Sellers, John A. v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919066-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-08-26
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John A Sellers Counsel
Respondent Rancho Madera Condominium Association Counsel Edward D. O'Brien

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1258. The Association provided available records, and the remaining requested items either did not exist or were properly withheld under statutory exceptions for privileged communications and pending litigation.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that the requested documents existed or were improperly withheld. The Respondent successfully demonstrated that it had provided all non-privileged records in its possession and that specific meeting minutes and emails did not exist.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Provide Records

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to provide records requested on April 29, 2019, specifically emails regarding specific individuals, legal invoices, executive session minutes, and communications regarding a petition signing.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248

Decision Documents

19F-H1919066-REL Decision – 733561.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T06:35:50 (99.9 KB)

**Case Summary: Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association**
**Case No:** 19F-H1919066-REL
**Date of Decision:** August 26, 2019
**Administrative Law Judge:** Antara Nath Rivera

**Overview**
This case involved an administrative hearing regarding a dispute between Petitioner John Sellers and Respondent Rancho Madera Condominium Association. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to timely provide records requested on April 29, 2019.

**Key Facts and Issues**
The Petitioner requested four specific categories of records:
1. Communications between the Association’s legal counsel (Carpenter Hazelwood), agents, and the Petitioner’s ex-wife.
2. Unredacted legal invoices for the current petition.
3. Records of Executive Sessions and minutes regarding the retention of counsel.
4. Communications and notices regarding alleged meetings where residents signed a petition against the Petitioner.

The Petitioner filed a dispute petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on May 29, 2019, claiming the bulk of his request was denied.

**Hearing Proceedings and Arguments**
At the August 5, 2019 hearing, the Petitioner argued that the Respondent failed to comply with the statute. However, he testified that he received documents responsive to the legal invoices (Item #2) on August 2, 2019, and was satisfied with that compliance. Regarding Items #1 and #4, the Petitioner testified that he "strongly believed" the emails existed and opined that meetings must have occurred to gather 21 resident signatures, despite the Respondent claiming otherwise.

Jeff Kaplan, President of the Respondent Association, testified that the Association had provided all documents in its possession that were not subject to statutory exceptions. His specific defenses were:
* **Items #1 and #4:** These records did not exist. Kaplan testified that no official meetings occurred on the dates alleged; rather, residents individually signed a petition because they were unhappy with the Petitioner.
* **Item #2:** Redacted invoices were provided to protect attorney-client privilege.
* **Item #3:** Redacted executive session minutes were provided, asserting that full disclosure is not required under A.R.S. § 33-1248.

**Legal Findings and Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge placed the burden of proof on the Petitioner to demonstrate a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The Judge dismissed the petition based on the following conclusions:

* **Non-Existence of Records:** For Items #1 and #4, the Judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to prove the documents actually existed at the time of the request. The Judge noted that questions regarding whether the Association *should* have maintained such records under a retention policy were irrelevant to the specific statutory violation alleged.
* **Statutory Exceptions:** For Item #3, the Judge found no violation, noting the records fell under the exceptions outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1258(B), which allows withholding records related to pending litigation or privileged communication.
* **Compliance:** The Petitioner acknowledged compliance regarding Item #2.

**Outcome**
The Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1258, finding that the Association provided access to reviewable documents and even provided records beyond the scope of the request. The Petition was **dismissed**.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John A. Sellers (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf; member of the Association
  • Margaret SwanTKO (member)
    Listed in consolidated records request with John Sellers

Respondent Side

  • Jeff Kaplan (board president)
    Rancho Madera Condominium Association
    Testified on behalf of Respondent
  • Ed O’Brien (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Edith I. Rudder (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Listed on distribution list

Neutral Parties

  • Antara Nath Rivera (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on distribution list

Other Participants

  • Mrs. D. Sellers (unknown)
    Mentioned in records request regarding communications

Gregory L Czekaj v. Colonia Del Rey HOA(ROOT)

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-07-08
Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn
Outcome false
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Gregory L. Czekaj Counsel Gary Wolf
Respondent Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc. Counsel Carolyn Goldschmidt

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)
Bylaws Sections 6.1, 7.1, 9.2

Outcome Summary

Petitioner failed to prove HOA violated records, voting, or notice statutes. HOA failed to prove Petitioner violated Bylaws by misrepresenting himself as an officer.

