Sellers, John A. v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Posted on August 26, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919066-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-08-26
Administrative Law Judge	Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome	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.
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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919066-REL Decision – 733561.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:21:15 (99.9 KB)

19F-H1919066-REL Decision – 733561.pdf

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

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative law judge (ALJ) decision regarding a dispute between John A. Sellers (Petitioner) and the Rancho Madera Condominium Association (Respondent). The case, presided over by ALJ Antara Nath Rivera, centered on allegations that the Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1258 by failing to provide requested records in a timely and complete manner.

The Petitioner submitted a consolidated records request on April 29, 2019, seeking legal invoices, communications with specific third parties, executive session minutes, and records regarding a member petition. Following a hearing on August 5, 2019, the ALJ determined that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association withheld existing, non-exempt documents. Consequently, the Petition was dismissed on August 26, 2019.

Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Obligations for Record Disclosure

Under A.R.S. § 33-1258, condominium associations are mandated to make financial and other records "reasonably available for examination" to members within ten business days of a written request. However, the statute provides specific exceptions where an association may withhold records, including:

Privileged Communications: Correspondence between the association and its attorney.
Pending Litigation: Documents specifically relating to active legal matters.
Executive Sessions: Meeting minutes or records of board sessions not required to be open to all members under A.R.S. § 33-1248.

The Respondent successfully argued that they had adhered to these standards by providing redacted documents where the information fell under attorney-client privilege or executive session exemptions.

2. The Burden of Proof and Evidence of Existence

A central theme of the decision is the Petitioner’s burden to prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" that a violation occurred. In administrative proceedings, this means the Petitioner must show that the facts sought to be proved are "more probable than not."

The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden regarding items for which the Association claimed no records existed. Specifically:

Item #1 (Third-party communications): The Petitioner believed these emails existed to prove communications about him, but the Association testified they were not in their possession.
Item #4 (Meeting records for a notarized petition): The Petitioner opined that 21 signatures could not have been collected without a meeting. The Association clarified that no such meetings occurred; rather, individual residents took actions regarding the Petitioner’s divorce proceedings independently.

3. Transparency vs. Legal Redaction

The Association sought to demonstrate a high degree of transparency to counter the Petitioner's claims. Evidence presented by Association President Jeff Kaplan indicated that:

The Association received over 400 emails from the Petitioner in three years, approximately 100 of which were records requests.
The Association provided documents beyond those requested to facilitate transparency.
Financial and bank records were kept accessible to all residents via the Association’s website.

The ALJ accepted that the Association’s use of redactions for legal invoices and executive session minutes was a lawful application of the exceptions provided in A.R.S. § 33-1258(B).

Key Petitioner Requests and Court Findings

Request Item	Description	Association Response	ALJ Conclusion
Item #1	Communications between the HOA/Agents and ROI/Mrs. Sellers.	Records do not exist/not in Association's possession.	Petitioner failed to prove documents existed at the time of request.
Item #2	Unredacted legal invoices for the current Petition.	Provided redacted versions citing attorney-client privilege.	Petitioner acknowledged compliance after receiving documents.
Item #3	Records/minutes for all Executive Sessions since the Petition filing.	Provided redacted minutes; cited A.R.S. § 33-1248 exemptions.	Petitioner did not dispute that records were exempt under the statute.
Item #4	Records regarding meetings held to sign a petition against the Petitioner.	No such meetings occurred; signatures were individual actions.	Petitioner failed to prove documents existed.

Important Quotes

Regarding the Records Request

"Please consider this email as one consolidated renewed records request… for the following: 1. Copies of all records and communications… with and between ROI, Mrs D Sellers, and or any of their Agents since Nov 1 2018."

Context: Petitioner John Sellers’ formal email to Association President Jeff Kaplan on April 29, 2019, which formed the basis of the dispute.

Regarding Statutory Exceptions

"Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association [and] Pending litigation."

Context: A citation of A.R.S. § 33-1258(B), used by the ALJ to define the legal boundaries of what an Association is permitted to keep confidential.

Regarding the Final Ruling

"Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that these documents existed at the time of the April 29, 2019 request such that Respondent’s failure to provide the documents was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258."

Context: The ALJ’s legal justification for dismissing the Petition regarding items for which no physical records could be produced.

Actionable Insights

Verification of Record Existence: For members filing records requests, the belief that a document "should" exist is insufficient for a legal victory; there must be evidence that the record actually exists or was required to be maintained.
Understanding Redactions: Association members should be aware that "unredacted" requests for legal invoices are frequently denied based on attorney-client privilege and pending litigation exceptions established in state law.
Association Compliance Strategies: To defend against claims of non-compliance, associations should maintain a clear paper trail of all documents provided and ensure that all residents have standing access to basic financial records (e.g., via a community website).
Standard of Evidence: Parties in administrative hearings must prepare to meet the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. Mere opinion or speculation—such as the Petitioner’s opining that a meeting "must have happened" to collect signatures—is typically dismissed if countered by testimony of non-existence.

Case Analysis: Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

This study guide examines the administrative law proceedings regarding a dispute between a condominium unit owner and a homeowners association (HOA). It focuses on the statutory requirements for records disclosure, the legal exceptions to such requests, and the burden of proof required in administrative hearings.

Key Legal Concepts and Statutory Framework

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1258: Records Disclosure

This statute governs the availability of association records to its members. The core requirements include:

Reasonable Availability: All financial and other records must be made available for examination by a member or their designated representative.
Timeline: The association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies of records.
Cost: Associations may not charge for the review of materials but may charge up to fifteen cents per page for copies.

