Case Summary
| Case ID | 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2018-02-26 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Tammy L. Eigenheer |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | John L. Shields | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch | Counsel | Maria R. Kupillas |
Alleged Violations
CC&R § 6.2(A)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated its CC&Rs by approving the wall extension, as the HOA’s approval duties were limited to aesthetic considerations under CC&R § 7.2 and did not extend to enforcing or ensuring adjoining owner approval required by CC&R § 6.2(A).
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent erroneously approved the proposal, as Respondent's duties under CC&R § 7.2 did not require considering adjoining neighbor approval specified in CC&R § 6.2(A).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs by HOA improperly approving a neighbor's block wall extension without adjoining owner's approval.
Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 6.2(A) by approving a neighbor's block wall extension that served as a party wall because Petitioner, the adjoining owner, had not approved the wall. Respondent argued their approval duties under CC&R § 7.2 only concerned aesthetics, not ensuring neighbor approval.
Orders: The petition is dismissed and no action is required of Respondent.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
- CC&R § 6.2(A)
- CC&R § 7.2
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
- A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1717034-REL-RHG Decision – 619560.pdf
17F-H1717034-REL-RHG Decision – ../17F-H1717034-REL/592935.pdf
Briefing Document: Shields v. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch HOA
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner John Shields (Petitioner) and the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Homeowners’ Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute is a 5-foot by 6-foot common block wall extension constructed by the Petitioner’s neighbor, Joe Johnson. The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by approving the wall alteration without the Petitioner’s required consent as the adjoining property owner.
Following an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings dismissed the Petitioner’s claims. The decisions established several critical legal and procedural points:
• Distinct HOA Obligations: The HOA’s architectural approval role, governed by CC&R § 7.2, is distinct from the neighbor-approval requirement in CC&R § 6.2(A). The HOA’s approval is based solely on aesthetic and community consistency standards and does not obligate it to verify or enforce separate homeowner-to-homeowner agreements or approvals.
• Homeowner Responsibility: The responsibility to obtain an adjoining owner’s approval for a shared wall alteration rests entirely with the homeowner undertaking the construction (in this case, Mr. Johnson), not with the HOA.
• Discretionary Enforcement: The HOA’s power to enforce CC&R violations is discretionary, not mandatory. CC&R § 8.1 uses the permissive term “may,” granting the board latitude in deciding whether to pursue enforcement actions, particularly in cases with conflicting evidence.
• Alternative Remedy: The Petitioner is not without a remedy. The same CC&R section that grants the HOA enforcement power also explicitly authorizes individual owners to bring a private action against another owner to enforce the CC&Rs.
Ultimately, the HOA was found to have acted within its authority as defined by the governing documents, and both petitions against it were dismissed.
I. Case Overview
This matter concerns a petition filed on May 3, 2017, by John Shields with the Arizona Department of Real Estate against his HOA, Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch. The case was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for adjudication.
Entity
Details
John Shields
Petitioner
Homeowner at 20431 E. Bronco Drive, Queen Creek, Arizona.
Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch
Respondent
The Homeowners’ Association (HOA) for the development.
Joe and Sandy Johnson
Adjoining Neighbor
Constructed the disputed wall extension between their property and the Petitioner’s.
The Disputed Structure
Wall Extension
An approximately 5-foot long by 6-foot high common block wall extension.
The dispute was adjudicated in two separate hearings:
1. Initial Hearing: Held on September 27, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Diane Mihalsky. A decision dismissing the petition was issued on October 11, 2017.
2. Rehearing: Granted on December 5, 2017, and held on February 5, 2018, before ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer. A final decision, again dismissing the petition, was issued on February 26, 2018.
II. Petitioner’s Claim and Central Issue
The Petitioner’s central claim was that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 6.2(A) by approving the wall extension built by his neighbor, Joe Johnson, without first securing or verifying the Petitioner’s approval.
• Core Allegation: Any alteration to a shared “Party Wall” requires the approval of both the HOA’s Architectural Control Committee (“the Committee”) and the adjoining owner. The Petitioner asserted he never gave his approval.
• Petitioner’s Testimony: He steadfastly denied ever approving the wall, stating that he expressed his disapproval to the Johnsons on October 16, 2016, three days after its construction. He submitted a photograph and testified the wall “looked like crap” and was an “eyesore.”