Why this result: Petitioner's interpretations of statutes regarding notice and voting were incorrect, and HOA complied with records requests. HOA lacked evidence for its claim against Petitioner.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records

Petitioner alleged HOA failed to provide requested organizational, business, corporate, and financial records.

Orders: The HOA was deemed the prevailing party. Petitioner bears his filing fees.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Invalid fee increase due to proxy vote

Petitioner alleged a $5 fee increase was invalid because a proxy vote was used in violation of statutes and rules.

Orders: The HOA was deemed the prevailing party. Petitioner bears his filing fees.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Failure to provide ten-day meeting notice

Petitioner alleged HOA failed to give ten-day notice for a meeting to vote on Bylaws amendments.

Orders: The HOA was deemed the prevailing party. Petitioner bears his filing fees.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Petitioner exceeded rights as member

HOA alleged Petitioner misrepresented himself as an officer to obtain insurance and tax information.

Orders: The HOA did not prevail. HOA bears its filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_win

Colonia Del Rey Homeowners Association v. Gregory Czekaj

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-07-08
Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn
Outcome false
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Gregory L. Czekaj Counsel Gary Wolf
Respondent Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc. Counsel Carolyn Goldschmidt

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)
Bylaws Sections 6.1, 7.1, 9.2

Outcome Summary

Petitioner failed to prove HOA violated records, voting, or notice statutes. HOA failed to prove Petitioner violated Bylaws by misrepresenting himself as an officer.

Why this result: Petitioner's interpretations of statutes regarding notice and voting were incorrect, and HOA complied with records requests. HOA lacked evidence for its claim against Petitioner.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records

Petitioner alleged HOA failed to provide requested organizational, business, corporate, and financial records.

Orders: The HOA was deemed the prevailing party. Petitioner bears his filing fees.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Invalid fee increase due to proxy vote

Petitioner alleged a $5 fee increase was invalid because a proxy vote was used in violation of statutes and rules.

Orders: The HOA was deemed the prevailing party. Petitioner bears his filing fees.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Failure to provide ten-day meeting notice

Petitioner alleged HOA failed to give ten-day notice for a meeting to vote on Bylaws amendments.

Orders: The HOA was deemed the prevailing party. Petitioner bears his filing fees.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Petitioner exceeded rights as member

HOA alleged Petitioner misrepresented himself as an officer to obtain insurance and tax information.

Orders: The HOA did not prevail. HOA bears its filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_win

Decision Documents

19F-H1919054-REL Decision – 720897.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T06:34:36 (224.6 KB)

**Case Summary: Czekaj v. Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc.**
**Case Nos:** 19F-H1918040-REL & 19F-H1919054-REL
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date:** July 8, 2019

**Overview**
This administrative hearing addressed four consolidated complaints involving a nine-unit homeowners association (HOA) in Tucson, Arizona. Three complaints were filed by homeowner Gregory L. Czekaj (Petitioner) regarding records access, fee increases, and meeting notices. One cross-complaint was filed by the HOA alleging the Petitioner exceeded his authority as a member.

**Complaint One: Access to Records**
* **Issue:** Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide requested financial and organizational records in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
* **Key Facts:** Petitioner submitted multiple requests in 2018. The HOA requested he narrow "burdensome" requests, provided electronic documents, and hosted a physical records review session in November 2018. Petitioner argued the HOA "withheld" documents.
* **Decision:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the **HOA**. The evidence showed the HOA timely provided records or opportunities for review. The ALJ noted that once the Petitioner acknowledged receipt of documents, the HOA correctly deemed the request satisfied until new requests were made.