Statutory Exceptions to Disclosure

Under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B), an association may withhold books and records if the portion relates to:

Attorney-Client Privilege: Communications between the association and its legal counsel.
Pending Litigation: Records specifically related to ongoing legal disputes.
Executive Session Minutes: Records of board meetings not required to be open to all members pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1248.

Burden of Proof

In administrative hearings regarding HOA disputes (A.R.S. § 41-2198.01), the Petitioner bears the burden of proof. They must establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the evidence shows that the alleged fact is more probable than not.

Summary of the Dispute: Case No. 19F-H1919066-REL

The Petitioner, John A. Sellers, filed a petition against the Respondent, Rancho Madera Condominium Association, alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 for failure to provide records requested on April 29, 2019.

The Four Record Requests

Item #	Petitioner's Request	Respondent's Position / ALJ Finding
1	Records/emails between Association agents and ROI, Mrs. D. Sellers, or their agents since Nov 2018.	Records do not exist; Petitioner failed to prove existence.
2	Unredacted legal invoices for the current Petition, including those paid by insurance.	Redacted versions provided; unredacted versions are protected by attorney-client privilege.
3	Notices, emails, and minutes for Executive Sessions since the AZDRE Petition was filed.	Redacted minutes provided; records are exempt under A.R.S. § 33-1248/33-1258(B).
4	Communications/notices regarding member meetings held to sign a notarized petition against the Petitioner.	No such meetings occurred; signatures were gathered by residents independently. Records do not exist.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

According to A.R.S. § 33-1258, how many business days does an association have to fulfill a request for records?

Answer: Ten business days.

What is the maximum fee per page an association can charge for making copies of records?

Answer: Fifteen cents ($0.15) per page.

Under what legal theory did the Respondent justify redacting legal invoices in Item #2?

Answer: Attorney-client privilege and the "pending litigation" exception.

Who bears the burden of proof in an HOA dispute process petition before the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

Answer: The Petitioner.

Why was the Petitioner's request for records of meetings on April 6 and April 8, 2019 (Item #4) denied?

Answer: The Respondent testified that no such meetings occurred, and therefore no minutes or records existed.

What does "preponderance of the evidence" mean in the context of this hearing?

Answer: Evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposition, showing a fact is more probable than not.

Is an association required to provide unredacted minutes of an Executive Session of the Board?

Answer: No; under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(3), these are exempt from disclosure if the session is not required to be open under A.R.S. § 33-1248.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

Statutory Boundaries of Transparency: Analyze the balance between a member’s right to transparency and an association’s right to privileged communication. Use the ALJ’s ruling on Item #2 and Item #3 to support your argument regarding why certain records remain protected even when a member claims there is "no litigation exception."
The "Non-Existent Document" Defense: In this case, several requests were dismissed because the Respondent claimed the documents did not exist. Discuss the Petitioner’s responsibility in proving the existence of documents versus the Respondent's duty to provide them. How does the ALJ’s ruling on Item #5 clarify the relevance of "record retention policies" in a disclosure dispute?
The Role of Administrative Jurisdiction: Explain the jurisdictional roles of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings in HOA disputes as outlined in A.R.S. § 41-2198.01. Why is this administrative process used instead of a standard civil court for these specific disputes?

Glossary of Important Terms

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over an administrative hearing, hears evidence, and issues a decision or order.
A.R.S. § 33-1248: The Arizona statute governing open meeting requirements for condominium associations.
Attorney-Client Privilege: A legal principle that keeps communications between an attorney and their client confidential and protected from disclosure.
Executive Session: A portion of a board meeting that is closed to the general membership, typically used to discuss legal, personnel, or sensitive matters.
Notice of Hearing: A formal document issued to notify parties of the date, time, and location of a legal proceeding.
Petitioner: The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition; in this case, John A. Sellers.
Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases, requiring that a claim be more likely true than not.
Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, Rancho Madera Condominium Association.
Statutory Exception: A specific condition or circumstance defined in law that exempts a party from a general legal requirement.

HOA Transparency vs. Legal Privacy: Lessons from Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

1. Introduction: The Conflict Over Information

In the governed ecosystem of Arizona condominiums, the "right to know" is a frequent flashpoint between unit owners and their associations. While transparency is the bedrock of community trust, it often collides with an association’s statutory right to protect privileged legal strategies and executive deliberations. This tension is not merely academic; it frequently results in high-stakes administrative litigation.

The case of John A. Sellers vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association (No. 19F-H1919066-REL) provides a masterclass in how these disputes are adjudicated. Decided by the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) in 2019, the ruling clarifies the boundaries of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1258, illustrating exactly what records an association must produce—and where the law allows them to shut the door.

2. The Paper Trail: 400 Emails and a Consolidated Request

The dispute reached a boiling point when Petitioner John Sellers, joined by Margaret SwanTKO, issued a "consolidated renewed records request" on April 29, 2019. Alleging that previous requests had been ignored, Sellers demanded four specific categories of documentation under A.R.S. § 33-1258:

Third-Party Communications: All records and communications—including emails and conference call notes—between the Association, its agents, and legal counsel (Carpenter Hazelwood) regarding ROI and Mrs. D. Sellers since November 1, 2018.
Unredacted Legal Invoices: Complete, unredacted invoices related to the ADRE petition, with Sellers arguing that no litigation exception applied to these financial records.
Executive Session Records: All notices, emails, and minutes for every Executive Session of the Board since the filing of the petition, specifically including the meeting where counsel was retained.
The "Vendetta" Petition Records: All communications and notices regarding member meetings held to sign a notarized petition—a document that allegedly characterized Sellers as having a "vendetta."

