL Decision – 631265.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-25T09:57:11 (161.6 KB)

18F-H1818028-REL Decision – 631265.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:23:15 (161.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Westerman v. Bridgewood Townhomes HOA (Case No. 18F-H1818028-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and decision in the case of Debbie Westerman versus the Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc. (HOA). The central conflict involved the HOA’s denial of Ms. Westerman’s architectural request to construct a courtyard wall using 8” x 8” x 16” concrete masonry unit (CMU) blocks, which deviated from the association’s established standard of 4” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petitioner’s claim, ruling in favor of the HOA. The decision rested on the finding that the HOA’s architectural standards were reasonable and established to maintain the community’s original design integrity. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the HOA’s denial was unreasonable or that the specified building materials were in any significant way inferior. The HOA successfully argued that its “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions,” in place since 2005, were created to preserve the architectural continuity of the original “Al Beadle design” and have been consistently applied to numerous other homeowner projects.

1. Case Overview and Core Dispute

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Debbie Westerman, owner of condominium unit 31 in Bridgewood Townhomes.

◦ Respondent: Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc. (also known as Bridgewood Townhomes).

• Jurisdiction: The case was heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on January 23, 2018.

• Core Allegation: The petitioner alleged that the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5(G) by unreasonably denying her request to build a courtyard wall with 8” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks. The HOA’s established specification required the use of 4” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks.

2. Chronology of the Dispute

The key events leading to the administrative hearing occurred between October 2017 and January 2018.

Oct 25, 2017

Michael Brubaker, the HOA Board President, emailed the petitioner with the association’s “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions.”

Oct 25, 2017

The petitioner submitted an Architectural Request to build a wall with 8″ x 8″ x 16″ CMU blocks, acknowledging the deviation from specifications.

Oct 25, 2017

Mr. Brubaker sent a follow-up email cautioning the petitioner not to pre-order non-conforming materials as her request was not yet approved.

Nov 29, 2017

Mr. Brubaker emailed the petitioner, acknowledging her request as “extraordinary” and stating the Board would need to meet to consider it.

Dec 28, 2017

The petitioner was formally notified of a Board meeting scheduled for January 2, 2018, to review her request.

Jan 2, 2018

The petitioner attended the Board meeting. The Board unanimously rejected her request because it was contrary to the established specifications and “the historical aspects of our compliance structure.” The Board noted its willingness to approve a compliant wall, but the petitioner “stated that she [was] unwilling to comply.”

Jan 8, 2018

The HOA’s attorney sent a letter to the petitioner summarizing the legal basis for the denial.

Jan 23, 2018

The petitioner filed her formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

3. Petitioner’s Arguments and Evidence (Debbie Westerman)

The petitioner’s case was built on three main arguments: the superiority of her proposed materials, the inconsistency of community standards, and the questionable validity of the HOA’s rules.

• Material Superiority: The petitioner claimed her proposed 8” x 8” x 16” blocks were stronger, less expensive, and visually identical to the required blocks.

◦ Evidence: She testified that three different contractors advised her that the larger blocks would be cheaper due to needing fewer units and less mortar.

◦ Evidence: Her subcontractor, Richard Ross, testified that using twice as many blocks (as required by the 4″ specification) “doubles the chance of the wall failing.”

• Inconsistent Community Standards: The petitioner argued that the HOA did not enforce a uniform aesthetic, negating the need for strict adherence to the block size specification.

◦ Evidence: She submitted photographs (Exhibits A5, A6) of walls at units 34 and 38, owned by Board President Michael Brubaker, which she claimed were built with larger blocks visible through stucco.

◦ Evidence: She submitted a photograph (Exhibit A11) showing courtyard walls of different heights, although wall height was not the subject of her dispute.

• Questionable Rule Authenticity: At the hearing, the petitioner challenged the validity of the “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions” document itself.

◦ Argument: She argued the document was not authentic because the HOA did not produce the official Board meeting minutes from 2005 when the rules were allegedly adopted. This challenge was raised for the first time at the hearing.

4. Respondent’s Arguments and Evidence (Bridgewood HOA)

The HOA’s defense was centered on its legal authority, the reasonableness of its established architectural standards, and the consistent enforcement of its rules.

• Adherence to Established Architectural Standards: The HOA’s primary defense was that its denial was based on a reasonable and long-standing architectural rule.

◦ Authority: The HOA cited CC&R § 5(J), which grants the Board the authority to adopt reasonable rules concerning the use of common elements. Rule 7(a) requires Board approval for any exterior alterations.

