Case Summary
| Case ID | 08F-H078003-BFS |
|---|---|
| Agency | Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2007-10-25 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Brian Brendan Tully |
| Outcome | no |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $550.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Delores Harrold | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association | Counsel | Scott Humble |
Alleged Violations
Master Declaration of Amended, Restated Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
Outcome Summary
The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA did not violate its governing documents by approving a carport construction, as the documents did not prohibit such structures and authorized the committee to approve them.
Why this result: The ALJ determined that the Respondent's approval of the carport was not a variance from the HOA documents because the documents did not restrict carports for single-family homes with attached garages.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged unauthorized variance for carport construction
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated its documents by granting a variance for a carport. The ALJ found the documents did not prohibit approved carports, and the Architectural Control Committee had authority to approve the request, meaning no variance was actually granted.
Orders: Petition dismissed.
Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Decision Documents
08F-H078003-BFS Decision – 178956.pdf
08F-H078003-BFS Decision – 179085.pdf
Briefing Document: Administrative Adjudication of Homeowners Association Disputes
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes findings from administrative proceedings held at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding disputes between homeowners and property owner associations. The primary focus is the case of Delores Harrold vs. Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association (Case No. 08F-H078003-BFS), which centers on the authority of an association to approve property modifications—specifically carports—under existing Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The core takeaway is that an association’s approval of a structure does not constitute a “variance” if the governing documents do not explicitly prohibit that structure. Consequently, a petitioner challenging such an approval must provide credible evidence of a specific violation of the Master Declaration or related bylaws. Additionally, this briefing outlines the procedural grounds upon which administrative hearings may be vacated or remanded.
——————————————————————————–
Analysis of Harrold vs. Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association
Background and Petitioner Claims
The Petitioner, Delores Harrold, filed a single-violation petition against the Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association on August 14, 2007. The dispute originated from the Association’s decision to allow a neighbor at 11573 Turquoise Circle to construct a two-car carport.
The Petitioner’s arguments were based on two primary assertions:
• The Association lacked the authority under its governing “HOA Documents” (CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Articles of Incorporation) to grant a variance for a carport.
• The Association violated its documents by granting said variance on or about June 18, 2007.
Findings of Fact
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) established several critical facts that refuted the Petitioner’s claims:
Fact Category
Details
Property Status
The subject property maintained a single-family residence with an attached garage, fulfilling basic HOA requirements.
Approval Process
The Architectural Control Committee (ACC) approved the carport request on February 8, 2007.
Authority
The HOA Documents explicitly grant the ACC the authority to approve such construction requests.
Precedent
Other residences within the Prescott Country Club community already possess carports.
Evidence
The Petitioner failed to present credible evidence that a variance was actually granted on the date alleged (June 18, 2007).
Legal Conclusions and Ruling
The ALJ determined that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof, which is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard under A.A.C. R2-19-119(A).
• Distinction Between Approval and Variance: The ALJ concluded that because the HOA Documents do not prohibit the construction of carports for residences with attached garages, the Association’s action was a standard approval rather than a variance from the rules.
• Prevailing Party: The Respondent (the Association) was deemed the prevailing party.
• Financial Implications: Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), the Petitioner was denied reimbursement of the $550.00 filing fee.
• Attorney Fees: While the Association prevailed, the ALJ did not award attorney fees because the Respondent failed to provide legal authority for such a grant.
• Final Order: The petition was dismissed on October 25, 2007.
——————————————————————————–
Administrative Procedures for Vacating Hearings
Source documentation also clarifies the conditions under which the Office of Administrative Hearings may issue a “Minute Entry Vacating Hearing.” A matter may be removed from the docket and remanded for several specific reasons:
• Mootness: Occurs if the Respondent changes their position regarding the subject of the appeal.
• Voluntary Withdrawal: The party that originally requested the hearing chooses to retract their request.
• Resolution: The involved parties reach an independent settlement or agreement to dismiss the matter.
• Agency Action: The oversight agency may dismiss the matter or deem allegations admitted, subsequently issuing its own Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion
The administrative record indicates that the Office of Administrative Hearings maintains a strict adherence to the written CC&Rs of property associations. In the absence of an explicit prohibition within HOA Documents, the Architectural Control Committee retains broad discretionary authority to approve property modifications. For a member to successfully challenge an association’s decision, they must demonstrate a clear violation of the governing documents rather than a disagreement with a permitted approval.
Study Guide: Administrative Law and HOA Dispute Resolution
This study guide examines the administrative hearing process within the state of Arizona, specifically focusing on disputes between homeowners and property owner associations. The primary case study involves a petition regarding architectural variances and the interpretation of governing documents.
Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions using two to three sentences based on the provided administrative documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in Case No. 08F-H078003-BFS and what were their respective roles?