3. The Association’s Defense: "Above and Beyond" Compliance

Represented by Board President Jeff Kaplan, the Rancho Madera Condominium Association countered that it was not the Association being opaque, but rather the Petitioner being overzealous. Kaplan testified to a staggering administrative burden: the Association had received over 400 emails from Sellers in the three years preceding the hearing, approximately 100 of which were formal records requests.

Kaplan argued that the Association had acted with extreme transparency, even going "above and beyond" by providing documents Sellers hadn't specifically requested. To further prove their commitment to disclosure, the Association maintained financial and bank records on a community website accessible to all residents at any time.

4. Legal Analysis: Understanding A.R.S. § 33-1258

The resolution of these disputes hinges on A.R.S. § 33-1258, which serves as the definitive guide for HOA record disclosure in Arizona. The statute establishes a clear "General Rule" for transparency while carving out narrow "Statutory Exceptions" to protect sensitive information.

HOA Records: Disclosure vs. Exclusion

General Rule (A.R.S. § 33-1258(A))	Statutory Exceptions (A.R.S. § 33-1258(B))
Availability: All financial and other records must be made available within ten business days of a written request.	Attorney-Client Privilege: Privileged communications between the association and its legal counsel are exempt.
Access: Records must be open for examination by a member or their designated representative.	Pending Litigation: Records specifically related to active or pending legal matters may be withheld.
Costs: Associations may charge up to $0.15 per page for copies but cannot charge for the time spent reviewing the materials.	Executive Sessions: Meeting minutes or records for board sessions not required to be open under A.R.S. § 33-1248 (e.g., personnel or legal matters).

5. The Judge’s Ruling: The Limits of Discovery

Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera dismissed the petition on August 26, 2019, after applying the "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard. This required the Petitioner to prove it was "more probable than not" that a violation occurred. The ruling turned on several key findings:

Items #1 and #4 (The Existence of Records): Sellers "strongly believed" emails and meeting minutes regarding a "vendetta petition" existed. However, Kaplan testified that no such meetings occurred on the dates Sellers alleged (April 6 or 8, 2019). The Judge ruled that Sellers failed to prove the records existed. Under the law, an association cannot be penalized for failing to produce non-existent documents.
Item #2 (The Admission of Satisfaction): While Sellers originally demanded unredacted legal invoices, he admitted during the hearing that he was satisfied with the redacted versions eventually provided. This admission effectively neutralized the claim.
Item #3 (Executive Sessions): The Association provided redacted minutes of executive sessions. Sellers did not dispute that these records fell under the statutory exceptions of A.R.S. § 33-1258(B).
The "Human Interest" Context: The testimony revealed that the "notarized petition" Sellers sought records for was actually an effort by neighbors who were unhappy with him. These residents had even attended Sellers’ divorce proceedings to influence the court against awarding him the house, as they no longer wished to have him as a neighbor.

6. Key Takeaways for HOA Members and Boards

The Sellers decision offers three critical lessons for community association stakeholders:

The Burden of Proof is on the Requester: It is not enough to suspect that an association is hiding documents. To prove a violation, a member must provide evidence that the records actually exist. Furthermore, a "record retention policy" does not change the outcome; if a record is not in the association's possession at the time of the request, there is no violation of § 33-1258.
Privilege and Redaction are Standard: While members have a right to see legal invoices, they do not have a right to see the legal strategy contained within them. Redacting privileged information regarding current litigation is the legally accepted middle ground.
Statutory Exceptions are Absolute: The protections for attorney-client privilege and executive sessions under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B) and § 33-1248 are robust. Boards that maintain organized records and apply these exceptions consistently are well-positioned to defeat "fishing expedition" style petitions.

7. Conclusion: Balancing Rights and Regulations

The dismissal of John Sellers' petition underscores a fundamental reality of community association law: the right to information is not an absolute right to every scrap of paper. By providing bank records via a website and complying with redacted requests, the Rancho Madera Condominium Association demonstrated the "above and beyond" transparency that judges look for.

For associations, the lesson is to remain organized and responsive. For members, the lesson is to understand that the law protects the board's ability to consult with counsel and deliberate in private. Without this balance, the administrative burden of endless requests can quickly overshadow the actual management of the community.

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

Colonia Del Rey Homeowners Association v. Gregory Czekaj

Posted on July 8, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918040-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-07-08
Administrative Law Judge	Kay Abramsohn
Outcome	Petitioner failed to prove HOA violated records, voting, or notice statutes. HOA failed to prove Petitioner violated Bylaws by misrepresenting himself as an officer.
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

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919054-REL Decision – 720897.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:19:52 (224.6 KB)

19F-H1919054-REL Decision – 720897.pdf

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

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Czekaj v. Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc.

Executive Summary

On July 8, 2019, the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings issued a decision regarding a multi-faceted dispute between Gregory L. Czekaj (Petitioner) and Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc. (Respondent). The proceedings consolidated four separate complaints: three filed by the Petitioner regarding records access, voting validity, and meeting notices, and one filed by the HOA alleging the Petitioner misrepresented himself as an officer to third-party entities.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled overwhelmingly in favor of the HOA. The HOA was deemed the prevailing party in three of the four complaints. The ALJ concluded that the HOA had fulfilled its statutory obligations regarding records disclosure and meeting notices and that a contested $5.00 assessment increase was legally valid. Regarding the fourth complaint, neither party prevailed, as the evidence was insufficient to prove the Petitioner had intentionally misrepresented himself, though the ALJ noted the Petitioner was "mistaken" in his belief that individual members possess board-level administrative authority.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Obligations vs. Member Demands for Records

A central theme of the dispute was the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs the inspection of association records. The Petitioner argued that the HOA "withheld" documents, while the HOA maintained that the Petitioner's requests were overly broad and burdensome.