• Evolving Argument:
◦ In the first hearing, the Petitioner argued that the HOA was responsible for enforcing the CC&Rs by compelling Mr. Johnson to remove the unapproved wall.
◦ In the rehearing, the Petitioner “vacillated” before firmly asserting his issue was that the HOA had improperly approved Mr. Johnson’s proposal in the first place.
III. Relevant Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The decisions in this case hinged on the interpretation and interplay of three specific sections of the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch CC&Rs.
Section
Key Provision
§ 6.2(A)
Fences as Party Walls
“Such Party Walls and Fences shall not be altered, or changed… without [the] approval of the adjoining Owner(s), if any, and the [Architectural Control] Committee.”
Review by the Committee
“No … fences … shall be commenced [or] erected … until the plans and specifications … have been submitted to and approved by the Committee. … the Committee shall have the right to refuse to approve any Alteration which is not suitable or desirable in their opinion for aesthetic or other reasons…” It also states the Committee’s approval is not an endorsement of compliance with laws or ordinances.
Effect of Declaration and Remedies
“In the event of any violation… they may be enforced by an action brought by [Respondent], the Committee or by the Owner or Owners… at law or in equity…”
IV. Chronology of Events and Factual Evidence
1. Prior to Oct 13, 2016: Mr. Johnson discussed his plans to build the wall extension to hide his RV on multiple occasions with the Petitioner present.
◦ Conflicting Testimony: A.J. Denardo testified he was present for at least three such conversations and that the Petitioner voiced no objection, even stating the wall “looked good” immediately after it was built. Sandy Johnson testified the Petitioner was present for at least ten discussions and never disapproved, sometimes nodding in apparent approval. The Petitioner denied ever giving approval.
2. On/About Oct 13, 2016: Mr. Johnson constructed the wall extension without prior approval from the Committee.
3. On/About Oct 16, 2016: The Petitioner expressed his disapproval of the wall to Mr. and Mrs. Johnson.
4. On/About Nov 2, 2016: Mr. Johnson retroactively submitted plans for the wall extension and a proposal to move his gate forward to the Committee for approval.
5. Nov 16, 2016: The newly elected HOA board, acting as the Committee, met and verbally approved Mr. Johnson’s wall. They specifically advised him that “he will need to seek neighboring property owner’s approval.”
6. December 2016: The board held an executive session to obtain legal advice on enforcement issues.
7. Jan 18, 2017: At a regular board meeting, the board formally approved Mr. Johnson’s proposal, resolving “to ratify the unanimous written consent received outside this regular meeting.”
8. Post-Approval: The City of Queen Creek notified Mr. Johnson that he could not move his gate forward as proposed, as it violated city codes.
V. Legal Analysis and Rulings
Both administrative law judges ultimately concluded that the HOA had not violated its CC&Rs and dismissed the petition. The reasoning in each decision focused on different facets of the HOA’s duties.
A. First Hearing Decision (ALJ Diane Mihalsky)
The initial ruling focused on the HOA’s role in enforcement.
• Discretionary Power: The decision centered on the word “may” in CC&R § 8.1. Citing case law (Walker v. Wilkinson), the judge found that “may” indicates a permissive intent, while “shall” indicates a mandatory one. Therefore, the CC&Rs gave the Respondent board the option to bring an enforcement action, but did not require it to do so.
• No Abuse of Discretion: The board was aware of the dispute and the conflicting testimony from multiple witnesses regarding the Petitioner’s prior approval (or lack of objection). The board determined it was not its “job to decide who was telling the truth.” Given this conflicting evidence, the judge found that the board’s decision not to pursue enforcement against Mr. Johnson was not an abuse of its discretion.
• Petitioner’s Remedy: The decision explicitly noted that the Petitioner was not without a remedy, as CC&R § 8.1 also authorizes him to file his own action directly against the Johnsons for their alleged violation of CC&R § 6.2(A).
B. Rehearing Decision (ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer)
The rehearing focused on the Petitioner’s clarified claim that the HOA’s approval of the plans was improper.
• Separate and Distinct Obligations: The judge ruled that CC&R § 6.2(A) and CC&R § 7.2 create separate obligations for separate parties.
◦ § 6.2(A) requires the homeowner (Mr. Johnson) to obtain the adjoining neighbor’s approval.
◦ § 7.2 requires the HOA Committee to review the proposal based only on aesthetic criteria and consistency with the development.