2. What specific action by the Respondent did the Petitioner allege was a violation of the homeowners association (HOA) documents?
3. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) characterize the authority of the Architectural Control Committee regarding the subject property?
4. According to the Findings of Fact, why was the approval of the carport not considered a “variance”?
5. Which Arizona Revised Statute grants a member of a homeowners association the right to file a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety?
6. What is the legal “standard of proof” required for a petitioner to succeed in this administrative forum?
7. Why was the Petitioner denied reimbursement for the $550.00 filing fee?
8. What was the ALJ’s ruling regarding the Respondent’s request for attorney fees and costs?
9. Based on the Findings of Fact, what evidence existed regarding the presence of other carports within the community?
10. According to the “Minute Entry Vacating Hearing” template, what is one reason a matter might be remanded and vacated from the docket?
——————————————————————————–
Part 2: Quiz Answer Key
1. Who were the primary parties involved in Case No. 08F-H078003-BFS and what were their respective roles? The Petitioner was Delores Harrold, a member of the association who filed the complaint. The Respondent was the Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association, represented by attorney Scott Humble.
2. What specific action by the Respondent did the Petitioner allege was a violation of the homeowners association (HOA) documents? The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated its HOA documents by granting a neighbor a variance to construct a two-car carport at 11573 Turquoise Circle. She contended that the association did not have the authority to grant such a variance under its governing documents.
3. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) characterize the authority of the Architectural Control Committee regarding the subject property? The ALJ found that the HOA documents specifically give the Architectural Control Committee the authority to grant requests for additions such as carports. The committee had approved the homeowner’s request to build the carport on February 8, 2007.
4. According to the Findings of Fact, why was the approval of the carport not considered a “variance”? The approval was not a variance because the HOA documents do not prohibit the construction of approved carports for single-family residences with attached garages. Since no restriction was bypassed, the approval was a standard exercise of committee authority rather than a deviation from the rules.
5. Which Arizona Revised Statute grants a member of a homeowners association the right to file a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety? The right to file such a petition is permitted under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01. This statute ensures that such petitions are heard before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
6. What is the legal “standard of proof” required for a petitioner to succeed in this administrative forum? Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(A), the standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.” The Petitioner carries the burden of proving their case to this standard.
7. Why was the Petitioner denied reimbursement for the $550.00 filing fee? Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), filing fees are typically reimbursed to the prevailing party. Because the ALJ concluded that the Respondent was the prevailing party and dismissed the petition, the Petitioner was not entitled to reimbursement.
8. What was the ALJ’s ruling regarding the Respondent’s request for attorney fees and costs? The ALJ did not grant attorney fees or costs to the Respondent. The ruling noted that the Respondent failed to present any legal authority that would allow for the granting of such fees in this specific matter.
9. Based on the Findings of Fact, what evidence existed regarding the presence of other carports within the community? The ALJ noted as a finding of fact that there are already existing carports at other residences within the Respondent’s jurisdiction. This suggests that the carport in question was not an unprecedented addition to the community.
10. According to the “Minute Entry Vacating Hearing” template, what is one reason a matter might be remanded and vacated from the docket? A matter may be vacated and remanded if it becomes moot because the Respondent changed its position concerning the subject of the appeal. Other reasons include the parties resolving the matter or the party requesting the hearing voluntarily withdrawing.
——————————————————————————–
Part 3: Essay Questions
Instructions: Use the provided documents to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.
1. The Burden of Proof in Administrative Law: Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in the context of Case No. 08F-H078003-BFS. Why did the Petitioner fail to meet this burden despite her claims regarding the HOA documents?
2. Architectural Control and HOA Governance: Analyze the role of the Architectural Control Committee as described in the findings. How do the “HOA Documents” (CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Articles of Incorporation) define and limit the scope of the committee’s power?
3. The Concept of a “Variance” vs. “Approved Use”: Based on the ALJ’s decision, contrast a variance with an approved use of property. Explain how the absence of a prohibition in the CC&Rs affects the legal interpretation of an association’s actions.
4. Administrative Remedies and Costs: Examine the financial implications of filing a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. Detail the rules regarding the $550.00 filing fee and the conditions under which attorney fees may or may not be awarded.
5. Procedural Grounds for Vacating Hearings: Using the “Minute Entry Vacating Hearing” document, identify and explain the various circumstances that lead to the cancellation of a scheduled administrative hearing. Why is “mootness” considered a valid reason for remand?
——————————————————————————–
Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
The Arizona Revised Statute that allows HOA members to file petitions against their association with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, and issues legal conclusions and orders.
Architectural Control Committee
A specific body within an HOA authorized to review and approve or deny requests for property modifications or additions.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and limitations for property owners within a specific development.