Burdensome Requests: The ALJ determined that the Petitioner’s request to review "any and all" documents since 1984 was inherently burdensome for a small, volunteer-run HOA with no central office.
Response Standards: The ruling clarified that associations are permitted to ask members to narrow their requests. Once a member provides clarification and acknowledges receipt (e.g., saying "thank you"), the HOA is justified in considering the request fulfilled until a new, specific request is made.
Electronic Disclosure: The HOA’s provision of electronic documents at no cost was found to be an appropriate response to records requests, fulfilling the statutory requirement for reasonable availability.

2. Validity of Governance and Voting Procedures

The Petitioner challenged a $5.00 monthly assessment increase (from $75 to $80) based on the initial use of an illegal proxy vote.

Correction of Errors: Although a proxy vote was initially and incorrectly counted, the HOA subsequently corrected the tally.
Defining "Votes Cast": The ALJ found that under the HOA’s CC&Rs, the requirement for a 2/3 majority applies to the "votes cast" by those present, not 2/3 of the total membership. With 6 members present, a vote of 5 YES and 1 NO (83.3%) exceeded the required 2/3 threshold (4 votes), rendering the increase valid regardless of the discarded proxy.
Record Retention: The destruction of original ballots after one year was found to be in compliance with the HOA’s one-year record retention policy and A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7).

3. Standards for Meeting Notices

The dispute highlighted a common member misconception regarding notice periods. The Petitioner argued that a meeting was invalid because he did not receive the notice 10 days in advance.

Mailing vs. Receipt: The ALJ clarified that A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) requires the HOA to "cause notice to be hand-delivered or sent" at least 10 days prior to a meeting. The law does not mandate that the member receive the notice within that timeframe.
Validity: The ruling confirmed that a member's failure to receive actual notice does not invalidate the actions taken at a meeting, provided the HOA can demonstrate the notice was sent (e.g., through testimony or mailing records).

4. Limits of Member Authority

The final theme involved the boundaries between individual member rights and Board administrative authority. The Petitioner attempted to contact the HOA’s insurance agent and the IRS to obtain sensitive information, such as the HOA’s Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).

Administrative Rights: The ALJ concluded that HOA Bylaws vest management and administrative authority exclusively in the Board of Directors.
The "Right to Enforce": The Petitioner argued that CC&R provisions allowing owners to "enforce" restrictions gave him the right to contact vendors and the IRS. The ALJ rejected this, stating that the right to enforce allows a member to petition the Board or seek legal remedy, but does not bestow board-level administrative powers upon individual homeowners.

Analysis of Complaints and Outcomes

Complaint Number	Subject Matter	Primary Allegation	Prevailing Party
One	Records Access	HOA withheld requested financial and corporate records.	HOA
Two	Assessment Vote	A $5.00 fee increase was invalid due to the use of a proxy vote.	HOA
Three	Meeting Notice	HOA failed to provide 10-day notice for a Bylaw amendment meeting.	HOA
Four	Misrepresentation	Petitioner allegedly posed as an HOA officer to the IRS and insurance agent.	Neither

Important Quotes with Context

On Burdensome Record Requests

"The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the request, as stated, was burdensome and needed to be clarified given that the HOA has been in existence since 1984, has no office, and various persons have been officers over the past years." (Finding 62)

Context: The ALJ rejected the Petitioner's claim that the HOA was "withholding" information, noting that the HOA acted reasonably by asking the Petitioner to narrow his broad request for all documents since the association's inception.

On the Definition of Statutory Notice

"The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Petitioner’s argument fails that the notice packages had to be 'received' more than ten days prior to the meeting; such a position is a misreading of the statutory requirement." (Finding 68)

Context: This quote addresses Complaint Three, establishing that the legal standard for notice is the act of mailing or sending, not the confirmed receipt by the homeowner.

On Member Privileges vs. Board Authority

"Petitioner is mistaken if he believes that he, as a member, may undertake to dictate or manage actions of the Board. The HOA Bylaws do not vest any of the Board’s authority in the members." (Finding 71)

Context: The ALJ used this statement to clarify that while members have the right to review records and vote, they do not have the right to perform administrative tasks, such as contacting the IRS or HOA vendors on behalf of the association.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners Association Boards

Formalize Record Requests: Require members to clarify broad requests. Document all responses and utilize electronic delivery to satisfy statutory requirements for "reasonable availability" at minimal cost.
Correct Procedural Errors Promptly: As seen in the assessment vote, an initial procedural error (like an improper proxy) does not necessarily invalidate an action if the corrected tally still meets the required legal threshold.
Maintain Proof of Mailing: Ensure the Secretary maintains records of when meeting notices are sent. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(B), proving the date of mailing is the standard for legal compliance, not proof of delivery.

For Homeowners

Distinguish Between "Review" and "Manage": Members have a statutory right to review records, but this does not grant them the authority to act as an agent of the HOA or manage its business affairs (e.g., contacting the IRS).
Understand Voting Thresholds: Carefully review CC&Rs to determine if a required majority applies to the entire membership or only the votes cast by those present at a meeting where a quorum is met.
Verify Statutory Timelines: Be aware that "notice" is legally defined by the date the HOA initiates delivery, not the date the mail is received. Failing to receive mail does not legally excuse a member from the outcomes of a meeting.