◦ Evidence: The HOA submitted the “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions” (Exhibit 3), which Mr. Brubaker credibly testified was adopted by the Board on March 22, 2005.

◦ Purpose of the Rule: Mr. Brubaker stated the rule’s purpose was to ensure architectural continuity. An email to the petitioner (Exhibit 7) explained:

• Consistent Enforcement: The HOA demonstrated that the rule was not arbitrary but had been consistently applied.

◦ Evidence: Mr. Brubaker testified that since the program’s adoption, “twenty-nine homeowners have had applications approved and constructed courtyard walls to specification.” Four additional compliant applications were approved since the petitioner’s submission. A photograph of a recently completed, compliant wall (Ms. Warren’s) was submitted as Exhibit 16.

• Rebuttal of Petitioner’s Claims: The HOA directly countered the petitioner’s key arguments.

◦ On Inconsistency: Mr. Brubaker testified that the non-conforming walls at units 34 and 38 were constructed before 1980 by the original developer, prior to the HOA assuming control of the property (Exhibit 14).

◦ On Structural Integrity: The HOA submitted two technical bulletins from the National Concrete Masonry Association (Exhibits 19 and 20). These documents stated that 4″ high (“half-high”) units can be considered “structurally equivalent to their corresponding 8-in. (203-mm) high unit” as long as the cross-section is the same.

◦ On Cost: The HOA submitted a bid from J E Bowen Construction for $6,165.00 to build a compliant wall for the petitioner’s unit (Exhibit 17). It also noted that another homeowner’s recent compliant wall cost only $4,268.23 (Exhibit 15).

5. Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found comprehensively in favor of the Respondent (HOA), denying the Petitioner’s petition.

• Burden of Proof: The ALJ established that the petitioner bore the burden of proving her case by a “preponderance of the evidence” and failed to do so.

• Reasonableness of HOA Standards: The decision affirmed the HOA’s right to establish and enforce aesthetic standards.

• Validity of Specifications: The petitioner’s challenge to the authenticity of the HOA’s rules was dismissed. The ALJ found that she “did not establish that Respondent’s Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions was fraudulent or improperly adopted.”

• Materiality of Block Type: The ALJ concluded that the petitioner failed to prove her central claim that the larger blocks were superior.

• Aesthetic Impact: The ALJ determined that the petitioner’s proposed wall would violate the community’s aesthetic standards, noting that a wall using the larger blocks “would be noticeably different from walls that were constructed in compliance with the Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions and other Al Beadle design elements.”

Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied because she has not established that CC&R § 5(G) required the Respondent to approve her Architectural Request to build a block wall around her patio that did not comply with Respondent’s Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions.”

The order, issued on April 26, 2018, is binding unless a rehearing is requested within 30 days of service.

Study Guide: Westerman v. Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 18F-H1818028-REL, concerning a dispute between a homeowner and her homeowners’ association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information provided in the source document.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this hearing, and what was their relationship?

2. What specific action by the Respondent was the Petitioner challenging in her petition?

3. According to the Respondent, what was the primary purpose of the “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions”?

4. What were the three main arguments the Petitioner presented in favor of using 8” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks instead of the specified size?

5. How did the Petitioner attempt to demonstrate that the Respondent’s enforcement of wall specifications was inconsistent?

6. What was the Respondent’s explanation for the non-conforming walls cited by the Petitioner?

7. What evidence did the Respondent present to counter the Petitioner’s claim that the specified 4” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks were structurally inferior?

8. Which party bore the “burden of proof” in this case, and what did that require them to establish?

9. On what date did the Respondent’s Board of Directors originally adopt the Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions?

10. What was the final ruling in this case, and what was the judge’s primary reason for the decision?

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Debbie Westerman, the Petitioner, and the Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc., the Respondent. Ms. Westerman owns condominium unit 31 in the Bridgewood Townhomes development and is therefore a member of the Respondent homeowners’ association.

2. The Petitioner was challenging the Respondent’s denial of her Architectural Request to build a wall around her patio. Specifically, she alleged that the Respondent had unreasonably denied her request to use 8” x 8” x 16” concrete masonry unit (CMU) block, which violated the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

3. The “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions” were developed to provide architectural continuity and standards for courtyard walls. They were intended to ensure that any new walls conformed to the original Al Beadle design represented by other structures on the property, such as the perimeter wall and pool enclosure.

4. The Petitioner argued that her proposed 8” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks were stronger, less expensive (requiring fewer blocks and less mortar), and looked the same as the specified blocks. This information was based on advice she received from three different contractors.