Findings of Fact
The determinations made by a judge regarding the events and circumstances of a case based on the evidence presented.
A legal status where a matter is no longer subject to determination by a court because the issues involved have been resolved or the circumstances have changed.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, Delores Harrold).
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning that a claim is more likely to be true than not true.
Prevailing Party
The party in a lawsuit that wins on the main issues, often entitling them to certain reimbursements or legal remedies.
Remand
To send a case back to a lower court or the original agency for further action or because the hearing is no longer necessary.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, the Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association).
Vacate
To cancel or render void a scheduled hearing, order, or entry on a court docket.
Variance
An official permit or approval to depart from the established zoning or building regulations set forth in governing documents.
The Carport Conflict: 3 Essential Lessons from an Arizona HOA Legal Battle
1. Introduction: The Neighborhood Dispute You Never Saw Coming
Imagine the frustration of watching a construction crew break ground on a neighbor’s property for a project you are certain violates your community’s standards. This exact scenario sparked a legal showdown in the case of Harrold vs. Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association.
Delores Harrold, a resident of the community, filed a petition challenging the approval of a two-car carport at 11573 Turquoise Circle. She believed the association had overstepped by granting an unauthorized “variance” for the structure.
As a legal specialist, I find this case particularly instructive because it highlights the often-misunderstood boundaries of board authority. The outcome of Petition No. 08F-H078003-BFS offers a masterclass in why the specific language of your governing documents matters more than neighborhood expectations.
2. Takeaway 1: Silence in the CC&Rs Isn’t a Prohibition
A frequent misconception among homeowners is that if a structure isn’t explicitly mentioned as “allowed” in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), it must be prohibited. In this case, the petitioner argued that the association granted a “variance,” which is an exception to an established rule.
However, the judge found that the Architectural Control Committee (ACC) was well within its rights to approve the project because carports were never actually banned. In fact, Finding 11 noted that other carports already existed within the community, proving the structure was consistent with the neighborhood.
When the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are silent on a specific structure, the Architectural Control Committee often maintains broad authority to approve or deny requests. If the authority to approve exists and no prohibition is written, the approval is simply a standard exercise of power, not a “variance.”
3. Takeaway 2: The “Preponderance of Evidence” Bar
In administrative hearings, the burden of proof lies with the petitioner under A.A.C. R2-19-119(B). To win, a homeowner must meet the Preponderance of Evidence standard as defined in A.A.C. R2-19-119(A).
This means the petitioner must prove it is “more likely than not” that a violation occurred. Delores Harrold failed this test largely because of a mismatch in facts; she alleged a violation occurred on June 18, 2007, but the Architectural Control Committee had already formally approved the carport months earlier on February 8, 2007.
To sustain the burden of proof in an HOA dispute, a petitioner must:
• Identify the specific provision in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or HOA Documents that was allegedly violated.
• Provide credible evidence that a violation actually occurred on or about the specific date alleged in the petition.
• Demonstrate that the action taken (such as an approval) was outside the authority granted to the Architectural Control Committee.
4. Takeaway 3: The Financial Risk of “Losing”
Homeowners should view administrative petitions as a “pay-to-play” legal reality. To initiate her case, the petitioner had to pay a $550.00 filing fee to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), only the “prevailing party” is entitled to have this filing fee reimbursed. Because the judge dismissed the petition, the homeowner was not eligible to get her money back, resulting in a total loss of the filing costs.
What the Prevailing Party Wins:
• A formal Administrative Law Judge Decision and Order in their favor.
• The right to seek reimbursement of the $550.00 filing fee under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A).
What the Losing Party Forfeits:
• The $550.00 filing fee paid to the Department.
• The legal standing of their claim, resulting in a dismissal of the petition.
5. Conclusion: A Final Thought on Community Governance
The dismissal of Petition No. 08F-H078003-BFS underscores a vital reality: the Architectural Control Committee holds the power to shape the community as long as they stay within the bounds of the HOA Documents. If the rules do not explicitly forbid a structure, the committee’s approval is usually final.
Homeowners must realize that their personal aesthetic preferences do not carry the weight of law. Before you challenge a neighbor’s renovation, you must verify if your Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) actually prohibit the structure or if you are simply assuming a rule exists where there is only silence.
Do you truly know what your HOA’s rules allow—or are you simply assuming the rules match your own expectations?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Delores Harrold (petitioner)
Appeared personally
Respondent Side
- Scott Humble (attorney)
Turley, Swan & Childers, P.C.
Represented Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association - Joseph B. Swan, Jr. (attorney)
Turley, Swan & Childers, P.C.
Listed in distribution list with Scott Humble
Neutral Parties
- Brian Brendan Tully (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings - Robert Barger (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Copy mailed to - Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Attn line for Robert Barger