Study Guide: Czekaj v. Colonia Del Rey HOA Administrative Case

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Gregory L. Czekaj (Petitioner/Homeowner) and Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc. (Respondent/HOA), heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings on June 14, 2019. It examines the legal requirements for homeowners' associations regarding records access, voting procedures, meeting notices, and the limitations of member authority.

I. Case Overview

Case Numbers: 19F-H1918040-REL and 19F-H1919054-REL.
Parties: Gregory L. Czekaj, a homeowner since March 2017, and Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc., a nine-home association established in 1984.
Central Issues: Alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) regarding records requests, voting irregularities, and meeting notice timelines, as well as an HOA allegation regarding a member's unauthorized use of authority.

II. Key Legal Concepts and Statutory Interpretations

1. Access to HOA Records (A.R.S. § 33-1805)

Availability: All financial and other records must be made reasonably available for examination.
Timeline: The HOA has ten (10) business days to fulfill a written request.
Costs: Statutes do not require an HOA to provide copies at no cost. The HOA may charge up to 15 cents per page for copies, which must be reimbursed upon delivery.
Scope: Requests must be specific. Requests to review "all documents" may be considered burdensome, especially for older associations without formal offices.

2. Meeting Notices (A.R.S. § 33-1804(B))

Timing: Notice must be provided not fewer than ten (10) days in advance of a meeting.
Legal Requirement: The statute requires the HOA to "cause notice to be hand-delivered or sent prepaid by [U.S.] mail."
Receipt vs. Sending: The legal obligation is satisfied when the notice is sent. The validity of actions taken at a meeting is not affected if a member fails to receive the actual notice, provided the HOA followed the sending procedures.

3. Voting and Proxies (A.R.S. § 33-1812)

Proxies: Arizona state law and specific HOA resolutions (e.g., Resolution 20140315-01) may prohibit the use of proxy votes.
Absentee Ballots: These are acceptable and may be cast via email if permitted by the association.
Quorum and Thresholds:
A quorum is often met by the presence of members entitled to cast 50% of the votes.
Assessments exceeding 10% of the previous year's amount may require a two-thirds (2/3) vote of those voting (not 2/3 of the entire membership).

4. Member vs. Board Authority

Member Privileges: Under HOA Bylaws (Section 3.1), privileges are limited to voting, holding office, and enjoying common areas.
Management Rights: Business affairs are managed by the Board of Directors (Section 6.1). Members do not possess administrative rights, authority, or responsibility to manage vendors, contractors, or government agencies (like the IRS) on behalf of the HOA.
Enforcement Rights: While CC&Rs may allow an owner to "enforce" restrictions (Article XIV, Section 1), this typically means the right to petition the Board to act, rather than the right to assume Board duties.

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

How many business days does an HOA have to fulfill a written records request under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)?
Does a member’s failure to receive a meeting notice invalidate the actions taken at that meeting? Explain why or why not.
According to the ALJ decision, what is the maximum fee an HOA can charge per page for copies of records?
In the context of the $5 assessment increase, how was the two-thirds (2/3) majority calculated?
Why was the proxy vote cast for Ed Freeman eventually disregarded in the final tabulation of the May 2017 vote?
Under the Colonia Del Rey Bylaws, who is responsible for the management of the HOA's business affairs?
What was the Petitioner’s argument regarding his right to contact the IRS and the HOA’s insurance agent?
What constitutes a "preponderance of the evidence" in an administrative hearing?

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

The Tension Between Transparency and Burdensome Requests: Analyze the ALJ's conclusion regarding Complaint One. How should an HOA balance its statutory duty to provide records with the practical limitations of being a small, volunteer-run organization without a physical office?
Statutory Interpretation of "Notice": Discuss the legal distinction between "causing notice to be sent" and the member's "actual receipt" of notice. Why is this distinction vital for the administrative functioning of a homeowners' association?
The Limits of Homeowner Enforcement Rights: Petitioner argued that CC&R Article XIV gave him the right to enforce rules, which he interpreted as authority to contact vendors and the IRS. Critique this interpretation based on the ALJ’s findings regarding the separation of member privileges and Board authority.
Validity of HOA Actions: Evaluate the May 6, 2017, assessment vote. Even though the HOA initially provided incorrect information on the ballot (stating 6 votes were needed) and allowed an invalid proxy, the ALJ upheld the vote. Explain the legal reasoning that allowed the vote to stand.

V. Glossary of Important Terms

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B): The Arizona statute governing the requirements and timelines for notifying members of HOA meetings.
A.R.S. § 33-1805: The Arizona statute mandating that HOA financial and other records be made reasonably available to members.
Absentee Ballot: A ballot cast by a member who is not physically present at a meeting; in this case, permitted via email.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A judge who presides over hearings and makes decisions in cases involving government agency rules or specialized statutes (e.g., the Department of Real Estate).
Bylaws: The rules governing the internal management of the HOA, including the duties of the Board and the rights of members.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The legal documents that lay out the guidelines for the community and the rights/obligations of the homeowners.
Preponderance of the Evidence: The legal standard of proof in this case, meaning that a claim is "more probably true than not."
Proxy Vote: A vote cast by one person on behalf of another. In this case, the ALJ confirmed that such votes were prohibited by state law and HOA resolution.
Quorum: The minimum number of members who must be present (in person or by absentee ballot) at a meeting to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.
Ramada: A common area structure in the Colonia Del Rey HOA used for records review and meetings.
TIN (Taxpayer Identification Number): A unique number used by the IRS to identify a business entity or organization like an HOA.

Lessons from the Courtroom: A Homeowner’s Legal Challenge to HOA Governance

1. Introduction: Small Association, Big Legal Stakes

The legal landscape of homeowner associations (HOAs) often involves sprawling master-planned communities with hundreds of residents. However, the case of Gregory L. Czekaj v. Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc. (No. 19F-H1918040-REL) serves as a potent reminder that legal stakes remain high regardless of community size.