5. The Petitioner submitted photographs of courtyard walls at unit nos. 34 and 38, which she testified had larger blocks visible through stucco. She used these examples to argue that walls within the community were not consistent.

6. The Respondent’s Board president, Michael Brubaker, testified that the walls for units 34 and 38 were constructed before 1980. This was before the original developer turned the property over to the Respondent homeowners’ association, and therefore before the current specifications were in place.

7. The Respondent submitted two technical documents (TEK 5-15 and TEK 2-2B) from the National Concrete Masonry Association. These documents stated that 4-inch high (“half-high”) units are structurally equivalent to their corresponding 8-inch high counterparts, provided the face shell and web thicknesses are the same.

8. The Petitioner, Ms. Westerman, bore the burden of proof. This required her to establish by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated CC&R § 5(G) by unreasonably denying her request.

9. Michael Brubaker, the Respondent’s Board president, credibly testified that the Board adopted the Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions on March 22, 2005.

10. The final ruling was that the Petitioner’s petition was denied. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent’s Board acted unreasonably in denying her request, as the Board’s decision to maintain architectural consistency with the original Al Beadle design was reasonable.

Suggested Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses to test a deeper understanding of the case’s themes and legal principles. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the legal concept of a “restrictive covenant.” Using the CC&Rs from the Bridgewood Townhomes development as an example, explain how these covenants function to regulate property use and how they are interpreted and enforced in a legal dispute.

2. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding the structural integrity and cost of the different CMU block sizes. Discuss the quality of the evidence (e.g., expert testimony, technical documents, contractor bids) and explain which side made a more compelling argument on this point.

3. Discuss the role and authority of a homeowners’ association Board of Directors as demonstrated in this case. How did the Board use its authority under the CC&Rs to create and enforce the “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions,” and what does the judge’s decision say about the reasonableness of its actions?

4. The concept of “architectural continuity” and preserving the original “Al Beadle design” was central to the Respondent’s argument. Explain the significance of this argument and analyze why the Administrative Law Judge found it to be a reasonable basis for denying the Petitioner’s request.

5. Trace the procedural history of this dispute, from the Petitioner’s initial Architectural Request in October 2017 through the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision. What do the steps taken by both parties reveal about the formal processes for dispute resolution within this planned community?

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition (as used in the source document)

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge (Diane Mihalsky) who presides over administrative hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an agency separate from the Department of Real Estate.

Architectural Request

A formal application submitted by a homeowner to the homeowners’ association for approval of any alterations or additions to the exterior of a unit.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. A set of rules recorded with the county that governs the rights and obligations of property owners within a planned community or condominium development.

Concrete Masonry Unit. A standard-size rectangular block used in construction. In this case, the dispute centered on two sizes: 4” x 8” x 16” and 8” x 8” x 16”.

Common Area

Areas within the development owned by the Homeowners’ Association in trust for the benefit and use of all lot owners.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium development that makes and enforces rules for the properties within its jurisdiction. In this case, the Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc.

Limited Common Elements

Areas, such as the patios or courtyards adjacent to individual units, that are part of the common area but are reserved for the exclusive use of a specific owner.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the homeowner, Debbie Westerman.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this civil case. It is defined as evidence that has the most convincing force and is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the homeowners’ association, Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision in a deed or CC&R that limits the use of the property. The judge notes that if unambiguous, these are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.

Subpoena Duces Tecum

A legal order requiring a person to appear and bring specified documents or evidence with them. The decision notes the Petitioner did not request one for the Board meeting minutes.

TEK 2-2B & TEK 5-15

Titles of technical publications from the National Concrete Masonry Association, submitted as evidence by the Respondent to demonstrate the structural equivalence of different-sized CMU blocks.

Why Your HOA Cares About Your Bricks: A Real-Life Legal Battle, Deconstructed

For many homeowners, the relationship with their Homeowners’ Association (HOA) is a source of quiet frustration. It often involves rules that seem arbitrary, overly specific, or just plain unreasonable. You want to make a practical improvement to your property, but the HOA’s governing documents stand in the way, citing regulations you never knew existed. This friction between individual desire and community standards is common, but rarely does it escalate into a formal legal dispute.

When it does, however, the results can be surprisingly illuminating. Such is the case of Debbie Westerman and the Bridgewood Townhomes HOA in Arizona. Their legal battle wasn’t over a major renovation or a loud party; it was about the specific size of concrete blocks for a new patio wall. On the surface, it seems like a minor disagreement. But a closer look at the administrative law judge’s decision reveals powerful, practical lessons for every homeowner about the hidden legal realities of community governance.