**Complaint Two: Validity of Fee Increase**
* **Issue:** Petitioner argued a May 2017 $5.00 assessment increase was invalid because it relied on a proxy vote, which he claimed violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A).
* **Key Facts:** The initial meeting minutes contained errors regarding vote counts and requirements. However, amended minutes and testimony clarified that the final tally was 5 "YES" and 1 "NO," excluding the disputed proxy.
* **Legal Analysis:** The HOA’s CC&Rs require approval by two-thirds of the *votes cast*, provided a quorum is present. With six members present (constituting a quorum), the 5-1 vote satisfied the two-thirds requirement without utilizing the proxy.
* **Decision:** The ALJ ruled in favor of the **HOA**. The fee increase was validly approved based on the votes of members present.

**Complaint Three: Meeting Notice Timeliness**
* **Issue:** Petitioner claimed the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) regarding a November 2018 meeting to amend Bylaws. He argued the Bylaws were invalid because he *received* the notice less than ten days before the meeting.
* **Legal Analysis:** The statute requires the HOA to "cause notice to be hand-delivered or sent prepaid by mail" not fewer than ten days in advance. The statute expressly states that failure of a member to receive actual notice does not invalidate the meeting.
* **Decision:** The ALJ ruled in favor of the **HOA**. Evidence proved the HOA mailed notices on November 5, thirteen days prior to the November 18 meeting, satisfying the statutory requirement [

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Gregory L. Czekaj (petitioner)
    Homeowner
    Appeared on his own behalf; also Respondent in consolidated counter-claim
  • Gary Wolf (petitioner's attorney)
    Contacted HOA attorney regarding records request

Respondent Side

  • Marybeth Andree (HOA President)
    Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc.
    Represented the HOA; testified at hearing
  • Carolyn Goldschmidt (HOA attorney)
    Responded to Petitioner's attorney regarding records
  • Sarah Hitch (proxy holder)
    Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc.
    Member who cast a proxy vote for Ed Freeman
  • Phil Oliver (board member)
    Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc.
    Provided email clarification regarding the vote; wrote letter regarding irregularities
  • Susan Sotelo (HOA secretary)
    Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc.
    Mailed the ballots for the meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Kay Abramsohn (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge presiding over the hearing
  • Mr. Tick (witness)
    State Farm (implied)
    HOA insurance agent; testified regarding Petitioner's request for policy
  • Ed Freeman (tenant)
    Tenant living in Oregon; subject of proxy vote dispute
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the transmitted order

Rex E. Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818025-REL, 18F-H1818027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-04-24
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rex E. Duffett Counsel
Respondent Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Amendment (March 1993)
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the maintenance claim because the Petitioner failed to prove the existence of the damage with unclear evidence. The ALJ granted the records request claim because the HOA failed to respond to the Petitioner's request within the required 10 days. The HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00.

Why this result: Insufficient evidence to substantiate the maintenance claim.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to repair and paint exterior walls

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to respond to repeated requests to repair cracks and paint the exterior walls of his unit.

Orders: Denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lost

Cited:

  • 4
  • 17
  • 18

Failure to provide records

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide requested meeting notices and minutes within the statutory 10-day timeframe following a request made on December 22, 2017.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) in the future.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 19
  • 20
  • 21

Decision Documents

18F-H1818027-REL Decision – 630610.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:14:18 (114.0 KB)

**Case Overview**
The following is a summary of the administrative hearing for consolidated cases *Rex E. Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association* (Nos. 18F-H1818025-REL and 18F-H1818027-REL). The hearing took place on April 4, 2018, before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer,. While the hearing addressed two petitions, the following summary focuses primarily on Case No. 18F-H1818027-REL as requested.

**Case No. 18F-H1818027-REL (Records Request)**

* **Key Facts and Main Issue:**
The Petitioner filed a complaint alleging the Respondent failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) regarding a request for documents made on December 22, 2017. The Petitioner had faxed a request to the Respondent’s management company seeking meeting notices and minutes related to discussions of rules, regulations, and dues increases,. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), an association must make financial and other records reasonably available for examination within ten business days of a request.

* **Hearing Arguments:**
The Respondent was represented by new management (Pride Community Management), which had taken over from the previous company (The Management Trust) on February 1, 2018. The Respondent argued that the previous management company left sparse records and failed to communicate the request,. Additionally, the Respondent argued that the Petitioner's request regarding meetings where "rules and regulations were discussed" was unclear because such topics are discussed at virtually every meeting.