Colonia Del Rey is a micro-community in Tucson, Arizona, consisting of just nine homes on a private road. It has no central office and no pool, and its Board is comprised entirely of elected volunteers. Yet, this tiny association found itself before the Office of Administrative Hearings defending its governance against four separate complaints from a single homeowner. As a legal analyst, I find this case particularly instructive because the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision provides a definitive roadmap for record requests, voting thresholds, and the strict boundaries of homeowner authority versus Board management.

2. Record Requests: "Burdensome" vs. "Legal Right"

In Complaint One, the Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide requested records. The conflict began when the Petitioner issued a sweeping request to review "any and all" association documents. The HOA President initially pushed back, labeling the request "burdensome" and asking for specificity—a move the Tribunal later interpreted as a reasonable administrative response for a small, volunteer-run entity.

The following table analyzes the friction between the Petitioner’s allegations and the HOA’s documented compliance:

Petitioner’s Allegations	HOA’s Documented Responses & Legal Context
Withholding Organizational Docs: Claimed the HOA failed to provide current Articles of Incorporation, forcing him to pay $54 to the state for them.	Fulfilled Electronically: The HOA provided the Articles, Bylaws, and CC&Rs via email on May 14. The Tribunal ruled the request was satisfied once the member replied "thank you."
Incomplete Financial Review: Alleged tax returns and insurance policies were missing during a November 23 records review.	Coordinated Access: The HOA facilitated a two-hour review session. Remaining records (tax returns/invoices) were emailed on Nov 30 after being finalized by the CPA.
Access to Physical Copies: Challenged the logistics of obtaining hard copies of the records reviewed.	Governance Rule: Per A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), HOAs may charge up to 15 cents per page for copies and have 10 business days to produce them after a specific request is made.

Analyst’s Note: The ALJ concluded the HOA complied with the law because they provided records within 10 business days of the Petitioner clarifying his broad request. For boards, the takeaway is clear: broad requests can be legally treated as burdensome, but once specified, the statutory clock starts.

3. The $5 Assessment Increase: Navigating Voting Math

Complaint Two challenged a 2017 vote that raised monthly assessments from $75 to $80. The Petitioner argued the vote was invalid because a proxy was cast for a tenant (Ed Freeman), which violated both A.R.S. § 33-1812(A) and the HOA’s own policies.

While the proxy vote was indeed improper and eventually discarded, the Tribunal’s analysis of the "Math of Governance" is where the most critical professional insight lies. Many associations struggle to distinguish between a "majority of all members" and a "majority of votes cast."

The Voting Requirement: Under Article IV, Section 5(b) and (f) of the CC&Rs, the increase required approval by 2/3 of the votes cast—not 2/3 of the total membership.
The Final Valid Tally: After discarding the invalid proxy and accounting for eligible members present, the count was 5 "YES" and 1 "NO."
The Calculation: 5 (Yes) / 6 (Total) = 83.3% Approval.

Governance Tip: Because the 83.3% approval rate comfortably exceeded the 66.6% (2/3) threshold, the Judge ruled the assessment increase valid. Associations must meticulously check their CC&Rs to see if thresholds apply to "total membership" or "votes cast," as this distinction often saves a vote from failure due to low turnout.

4. The Notice Requirement: "Sent" vs. "Received"

In Complaint Three, the Petitioner sought to invalidate Bylaw amendments, claiming he received the meeting notice only nine days before the vote—one day short of the 10-day requirement in A.R.S. § 33-1804(B).

The Tribunal’s interpretation reinforces a vital legal standard: The law requires the HOA to "cause notice" (hand-deliver or mail) at least 10 days in advance; it does not require the HOA to guarantee the date of receipt by the member.

The HOA Secretary proved that notice packages were mailed on November 5 for the November 18 meeting (13 days prior). Furthermore, the Board utilized a "multi-channel" approach by emailing the notice on November 4. The Judge clarified that a member's failure to receive actual notice does not invalidate the meeting's actions, provided the HOA initiated the mailing within the statutory window.

5. The Limits of Membership: You are an Owner, Not an Officer

The most contentious conflict (Complaint Four) involved the Petitioner contacting the HOA’s insurance agent and the IRS to obtain the association’s Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN). The HOA filed a police report, citing fiduciary responsibility after the IRS suggested the inquiry could indicate potential identity theft.

The Judge used this as a teaching moment regarding the hierarchy of authority:

Privileges vs. Administrative Rights: A member’s privileges (voting, holding office, using common areas) do not grant "administrative rights."
The Enforcement Misconception: The Petitioner cited Article XIV, Section 1 of the CC&Rs, which gives owners the right to "enforce" restrictions. The Judge ruled this only allows an owner to petition the Board to take action—it does not authorize a homeowner to manage vendors, contact insurance agents, or engage with the IRS on the association’s behalf.

Analyst’s Note: The Judge noted the Petitioner was "propelled by certain motives" (personal disagreement with Board policy) rather than statutory violations. Neither party prevailed on this complaint because there was no "preponderance of evidence" of intentional misrepresentation, but the legal warning was clear: ownership does not equal agency.

6. Conclusion: Key Takeaways for HOA Members and Boards

The Final Order deemed the HOA the prevailing party on three out of four complaints. Under A.R.S. § 32-2199, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof—he had to prove his claims were "more probably true than not." His failure to do so highlights the importance of evidence over grievance.