By deconstructing the judge’s final decision, we can uncover four critical lessons that reveal how HOAs wield power and how homeowners can protect themselves.

Takeaway 1: Aesthetic Vision Can Legally Outweigh Practicality

At the heart of the dispute was a simple disagreement over materials. The petitioner, Debbie Westerman, wanted to build her patio wall using 8″x8″x16″ concrete blocks. Her reasoning was entirely practical: a licensed contractor advised her that the larger blocks were “stronger, less expensive, and looks the same.” From a homeowner’s perspective, this seems like an open-and-shut case for approval.

The HOA, however, denied the request. Their position was based not on practicality, but on a specific design vision. The association’s rules, established back in 2005, explicitly required the use of 4″x8″x16″ blocks. The reason? To maintain “architectural continuity” with the property’s original “Al Beadle design.” This wasn’t a vague preference; it was a documented standard intended to conform new construction to the existing visual language of the community, as seen in the “property’s perimeter wall, the original block buildings, the pool area enclosure and buildings, the parking structures, and the walls around the parking areas.”

Ultimately, the judge sided with the HOA. The decision found that the association’s requirement was reasonable because it was aimed at keeping new construction consistent with “significant elements of Bridgewood Townhomes.” This is a crucial lesson: a homeowner’s logical arguments about cost, strength, and appearance can be legally superseded by a community’s well-documented commitment to a specific, even if less tangible, design aesthetic.

Takeaway 2: The Power is in the Paper Trail

The HOA’s entire case rested on the strength of a single key document: the “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions.” This document, which the board officially adopted on March 22, 2005, clearly outlined the requirement for the 4-inch blocks.

Crucially, the petitioner only challenged the authenticity of this document for the first time during the hearing itself, arguing the HOA had not produced the original meeting minutes that adopted it. The judge deemed this last-minute challenge inadmissible. Why? Crucially, the judge noted that the homeowner had failed to use the proper legal procedures to demand the HOA produce those records ahead of time, making her challenge too little, too late. The HOA, meanwhile, demonstrated a long history of consistent enforcement. Before Ms. Westerman’s request, the association had already approved 29 other courtyard walls, all built according to the 2005 specifications.

This highlights a critical lesson: an HOA’s power is codified in its paper trail. The governing documents—from the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) down to specific board-adopted rules—carry immense legal weight.

Pro Tip: Your HOA’s governing documents are more than just the CC&Rs you received at closing. Formally request and review all board-adopted rules, architectural guidelines, and meeting minutes related to your planned project hiring a contractor or submitting an application.

Takeaway 3: The Burden of Proof Is on the Homeowner

Many people might assume that in a dispute, the powerful organization (the HOA) has the responsibility to prove its rules are fair and justified. The legal reality is often the exact opposite.

The judge’s decision explicitly stated that the “burden of proof” was on Ms. Westerman to establish that the HOA had acted unreasonably. It was not the HOA’s job to prove their rule was perfect; it was the homeowner’s job to prove the denial was improper. To meet this high legal standard, defined as a “preponderance of the evidence,” you need convincing proof.

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

This case provides a masterclass in what constitutes convincing proof. Ms. Westerman’s evidence that the 8-inch blocks were superior came from the testimony of her contractor’s unlicensed subcontractor. In sharp contrast, the HOA submitted two technical documents from the National Concrete Masonry Association—a neutral, expert authority—which demonstrated that the required 4-inch blocks are “structurally equivalent” to their 8-inch counterparts. The homeowner brought an opinion to a legal fight; the HOA brought expert documentation.

Actionable Advice: If you choose to challenge an HOA decision, understand that personal testimony and contractor opinions are often insufficient. To meet the ‘burden of proof,’ you must be prepared to counter the HOA’s documented rules with equally strong evidence, such as independent engineering reports, surveys, or expert testimony.

Takeaway 4: An HOA Rule Can Be a “Win-Win Program”

While it’s easy to view HOA rules as purely restrictive, the association’s board president, Michael Brubaker, offered a completely different perspective. He framed the wall policy not as a limitation, but as a benefit designed to increase the value and security of the entire community.

In an email to the petitioner, he explained the board’s original thinking behind allowing the walls in the first place, calling it a “win win program.”

A courtyard wall allowed homeowners to expand their homes with an exclusive-use courtyard space, enhance privacy, and improve security, which resulted in an increased individual property value that subsequently raised all property values. Additionally, the Association reduced costs by reducing the common area to be maintained. This is a win win program.