• Limited Scope of Committee Review: The decision states, “Nothing in CC&R § 7.2 requires Respondent to consider whether the adjoining neighbor had approved the block wall extension.” The board’s role was to evaluate if the wall was “aesthetically pleasing and consistent” with other structures, which it did.
• No Erroneous Approval: Because the HOA’s approval process is defined and limited by § 7.2, its decision to approve the wall based on those criteria was not erroneous. The HOA had “no obligation under CC&R § 6.2(A) to obtain or ensure Petitioner approved the block wall extension.”
VI. Final Outcome
The Petitioner’s petition against the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch HOA was dismissed. The final order from the February 26, 2018, rehearing, which is binding on the parties, concluded that no action was required of the Respondent. The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated its governing documents in either its approval of the wall extension or its decision not to pursue enforcement.
Study Guide: Shields v. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between John Shields and the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch homeowners’ association. It is based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and evidence presented in two separate hearings before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what is their relationship?
2. What specific structure is at the center of the dispute, when was it built, and by whom?
3. According to CC&R § 6.2(A), what two distinct approvals are required before a party wall can be altered?
4. Why did the Respondent’s board state it was unsure whether the Petitioner had approved the wall extension before it was constructed?
5. What criteria did the Architectural Control Committee use when it formally approved the wall extension, as outlined in CC&R § 7.2?
6. Explain the legal significance of the word “may” in CC&R § 8.1 regarding the homeowners’ association’s enforcement duties.
7. On what grounds was the Petitioner, John Shields, granted a rehearing after the initial decision was issued?
8. During the rehearing, what did the Petitioner clarify was his single, primary complaint against the Respondent?
9. What was the final recommended order in both the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing?
10. According to the first judge’s decision, what other legal remedy is available to the Petitioner to address his grievance against his neighbor?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are John Shields (the Petitioner) and the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch homeowners’ association (the Respondent). Mr. Shields is a homeowner and member of the association, and his dispute concerns the association’s handling of a wall built by his next-door neighbor, Joe Johnson.
2. The structure is an approximately 5-foot long by 6-foot high common block wall extension. It was built on or about October 13, 2016, by the Petitioner’s neighbor, Joe Johnson, between their two properties.
3. CC&R § 6.2(A) requires that any alteration to a party wall must have the approval of the adjoining owner(s), if any, as well as the approval of the Architectural Control Committee. Both approvals are necessary.
4. The board was unsure about the Petitioner’s prior approval because at least four witnesses stated they heard the Petitioner either actually approve of the wall or fail to object while Mr. Johnson was discussing plans to build it in his presence. This created a conflict between the Petitioner’s claims and the testimony of others.
5. According to testimony from board member Kristi Hancock, the Committee’s approval was based solely on whether the wall was aesthetically pleasing and consistent with other wall extensions in the development. The Committee’s review under CC&R § 7.2 did not require it to confirm whether the adjoining neighbor had given approval.
6. The first decision concluded that the word “may” in CC&R § 8.1 indicates permissive intent, not a mandatory requirement. This means the association had the discretion, but not the obligation, to bring an enforcement action against Mr. Johnson.
7. A rehearing was granted by Commissioner Judy Lowe because the Petitioner claimed there were errors in the admission or rejection of evidence, other errors of law during the proceeding, and misconduct by the Administrative Law Judge that deprived him of a fair hearing.
8. After some vacillation, the Petitioner firmly asserted during the rehearing that his single issue was that the Respondent had improperly approved Mr. Johnson’s proposal to build the block wall extension and move his gate forward.
9. In both hearings, the recommended order was that no action was required of the Respondent and that the petition should be dismissed.
10. The first decision points out that under CC&R § 8.1, the Petitioner is not without a remedy. This section authorizes an owner, not just the association, to file an action against another owner for an alleged violation of the CC&Rs.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, citing specific facts, testimony, and CC&R provisions from the source documents.
1. Analyze the differing responsibilities of the homeowner (Mr. Johnson), the adjoining neighbor (Mr. Shields), and the homeowners’ association (the Respondent) as outlined in CC&Rs § 6.2(A), § 7.2, and § 8.1. How do these distinct roles and responsibilities intersect and conflict in this case?
2. Compare and contrast the evidence and testimony presented in the first hearing (before ALJ Diane Mihalsky) with the focus of the second hearing (before ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer). How did the Petitioner’s framing of his central argument change between the two proceedings?
