**Case Summary: McCoy v. Barclay Place Homeowners Association**
**Case No. 19F-H1919062-REL-RHG**

**Procedural Context**
This summary covers an administrative dispute before the Arizona Department of Real Estate involving a rehearing. It is critical to distinguish between the **Original Decision** (August 27, 2019) and the **Rehearing Decision** (January 2, 2020),. The rehearing was granted exclusively to reconsider "Complaint Item Three," while the findings on the first two complaints remained adjudicated under the original decision.

### I. Original Decision (August 2019)
In the initial proceeding, Petitioner Sean McCoy alleged three violations by the Respondent, Barclay Place HOA.

* **Complaint Item One (Videotaping):** Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by prohibiting him from recording meetings.
* *Finding:* The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled for the **Respondent**. The Board recorded meetings itself and made them available to members; therefore, restricting members from recording did not violate the statute,.
* **Complaint Item Two (Financials):** Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide compiled financial statements for 2017.
* *Finding:* The ALJ ruled for the **Petitioner**. The HOA failed to complete the compilation within 180 days of the fiscal year-end, violating A.R.S. § 33-1810,. The HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner $500.00.
* **Complaint Item Three (Communication Restrictions):** Petitioner argued that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by requiring him to communicate solely through the Board’s attorney rather than contacting the Board or management directly.
* *Finding:* The ALJ initially ruled for the **Respondent**, determining such restrictions are standard industry practice when a homeowner’s requests become onerous,.

### II. Rehearing Proceedings (December 2019)
The Department granted a rehearing specifically for **Complaint Item Three** regarding the denial of reasonable access and communication,.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **The Restriction:** In January 2019, the HOA's attorney issued a "cease and desist" letter to the Petitioner. It instructed him to direct all communications to the law firm via U.S. Mail and explicitly prohibited direct contact with the Board or management company.
* **The Incident:** On March 6, 2019, Petitioner emailed the management company directly to request contracts, citing A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The management company refused to accept the email, citing the legal directive to communicate only through counsel.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Petitioner argued that a letter sent by his own attorney to the HOA's counsel rescinded or terminated the "cease and desist" letter, restoring his right to direct communication.

**Legal Analysis and Decision**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the **Respondent**, maintaining the original outcome for Item Three based on the following legal points:
1. **Privileged Information:** An earlier request by Petitioner (Jan 14, 2019) sought information regarding Board authorizations. The ALJ found this sought privileged attorney-client communications, which the attorney was not required to provide.
2. **Validity of Communication Restrictions:** Regarding the March 6, 2019 request, the ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to provide any legal authority to support his assertion that his attorney's objection unilaterally terminated the HOA's cease and desist letter.
3. **No Statutory Violation:** Because the management company was acting under valid legal instructions to route communication through counsel, their failure to respond to Petitioner’s direct email did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1805.

### Final Outcome
* **Complaint Item Two:** Petitioner prevailed (Original Decision).