This viewpoint is bolstered by another critical fact: the HOA assumes maintenance responsibility for the walls after they are built. This reinforces the logic behind the rule. Uniformity isn’t just about aesthetics; it’s about the long-term, collective cost and labor of maintaining these structures, making a consistent standard a practical and financial concern for the entire association.

Conclusion: Beyond the Bricks

The dispute between Debbie Westerman and the Bridgewood Townhomes HOA was, on its face, about the size of concrete blocks. But the legal decision reveals a much deeper story about community living. It’s a story about how a shared aesthetic vision, when properly documented, can become legally enforceable. It’s a confirmation of the immense power of written rules and the critical importance of bringing credible evidence to a dispute. And it’s a reminder that the legal burden often falls on the individual to challenge the collective.

This case demonstrates that behind a seemingly petty disagreement lies a complex reality of legal precedent, established processes, and a community’s right to define and defend its character. The next time you encounter a seemingly arbitrary HOA rule, will you see it as a simple restriction, or will you look for the deeper story of community standards and legal precedent behind it?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Debbie Westerman (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf
  • Kelly Zernich (witness)
    Petitioner's realtor
  • Richard Ross (witness)
    Petitioner's contractor's subcontractor

Respondent Side

  • Mark E. Lines (attorney)
    Shaw & Lines, LLC
  • R. Patrick Whelan (attorney)
    Shaw & Lines, LLC
  • Michael Brubaker (board member/witness)
    Respondent's Board president

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Barb Warren (homeowner/applicant)
    Application approved by the Board (used for comparison)
  • Felicia Del Sol (unknown)
    Transmitted the decision electronically

Winter, Alexander vs. Cortina Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314001-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2013-12-12
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome Petitioner established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide redacted invoices and failing to make contracts available for review within 10 business days. Respondent was ordered to comply and refund the filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Alexander Winter Counsel —
Respondent Cortina Homeowners Association Counsel Augustus H. Shaw, IV

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

Petitioner established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide redacted invoices and failing to make contracts available for review within 10 business days. Respondent was ordered to comply and refund the filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide requested invoices and contracts within 10 business days. Respondent claimed invoices contained personal info and contracts contained trade secrets.

Orders: Respondent ordered to provide copies of documents (redacted as provided in statute) within 10 days and refund $550 filing fee.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 44-401

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

13F-H1314001-BFS Decision – 374343.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:46:42 (114.2 KB)

13F-H1314001-BFS Decision – 378997.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:46:46 (59.2 KB)

13F-H1314001-BFS Decision – 374343.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:01 (114.2 KB)

13F-H1314001-BFS Decision – 378997.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:01 (59.2 KB)

Briefing Document: Alexander Winter vs. Cortina Homeowners Association (Case No. 13F-H1314001-BFS)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing between Petitioner Alexander Winter and Respondent Cortina Homeowners Association. The dispute centered on the Association’s alleged failure to comply with Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 regarding the timely provision and inspection of association records.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that while the Association fulfilled its duties for certain financial records by making them available for pickup, it violated the statute in two critical areas: the failure to provide redacted invoices for management services and the failure to allow for the inspection of contracts within the mandated 10-business-day window. Consequently, the Association was ordered to provide the records and reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $550.00.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Compliance with Document Requests

The central theme of the case is the strict adherence to A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs how planned community associations must handle member requests for records. Under this statute:

  • The 10-Day Rule: Associations have ten business days to fulfill a request for the examination of records or to provide copies of requested records.
  • Reasonable Availability: Financial and other records must be made "reasonably available" for examination.
  • Fees: Associations may charge up to $0.15 per page for copies but cannot charge for making materials available for review.
2. Redaction vs. Total Withholding

The Association argued that certain invoices from Renaissance Community Partners (the management company) were exempt from disclosure because they contained financial records of individual members, such as assessments and late fees.

The ALJ ruled that while A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) allows for the withholding of personal financial information, it does not permit the total withholding of a document if the sensitive information can be redacted. The Association had a statutory obligation to provide redacted copies rather than denying the request entirely.

3. The Impact of Management Availability on Inspection Rights

A significant violation occurred when the Association’s manager, Kevin Bishop, informed the Petitioner that he could not inspect contracts until Mr. Bishop returned from vacation.

  • The Request Date: June 12, 2013.
  • The Proposed Appointment: After July 7, 2013 (18 business days later).
  • The Ruling: Personal schedules or vacations of management staff do not waive the statutory 10-business-day deadline. Failure to provide access within the window constitutes a violation.
4. Trade Secrets and Contract Confidentiality

The Association attempted to withhold contract copies by citing "trade secrets" under A.R.S. § 44-401, claiming that the management contract’s unique structure provided a "marketing differential."