3. Discuss the legal standard “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain how the conflicting testimony regarding the Petitioner’s “tacit approval” influenced the Respondent’s decision-making and, ultimately, the Administrative Law Judges’ conclusions.
4. Evaluate the Respondent’s decision-making process regarding the approval of the wall extension. Consider the timeline of events from the wall’s unapproved construction in October 2016 to the formal ratification in January 2017, the conditional verbal approval, and the rationale provided by board members for their actions.
5. The first decision explicitly states that CC&R § 8.1 gives the Petitioner a separate remedy against his neighbor. Based on the information in both documents, construct the legal argument the Petitioner could make in a direct action against Mr. and Mrs. Johnson for their alleged violation of CC&R § 6.2(A).
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, takes evidence, and makes decisions or recommendations on legal and factual issues. In this case, Diane Mihalsky and Tammy L. Eigenheer served as ALJs.
Architectural Control Committee (The Committee)
A body within the homeowners’ association responsible for reviewing and approving or disapproving proposed alterations to properties, such as fences, based on aesthetic and other considerations as outlined in the CC&Rs. In this case, the board itself acted as the Committee.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (The Department)
The state agency with which the Petitioner initially filed his petition concerning violations of planned community documents. The Department then referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this matter, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set out the rights and obligations of the homeowners’ association and its members. The key sections referenced are 6.2(A), 7.2, and 8.1.
Office of Administrative Hearings
The independent state agency responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings for disputes referred by other state agencies, such as the one between Shields and the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch.
Party Wall
A wall built on the boundary line between two adjoining properties, for the common benefit of both owners. CC&R § 6.2(A) governs the alteration of such walls.
Permissive Intent
A legal interpretation of language, such as the word “may,” which indicates that an action is allowed or discretionary but not required. This was central to the interpretation of CC&R § 8.1.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, John Shields is the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in this civil administrative case, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, making it more probable that a contention is true than not.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case, granted in this instance because the Petitioner alleged errors of law and misconduct by the judge in the first proceeding.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch homeowners’ association is the Respondent.
Tacit Approval
Approval that is implied or inferred from actions or from a failure to state an objection, rather than being explicitly stated. Witnesses claimed the Petitioner gave tacit approval to the wall before it was built.
4 Surprising Lessons From a Neighbor’s Ugly Wall and the HOA That Did Nothing
Introduction: The Homeowner’s Dilemma
In the world of community governance, the gap between homeowner expectation and contractual reality is a fertile ground for conflict. Most people assume their Homeowners’ Association (HOA) exists to be their first line of defense in a neighbor dispute; when a rule is broken, the HOA is expected to step in. But what happens when the HOA decides to do nothing?
This was the exact situation faced by homeowner John Shields, who was appalled when his neighbor, Joe Johnson, built a block wall extension he considered an eyesore. Mr. Shields turned to his HOA, Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch, expecting them to force its removal. The legal battle that followed provides a fascinating case study, revealing surprising realities about the power and obligations of an HOA. For any homeowner in a planned community, the takeaways are as counter-intuitive as they are crucial.
1. Your HOA Isn’t Obligated to Be Your Enforcer
Mr. Shields’s primary argument rested on a common but often mistaken assumption: that an HOA has a strict mandate to enforce every rule. His logic was straightforward: the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) required his approval for the wall extension. Since he never gave it, he believed the HOA was responsible for forcing his neighbor to tear the wall down.
The court, however, pointed to a different section of the CC&Rs (§ 8.1) which stated that the rules may be enforced by the HOA. This single word was the linchpin of the case. The Administrative Law Judge highlighted the critical legal distinction between a permissive option and a mandatory duty.
“[The] use of the word ‘may’ generally indicates permissive intent . . . while ‘shall’ generally indicates a mandatory provision.”
This gave the HOA discretion on whether to act. Because there was conflicting testimony about whether Mr. Shields had given tacit approval beforehand, the court found that the HOA “did not abuse its discretion by declining to bring an enforcement action.” The lesson is clear: your HOA’s governing documents might grant it the right to enforce rules without creating an obligation to do so in every single case.
2. The HOA’s “Approval” Might Not Mean What You Think
Adding another layer to the conflict, Mr. Johnson submitted plans for the wall and a related gate relocation to the HOA’s Architectural Control Committee after the wall was already built. The Committee ultimately approved it. To Mr. Shields, this seemed like the HOA was siding with his neighbor and ignoring his rights.