* **Legal Findings:**
The Administrative Law Judge determined that while the Petitioner’s request was "somewhat vague," it was clearly a request for documents. The Judge ruled that the Respondent’s former management company failed to respond or request clarification within the ten-day statutory window. Consequently, the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

* **Outcome:**
The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in this matter.

**Consolidated Case Context (Case No. 18F-H1818025-REL)**
In the accompanying consolidated case, the Petitioner alleged the Respondent failed to repair cracks in the exterior walls of his unit. The Judge denied this petition, finding that the black-and-white photographs submitted by the Petitioner were insufficient to prove the existence or severity of the alleged damage by a preponderance of the evidence,.

**Final Decision and Order**
Based on the findings in Case No. 18F-H1818027-REL, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Rex E. Duffett (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Nathan Tennyson (attorney)
    Brown/Olcott, PLLC
    Represented Respondent
  • Rebecca Stowers (witness)
    Pride Community Management
    Community Manager; testified at hearing
  • Shawn Mason (property manager)
    The Management Trust
    Provided initial responses to petitions; former management
  • Frank Peake (witness)
    Pride Community Management
    Owner of Pride; testified at hearing

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on distribution list
  • F. Del Sol (administrative staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transmitted the decision
  • L. Dettorre (agency staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on distribution list
  • A. Hansen (agency staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on distribution list
  • D. Jones (agency staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on distribution list
  • D. Gardner (agency staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on distribution list
  • N. Cano (agency staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on distribution list

Nelson, Paula J. vs. Landings Homeowners Association

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314003-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-02-14
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Paula J. Nelson Counsel
Respondent Landings Homeowners Association Counsel Mark Saul

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent, Landings Homeowners Association. The Judge found that the Association made its records reasonably available for examination and was not required to produce documents (specifically roofing binders and photos) that it did not possess or that were privileged. The Petition was dismissed.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The evidence showed the Association made available the records it possessed, and the specific missing records (roofing binders created by a third party) were not proven to be in the Association's possession.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to provide specific records, including roofing binders, photographs, and individual roof assessments, within the statutory timeframe. The Association argued it made records reasonably available and could not produce documents it did not possess.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

13F-H1314003-BFS Decision – 382722.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:18 (114.5 KB)

13F-H1314003-BFS Decision – 388443.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:18 (59.2 KB)

**Case Summary: Nelson v. Landings Homeowners Association**
**Case No.** 13F-H1314003-BFS
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona
**Hearing Date:** January 31, 2014
**Decision Date:** February 14, 2014 (Certified Final March 31, 2014)

**Parties and Procedures**
Petitioner Paula J. Nelson filed a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety against Respondent Landings Homeowners Association ("Landings"). The hearing was presided over by Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas,.

**Main Issue**
The central legal issue was whether Landings violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide Nelson with copies of requested association records—specifically roofing assessments and photographs—within ten business days of her request.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Claims:** Nelson submitted records requests beginning April 12, 2013, demanding the Association email her copies of specific documents. She alleged the Association withheld specific "binders" created by a former representative, Mr. Minor, which she believed contained comprehensive individual roof assessments and photographs,. Nelson admitted she refused to view the binders held by the Association’s attorney because she believed they were not the specific records she sought,.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** Landings argued it satisfied the statute by making records "reasonably available for inspection" at the management company’s office. The Association contended that A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) does not require emailing documents or providing them in a specific format chosen by the member. Regarding the "Minor binders," the Association maintained it could not produce records it did not possess.
* **Witness Testimony:**
* **Robyn McRae** testified she accompanied Nelson to the management office, noting some documents were missing or unavailable at that time,.
* **Robert Timmons** (contractor) testified regarding the roofing project. He stated he did not know if the specific photographs or records Nelson sought were ever in the Association's possession,.
* **Paula Nelson** acknowledged she did not schedule an appointment to review the binders offered by the Association's attorney.