  • Finding: The ALJ did not find it necessary to rule on whether the contracts actually contained trade secrets.
  • Observation: The Petitioner had initialed a form acknowledging that contracts would only be available for inspection and not for copying. Therefore, the violation was not the refusal to provide copies, but the failure to allow the inspection within the required timeframe.

Document Request Status and Disposition

The following table summarizes the specific documents requested by the Petitioner and the ALJ's findings regarding the Association's compliance.

Requested Document Status of Association Compliance ALJ Finding
2012/2013 Budgets Made available for pickup. No Violation. Petitioner’s failure to pick up documents is not an HOA violation.
GL Detail Reports (2012) Made available for pickup. No Violation.
Clean Cut Invoices Made available for pickup (as a compiled report). No Violation.
Renaissance Invoices Withheld due to privacy concerns. Violation. Association was required to provide redacted copies.
Active Contracts Inspection offered 18 business days later. Violation. Failure to meet the 10-business-day statutory window.

Important Quotes with Context

On the Obligation to Redact

"Respondent’s records could be withheld from disclosure 'to the extent that the portion withheld relates to' the financial records and information of individual members… Accordingly, Respondent had a statutory obligation to provide redacted copies of those documents to Petitioner."

  • Context: This quote explains the ALJ’s legal reasoning for rejecting the Association’s argument that privacy concerns justified a total refusal to produce management company invoices.
On Statutory Deadlines and Manager Vacations

"Even though Petitioner’s request may be interpreted to be seeking only an inspection of the contracts, Respondent failed to make those documents available for review within 10 business days of the request as evidenced by Mr. Bishop’s email reply that he was on vacation… which is a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)."

  • Context: This highlights that administrative or personal delays on the part of the HOA’s statutory agent do not excuse non-compliance with the 10-day legal requirement.
On the Burden of Proof

"Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805… evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not."

  • Context: This defines the legal standard used in the Office of Administrative Hearings to determine if the Association was at fault.

Actionable Insights

For Associations and Property Managers
  • Redaction Policy: Establish a clear process for redacting personal, health, or individual financial information from records. Total denial of a records request based on the presence of sensitive data is legally insufficient if redaction is possible.
  • Contingency Planning: Ensure that records inspections can be facilitated by more than one individual. A manager’s vacation does not pause the 10-business-day statutory clock.
  • Evidence of Readiness: If copies are prepared for a member, document the notification sent to the member and keep a record that the documents were ready for pickup to defend against claims of non-delivery.
For Homeowners
  • Specificity in Requests: Clearly distinguish between requests for "copies" and requests for "inspection," as different rules and fee structures may apply.
  • Follow-up Procedures: If an association claims a document is protected by privacy or trade secret laws, request a redacted version rather than accepting a flat denial.
  • Pickup Responsibility: If the association makes documents available for pickup rather than mailing them, the member is responsible for retrieving them; failure to do so may invalidate a claim of non-compliance.

Final Decision Certification

On January 17, 2014, the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, Cliff J. Vanell, certified the ALJ's decision as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. This occurred because the Department did not act to accept, reject, or modify the decision within the timeframe required by A.R.S. § 41-1092.08.

Study Guide: Homeowner Records Access and A.R.S. § 33-1805

This study guide examines the legal requirements for homeowners associations (HOAs) regarding the disclosure of records to members, using the administrative case Alexander Winter vs. Cortina Homeowners Association (No. 13F-H1314001-BFS) as a primary case study.

I. Statutory Framework: A.R.S. § 33-1805

The central statute governing records access in Arizona planned communities is A.R.S. § 33-1805. It establishes the rights of members to examine association records and the obligations of the association to fulfill those requests.

Core Provisions
  • Availability: All financial and other records of the association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member or their designated representative.
  • Timeline: The association has 10 business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.
  • Cost: Associations cannot charge for the review of materials but may charge a fee of no more than $0.15 per page for copies.
  • Redaction and Withholding: Records may be withheld if they relate to:
  • Personal, health, or financial records of an individual member.
  • Information that would violate state or federal law if disclosed.
Trade Secrets (A.R.S. § 44-401)

Associations may occasionally argue that contracts contain trade secrets. Under Arizona law, a trade secret must:

  1. Derive independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable.
  2. Be the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.

II. Case Study: Winter v. Cortina Homeowners Association

Background

In June 2013, Petitioner Alexander Winter requested several documents from the Cortina Homeowners Association, including budgets, General Ledger (GL) reports, active contracts, and invoices for two vendors: Clean Cuts and Renaissance Community Partners.