But the Committee’s review was far narrower than he assumed. According to CC&R § 7.2, their analysis was limited to whether the wall was “esthetically pleasing and consistent with other wall extensions that had been built in the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch development.” The Committee wasn’t tasked with policing neighbor-to-neighbor agreements.
A formal rehearing—granted after the petitioner alleged “errors of law”—clarified this crucial point. The judge found that under CC&R § 6.2(A), it was Mr. Johnson’s responsibility to get his neighbor’s approval, not the HOA’s. As the decision stated, “Respondent had no obligation under CC&R § 6.2(A) to obtain or ensure Petitioner approved the block wall extension.” This separation of duties is common in governing documents, as it strategically shields the HOA from liability in member disputes while allowing it to maintain aesthetic control over the community.
3. Your Silence Can Be Used Against You
The case devolved into a classic “he said, she said” scenario that ultimately weakened Mr. Shields’s position. He testified that he never approved the wall and, on October 16, 2016—three days after it was built—told his neighbors he disapproved, calling it an “eyesore” that “looked like crap.”
However, other witnesses told a different story. One, Mr. Denardo, testified that Mr. Shields “did not voice any objection” before the wall was constructed and even said it “looked good” immediately after. The neighbor’s wife, Mrs. Johnson, testified that Mr. Shields was present for at least ten discussions about the wall, “had never voiced any disapproval,” and had “sometimes nodded, apparently indicating his approval.”
This conflicting testimony was the direct basis for the board invoking its discretionary power. A board member testified that because of the conflicting accounts, the board “was less sure about whether Petitioner had actually or tacitly approved the block wall extension before it was built.” This uncertainty was the key factor that led them not to intervene. When it comes to property matters, clear, timely, and preferably documented communication is your strongest asset; ambiguity and silence can be interpreted as consent.
4. When the HOA Steps Aside, the Fight Might Be Yours Alone
While the court dismissed the petition against the HOA, it did not leave Mr. Shields without a path forward. The judge pointed to the very same rule that gave the HOA its discretion—CC&R § 8.1—as a source of the homeowner’s power. This rule proved to be a double-edged sword.
The judge’s first decision stated that CC&R § 8.1 “authorizes Petitioner to file an action against Mr. and Mrs. Johnson for their alleged violation of CC&R § 6.2(A).” The same clause that gave the HOA the discretion to step aside also explicitly empowered individual homeowners to act in the HOA’s stead.
When an association chooses to stay out of a member-to-member dispute, the responsibility—and the power—to enforce the community’s rules can fall directly to the affected homeowner. The HOA’s inaction does not mean a rule can’t be enforced; it just means you may have to be the one to do it by bringing a private legal action against your neighbor.
Conclusion: Read Your Fine Print
The story of the ugly wall serves as a powerful reminder that a homeowner’s assumptions about their HOA’s power can be miles apart from the legal reality written into the CC&Rs. This case perfectly illustrates the interplay between an HOA’s discretionary enforcement powers (Lesson 1), its carefully separated procedural duties (Lesson 2), the critical importance of homeowner communication and proof (Lesson 3), and the ultimate empowerment of members to enforce rules themselves (Lesson 4). These documents are not just a list of rules; they are a legal framework that dictates who has the power to act, when they are obligated to do so, and what recourse you have when a conflict arises.
You might know your community’s rules on trash cans and lawn care, but do you know who is truly responsible for enforcing them when a real dispute arises?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- John Shields (petitioner)
Respondent Side
- Maria R. Kupillas (HOA attorney)
Law Offices of Farley Choate & Bergin
Represented Respondent Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch - Dean Kabanuk (board president)
Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Board
Testified for Petitioner via subpoena; elected President Nov 2016 - Kristi Hancock (board member/witness)
Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Board
Served as Vice President (Nov 2016-Nov 2017) and President (since Nov 2017) - Brenda Campbell (community manager)
Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch
Witness for Respondent - A.J. Denardo (witness)
Not a member of Respondent; lives near Petitioner - Sandy Johnson (witness/neighbor)
Wife of Joe Johnson; Petitioner's next-door neighbor - Joe Johnson (neighbor/homeowner)
Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch
Built the block wall extension in question
Neutral Parties
- Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Issued initial ALJ Decision - Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Issued ALJ Decision following rehearing - Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Granted Petitioner's request for rehearing
Other Participants
- Felicia Del Sol (staff)
Transmitted the decision