Critical Takeaways for HOA Governance:

Clarity in Record Requests: Overly broad "any and all" requests are often deemed burdensome. Boards should provide access but can insist on specificity to manage limited volunteer resources.
Statutory Compliance over Perception: For meeting notices, the legal benchmark is the date the notice is sent. Associations should document mailing dates (and utilize email as a backup) to provide a "belt and suspenders" defense against notice claims.
Respect the Governance Hierarchy: While owners have a right to review records, they have no authority to manage the association’s administrative affairs. A board’s fiduciary duty includes protecting sensitive data like the TIN from unauthorized member inquiries.

In the end, this case demonstrates that even in a community of nine homes, a deep understanding of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the specific language of the CC&Rs is the only way to navigate—and successfully resolve—the complexities of HOA governance.

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

Posted on April 27, 2018 by [email protected]

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:

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:

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818027-REL Decision – 630610.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:10:25 (114.0 KB)

18F-H1818027-REL Decision – 630610.pdf

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

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association

This briefing document provides a comprehensive analysis of the consolidated administrative hearing between Rex E. Duffett (Petitioner) and the Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association (Respondent). The cases, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings on April 4, 2018, address disputes regarding exterior maintenance responsibilities and the statutory requirements for the disclosure of association records.

Executive Summary

The litigation comprised two distinct petitions filed by Rex E. Duffett against Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association. The first petition (Case No. 18F-H1818025-REL) alleged that the Association failed to maintain and repair exterior walls as required by the community's Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The second petition (Case No. 18F-H1818027-REL) alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), stemming from the Association’s failure to provide requested documents within the legally mandated timeframe.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition regarding maintenance repairs due to a lack of clear evidence but ruled in favor of the Petitioner regarding the records request. The Association was ordered to comply with future record requests and to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.

Case Overview

Category	Details
Petitioner	Rex E. Duffett
Respondent	Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Hearing Date	April 4, 2018
Core Issues	Maintenance of exterior walls; Access to association records (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A))
Final Ruling	Maintenance claim denied; Records request claim upheld

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Maintenance Responsibility and the Burden of Proof

The community CC&Rs, amended in March 1993, explicitly state that the Association is responsible for the painting and maintenance of the "exterior walls of all units." Despite this clear obligation, the Petitioner’s claim failed because he did not meet the legal burden of proof—the "preponderance of the evidence."

Evidentiary Failure: The Petitioner submitted black and white photographs to support his claims of cracks and water damage. The ALJ found these photographs were of insufficient quality to identify the location or severity of the alleged damage.
Conflicting Testimony: While the Petitioner claimed a roofing company identified a crack in the exterior wall as the source of a ceiling leak, the current community manager testified that her inspection only revealed one area of missing stucco on the garage and no visible cracks on the front of the house.
Judicial Conclusion: Without convincing visual or physical evidence of a maintenance issue, the ALJ could not conclude that immediate repairs were necessary.

2. Statutory Disclosure Obligations (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A))

The legal core of the second petition involved the Association’s failure to adhere to Arizona law regarding record transparency. A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) requires associations to make financial and other records "reasonably available" and provides a strict ten-business-day window to fulfill requests.

The Request: On December 22, 2017, the Petitioner requested meeting notices and minutes regarding rules, regulations, and dues increases.
The Violation: The Association’s former management company, The Management Trust, failed to respond to the request within the ten-day statutory limit.
Defense of Vagueness: The Association argued the request was unclear; however, the ALJ ruled that the management company had a duty to either respond or seek clarification within the ten-day window rather than ignoring the request.

3. Impact of Management Transitions

The proceedings revealed significant administrative friction caused by a transition between management companies. Pride Community Management (Pride) took over from The Management Trust on February 1, 2018, shortly after the petitions were filed.

Document Retention Issues: Pride testified that the previous management company initially provided only one box of information, later discovering seven or eight additional boxes in storage. This lack of organized record-keeping hampered Pride’s ability to respond to the Petitioner’s historical document requests.
Operational Friction: Testimony from the owner of Pride indicated that the Association had attempted to terminate its contract with The Management Trust earlier for poor performance, but was held to a full two-year contract.

Important Quotes with Context

On Maintenance Responsibility

"The Suntech Patio Homeowners Association shall be responsible for the painting and maintenance of the following: A) Exterior walls of all units . . . ."

Context: Excerpt from the March 1993 amendment to the Association's CC&Rs, establishing the legal basis for the Petitioner's repair request.

On Evidentiary Standards

"The black and white photographs submitted at hearing did not clearly show the crack Petitioner alleged existed on the exterior wall of his unit… The Administrative Law Judge was unable to identify the location or severity of the alleged crack."

Context: Findings of Fact regarding the Petitioner's failure to provide clear evidence, which ultimately led to the denial of Case No. 18F-H1818025-REL.

On Management's Duty to Respond

"The Management Trust should have responded or requested additional clarification of what documents Petitioner was requesting as it was the management company during the ten day window Respondent had to respond pursuant to the statute."

Context: The ALJ’s conclusion regarding Case No. 18F-H1818027-REL, emphasizing that "vague" requests do not absolve an HOA of its ten-day statutory deadline under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners

Documentation Quality: When alleging physical damage in a legal or administrative setting, high-quality, clear, and preferably color photographic evidence is essential. Unclear documentation can lead to a failure to meet the "preponderance of the evidence" standard even if a maintenance responsibility exists.
Statutory Timelines: Homeowners should be aware that HOAs have exactly ten business days to fulfill a record examination or copy request under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

For Homeowners Associations

Management Oversight: Associations are legally responsible for the failures of their management companies. The failure of "The Management Trust" to respond to a faxed request resulted in the Association being labeled the losing party and ordered to pay $500.
Proactive Record Keeping: Associations should maintain clear records of meeting notices and minutes. The Association’s witness testified that meeting notices are "not normally maintained," which complicates compliance with statutory records requests.
Clarification, Not Silence: If a member’s records request is vague, the Association must still engage within the ten-day window to seek clarification rather than allowing the deadline to expire without a response.