The Conflict

The association, through its manager Kevin Bishop, raised several objections:

  • Personal Privacy: Claimed Renaissance invoices contained individual member financial data (assessments/late fees).
  • Trade Secrets: Claimed contracts were uniquely structured and provided a marketing advantage, thus disclosure could harm the vendor’s business.
  • Logistics: The manager was on vacation, delaying the inspection of contracts beyond the 10-day statutory limit.
Legal Findings

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reached the following conclusions:

  1. Redaction vs. Withholding: While invoices contained protected individual member data, the association had a statutory obligation to provide redacted copies rather than withholding the documents entirely.
  2. Statutory Deadlines: An association manager’s vacation does not exempt the association from the 10-business-day deadline. Delaying an appointment for 18 business days is a violation.
  3. Member Responsibility: If an association makes documents available for pick-up and the member fails to retrieve them, the association has not violated the statute for those specific documents.

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. According to A.R.S. § 33-1805, how many business days does an HOA have to provide copies of records once requested? Answer: 10 business days.

2. What is the maximum per-page fee an association can charge for copies? Answer: $0.15 per page.

3. Under what circumstances can an association legally withhold financial records of an individual member? Answer: Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4), an association may withhold records to the extent they relate to the personal, health, or financial records of an individual member.

**4. In Winter v. Cortina HOA, why was the delay in inspecting contracts deemed a violation?** Answer: The manager’s unavailability due to vacation pushed the appointment to 18 business days after the request, exceeding the 10-day limit required by law.

5. If a document contains both public association information and private member data, what is the association's legal obligation? Answer: The association must provide a redacted version of the document, withholding only the protected portions.

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The Tension Between Transparency and Privacy Analyze the association's duty to provide financial transparency to its members versus its duty to protect the private financial information of individual homeowners. Use the ALJ’s ruling on the Renaissance Community Partners invoices to support your argument.

2. Defining and Protecting Trade Secrets in HOA Contracts Discuss the criteria required for information to be classified as a "trade secret" under A.R.S. § 44-401. Evaluate the manager’s claim in the Winter case that a management contract’s "unique structure" constitutes a trade secret. Should vendor business interests supersede homeowner oversight rights?

3. Administrative Liability and the Burden of Proof In administrative hearings regarding HOA disputes, the petitioner bears the "burden of proof." Explain what a "preponderance of the evidence" means in this context and how Alexander Winter successfully met this burden regarding the 10-day rule violation.

V. Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
A.R.S. § 33-1805 The Arizona Revised Statute governing the inspection of records for planned communities.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) A judge who conducts hearings and issues decisions for government agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Burden of Proof The obligation of a party to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.
General Ledger (GL) A report detailing the history of accounts, including journal entries for operating and reserve funds.
Preponderance of the Evidence A standard of proof meaning that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not (greater than 50% likelihood).
Redaction The process of editing a document to obscure or remove sensitive or protected information before disclosure.
Statutory Agent An individual or entity designated to receive legal documents and official correspondence on behalf of a corporation or association.
Trade Secret Information (formula, pattern, technique, etc.) that has economic value because it is not generally known and is kept secret through reasonable efforts.

Your Right to Know: Lessons from a Homeowner’s Legal Victory over an HOA

1. Introduction: The Battle for Transparency

In the world of planned communities, homeowners often find themselves locked in a David-vs-Goliath battle against opaque boards. While these boards act as stewards of community funds, they frequently treat financial records like state secrets. Transparency, however, isn't a courtesy—it is a statutory right.

The case of Alexander Winter vs. Cortina Homeowners Association (No. 13F-H1314001-BFS) stands as a definitive victory for homeowner rights. When Alexander Winter sought to inspect contracts and financial records, he was met with a wall of administrative excuses and "trade secret" defenses. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) saw through the smoke, ruling that the HOA had violated Arizona law. This case serves as a roadmap for any homeowner demanding the accountability they are legally owed.

2. The 10-Day Rule: Why Timelines Matter

Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805(A) is clear: an association has a strict window of 10 business days to fulfill a records request. In the Winter case, the HOA attempted to rewrite the law based on their own calendar.

After Mr. Winter submitted his request on June 12, 2013, the HOA’s statutory agent and manager, Kevin Bishop, claimed he could not fulfill the request because he was on vacation. He didn't offer an appointment until July 7—effectively forcing the homeowner to wait 18 business days. The ALJ was unimpressed, explicitly citing Conclusion of Law #11 to dismantle this defense. The law applies to the association as an entity; it does not pause because a specific employee leaves the office.

