**Case Summary: Yuille v. Caida Court Homeowner Association**
**Case No.:** 11F-H1112005-BFS-res
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date:** September 13, 2012 (Hearing); October 24, 2012 (Final Certification)

**Proceedings**
This administrative hearing addressed a petition filed by John Yuille (Petitioner) against the Caida Court Homeowner Association (Respondent). The Petitioner appeared on his own behalf, while the Respondent failed to appear at the hearing,. The hearing was presided over by Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The dispute arose after the Petitioner, who served as Chairman of the Board of Management for Caida Court, was recalled from his position on August 24, 2011.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Mr. Yuille alleged that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) regarding the procedure for removing a board member. He testified that he returned from a trip to find a special meeting for his removal already in progress. He requested a copy of the recall petition but was never provided one, leading him to believe a written petition did not actually exist,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** Although absent from the hearing, the Respondent submitted a written Answer admitting that they "possibly did not follow the statute 33-1248" due to a lack of removal information and apologized for the error.

**Legal Issues and Findings**
The primary legal issue was whether the Association complied with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H), which mandates specific timelines and notice requirements for calling a special meeting upon receipt of a removal petition,.

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(H). The decision was based on undisputed credible testimony establishing that the Respondent failed to call, notice, and hold the special meeting to remove the Petitioner within thirty days after receiving the petition, as required by law.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Petitioner, deeming him the prevailing party. The Order mandated the following:
1. **Future Compliance:** The Respondent was ordered to comply with the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) in the future.
2. **Reimbursement:** The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner $550.00 to cover his filing fee.
3. **Civil Penalty:** The Respondent was assessed a civil penalty of $200.00, payable to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on October 24, 2012, as the Department took no action to modify or reject the Judge's decision within the statutory review period,.