**Legal Standards**
* **A.R.S. § 33-1805(A):** Requires associations to make financial and other records "reasonably available for examination" by a member within ten business days. It further allows associations to charge for copies.
* **Burden of Proof:** The burden falls on the Petitioner to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

**Findings and Conclusions**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reached the following conclusions:
1. **Possession of Records:** There was no credible evidence that Landings possessed the specific binders created by Mr. Minor that Nelson requested, other than the materials already offered for her review. The fact that the Association paid for the creation of such binders did not prove they were delivered or currently possessed in the format Nelson alleged.
2. **Compliance:** Landings complied with the request in a "reasonable manner" by attempting to schedule inspections and offering review of materials at the attorney's office.
3. **Privilege:** The Association was not required to disclose privileged communications between itself and its attorney.

**Outcome**
The ALJ determined that Nelson failed to satisfy her burden of proof. Landings was deemed the prevailing party, and the petition was dismissed. The decision became the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on March 31, 2014, after the Department took no action to modify or reject it within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Paula J. Nelson (Petitioner)
    Landings Homeowners Association (Member)
    Appeared on her own behalf
  • Robyn McRae (Witness)
    Drove Petitioner to management company; testified regarding document availability
  • Robert William Timmons (Witness)
    Sprayfoam Southwest Inc.
    Subpoenaed by Petitioner; representative for roofing contractor

Respondent Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Listed as 'Mark Saul' in ALJ Decision appearances; 'Mark K. Sahl' in certification mailing list
  • Jo Seashols (Community Manager)
    Landings Homeowners Association (Management Company)
  • Renee (Employee)
    Management Company
    Mentioned by management staff as having possession of photographs
  • Tom Minor (Former Representative)
    Landings Homeowners Association
    Former board member/representative on construction project

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/processed the certification

Winter, Alexander vs. Cortina Homeowners Association

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314001-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2013-12-12
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome yes
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

Decision Documents

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)

**Case Summary: 13F-H1314001-BFS**

**Case Title:** *Alexander Winter v. Cortina Homeowners Association*
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona
**Decision Date:** December 12, 2013 (Certified Final on January 17, 2014)

**Proceedings**
On November 22, 2013, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer presided over a hearing regarding a dispute between homeowner Alexander Winter (Petitioner) and the Cortina Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide access to requested Association records within the statutory timeframe.

**Key Facts**
* On June 12, 2013, the Petitioner submitted a written request to inspect and copy various records, including budgets, general ledgers, and specific vendor contracts and invoices ("Clean Cuts" and "Renaissance Community Partners").
* On June 21, 2013, the Respondent’s manager, Kevin Bishop, replied via email. He agreed to provide some documents but refused to provide copies of Renaissance invoices, claiming they contained protected financial information of individual members.
* Regarding the contracts, Bishop stated they were viewable for inspection only (no copies) but deferred the inspection until after his return from vacation on July 7, 2013—a date beyond the statutory 10-business-day requirement.
* The Petitioner filed a complaint with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on July 3, 2013, after being unable to access the records.

**Key Arguments**
* **Petitioner:** Argued he was entitled to the records to understand the Association's financial standing. He contended that if invoices contained personal data, he should have received redacted copies rather than a total denial. He further argued he was denied the opportunity to view contracts within the required 10 business days.
* **Respondent:** Argued that the Renaissance invoices contained detailed assessments and late fees related to individual members, making them protected under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4). The Respondent also claimed vendor contracts contained "trade secrets" and that their policy was to allow inspection but not copying.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, establishing a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 based on the following:

1. **Withheld Invoices:** The ALJ acknowledged that A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) protects personal member financial records. However, the Respondent had a statutory obligation to provide *redacted* copies of the invoices rather than withholding the documents entirely.
2. **Delayed Inspection:** Although the Petitioner initially acknowledged that contracts were for inspection only, the Respondent failed to make them available within the statutory 10-business-day window. The manager's vacation caused a delay of 18 business days, constituting a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
3. **Available Documents:** For other documents that were copied and made available but not picked up by the Petitioner, no violation was found.

**Outcome and Order**
* The Petition was granted.
* **Order:** The Respondent was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing the Petitioner with copies of the requested documents (appropriately redacted) within ten days.
* **Costs:** The Respondent was

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