Administrative absences, such as a manager’s vacation or office scheduling conflicts, do not exempt an association from its 10-business-day statutory deadline. The association has a mandatory legal obligation to ensure records remain accessible.

3. Invoices and Privacy: The Duty to Redact

The most common weapon HOAs use to block transparency is the "privacy" shield. The Cortina HOA refused to provide invoices from Renaissance Community Partners, arguing that because the documents contained private financial data of individual members (protected under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)), the records were entirely off-limits.

Management even testified that the invoices were so detailed that redacting them would leave the documents useless. The Judge rejected this "all-or-nothing" fallacy. Under Conclusion of Law #6, the association has a "statutory obligation" to provide the documents. If a record contains private info, you don't bury the record; you redact the sensitive parts.

The Renaissance Invoice Dispute:

  • What the Invoices Contained: Granular details on homeowner assessments, late fees, and specific individual financial matters.
  • The Association's Legal Obligation: The HOA must provide redacted copies. They are only permitted to withhold specific portions related to private data, not the entire invoice.
4. The "Trade Secrets" Defense and Contract Access

In a desperate attempt to shield their contracts, the HOA claimed that their agreement with Renaissance Community Partners contained "trade secrets." They argued that the contract’s unique structure provided a "marketing differential" and that disclosure could harm the vendor’s business.

The board’s hesitancy was fueled by the Petitioner’s professional life; Mr. Winter owned a landscaping management company and assisted his ex-wife with her property management firm. The HOA essentially argued that providing records to a "competitor" was a risk. However, the ALJ bypassed the "trade secret" debate entirely. Because the HOA had already committed a procedural violation by failing the 10-day availability test, the trade secret defense was secondary. A "marketing differential" does not overrule a statutory deadline.

5. The "Legal Trap": Why Homeowners Must Follow Through

As an advocate, I must warn: even when the law is on your side, you can lose by being a passive participant. The HOA successfully avoided violations on several items—the 2012/2013 budgets, General Ledger (GL) reports, and Clean Cut invoices—because they actually had them ready.

Because the HOA notified Mr. Winter that these specific records were "ready for pickup" and he failed to collect them, the Judge ruled there was no violation for those documents.

Warning to Homeowners:

  • Pick Up the Records: If the HOA says records are ready, go get them. Don't hand the board an easy win by failing to show up.
  • Written Trails Only: Mr. Winter testified about a phone call to the management office where a staffer knew nothing of his request. The Judge found this testimony insufficient (Conclusion of Law #5). Never rely on phone calls. If it isn't in an email or a letter, it didn't happen in the eyes of the court.
6. The Final Verdict and Financial Consequences

The ALJ’s Recommended Order was a total rebuke of the HOA’s delay tactics. The Cortina HOA was ordered to provide all requested documents—redacted where necessary—within ten days.

The board’s obstructionism also came with a price tag. The Association was ordered to reimburse Mr. Winter his $550.00 filing fee. When HOAs play games with records, the homeowners end up paying for the board's mistakes.

**Final Certification: The decision in Alexander Winter vs. Cortina Homeowners Association was officially certified as the final administrative decision on January 17, 2014.**

7. Key Takeaways for Homeowners
  1. Redaction Over Rejection: If a board says "we can't show you this because of privacy," remind them of their statutory duty to redact. They cannot block entire documents based on a few lines of private data.
  2. Statutory Deadlines are Firm: A manager’s vacation is not a legal excuse. The 10-business-day rule is a hard deadline.
  3. Watch the Fine Print on Request Forms: In this case, Mr. Winter initialed a pre-printed HOA form acknowledging that contracts were for "inspection only." This almost cost him his right to copies. Always read—and if necessary, amend—the association’s own request forms before signing.
8. Conclusion: Empowerment Through Information

The Winter vs. Cortina victory reinforces A.R.S. § 33-1805 as the "sunshine law" of planned communities. These statutes exist to prevent boards from operating in the shadows. By understanding legal precedents like this, you can stop being a spectator in your own community and start being an informed advocate for your rights. Accountability begins with the right to look at the books.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Alexander Winter (Petitioner)
    Homeowner; owns a landscaping management company

Respondent Side

  • Augustus H. Shaw, IV (HOA attorney)
    Shaw & Lines, LLC
    Represented Cortina Homeowners Association
  • Kevin Bishop (property manager)
    Renaissance Community Partners
    Statutory agent and Manager for Respondent; provided testimony

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Agency Director listed on distribution
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on distribution for Gene Palma
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed mailing certification