Final Order Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders on April 24, 2018:

Maintenance Petition: Denied.
Records Petition: Petitioner deemed the prevailing party.
Future Compliance: The Association is ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) moving forward.
Financial Penalty: The Association must pay the Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.

Study Guide: Rex E. Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing between Rex E. Duffett (Petitioner) and the Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association (Respondent). It explores the legal obligations of homeowners associations (HOAs) regarding property maintenance and the statutory requirements for providing records to association members.

1. Case Overview and Core Themes

The proceedings involved two consolidated cases (No. 18F-H1818025-REL and No. 18F-H1818027-REL) heard in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The central themes include:

Contractual Obligations (CC&Rs): The duty of an HOA to maintain community property as defined in the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions.
Statutory Compliance (A.R.S. § 33-1805): The legal requirement for associations to provide records to members within specific timeframes.
Burden of Proof: The necessity for a petitioner to establish claims through a "preponderance of the evidence."
Management Transitions: The impact of changing property management companies on an association's ability to fulfill its administrative duties.

2. Key Legal Concepts and Data Points

The Preponderance of the Evidence

In these proceedings, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof. Under A.A.C. R2-19-119, the Petitioner must prove their case by a "preponderance of the evidence." This is defined as the "greater weight of the evidence"—evidence that possesses the most convincing force, rather than simply having a higher number of witnesses.

Maintenance Responsibilities (Case 18F-H1818025-REL)

According to the 1993 amendment to the Respondent’s CC&Rs, the Suntech Patio Homeowners Association is responsible for:

Painting and maintenance of the exterior walls of all units.

In this case, the Petitioner alleged that cracks in his exterior walls allowed water to seep into the interior, causing damage. However, the claim was denied because the evidence submitted (black and white photographs) failed to clearly show the damage, and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) could not verify the severity or location of the cracks.

Record Retention and Access (Case 18F-H1818027-REL)

Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), associations have strict guidelines for managing member requests for information:

Requirement	Statutory Regulation
Availability	Records must be made "reasonably available" for examination.
Response Time	The association has 10 business days to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies.
Copy Fees	Associations may charge no more than $0.15 per page.
Exclusions	Certain records, such as minutes from closed executive meetings, may be restricted to Board members only.

Chronology of Events

March 1993: CC&Rs amended to include HOA responsibility for exterior walls.
July/August 2017: Petitioner notifies management of cracks and requests repairs.
December 22, 2017: Petitioner faxes a request for meeting notices and minutes regarding rules, regulations, and dues increases.
January 8/23, 2018: Petitioner files petitions with the Department of Real Estate.
February 1, 2018: Management shifts from "The Management Trust" to "Pride Community Management."
April 4, 2018: Administrative hearing held.
April 24, 2018: ALJ issues the final decision and order.

3. Short-Answer Practice Questions

What was the specific reason the ALJ denied the Petitioner’s claim regarding the exterior wall repairs?

Answer: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof (preponderance of evidence) because the submitted black-and-white photographs did not clearly show the alleged cracks or damage.

How many business days does an association have to provide copies of records once a member requests them?

Answer: Ten business days.

What was the Respondent’s defense regarding the missing documents requested by the Petitioner?

Answer: The Respondent argued that the previous management company (The Management Trust) had not provided all records during the transition and that meeting notices are not normally maintained by the Association.

What is the maximum per-page fee an HOA can charge for copies under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)?

Answer: Fifteen cents ($0.15).

Which party was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee, and why?

Answer: The Respondent (HOA) was ordered to pay the fee because the Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in the case regarding the records request violation (Case 18F-H1818027-REL).

4. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

The Impact of Management Transitions on Legal Liability: Discuss how the transition from "The Management Trust" to "Pride Community Management" affected the Association's ability to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Should an association be held liable for the failures of its third-party property management company? Use evidence from the case to support your argument.

Evidence Standards in Administrative Law: Analyze the importance of evidence quality in property disputes. The Petitioner provided testimony and photographs, yet still lost the maintenance claim. Evaluate what types of evidence (e.g., color photos, expert testimony, repair receipts) might have changed the outcome of Case 18F-H1818025-REL.

Transparency vs. Privacy in HOA Governance: A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) creates a right to transparency, yet the Respondent claimed that minutes for "closed executive meetings" were only available to Board members. Explore the balance between a homeowner's right to know how their dues are used and the Association's need for private executive sessions.

5. Glossary of Important Terms

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): The Arizona Revised Statute governing the inspection and copying of association records by members.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over hearings and makes decisions regarding disputes involving government agencies and specific legal statutes.
CC&Rs (Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions): The governing documents of a common interest community that outline the rights and obligations of both the association and the homeowners.
Petitioner: The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition (in this case, Rex E. Duffett).
Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning that the claim is more likely to be true than not true.
Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association).
Special Assessment: A fee charged to homeowners by the association to cover expenses not included in the regular budget (e.g., the proposed $46,000 stucco and paint project).
Unanimous Written Consent: A method by which a board of directors can take action without a formal meeting, provided all members agree in writing.

Lessons from the Bench: What Homeowners and HOAs Can Learn from the Suntech Patio Homes Case

Introduction: A Tale of Two Petitions

In early 2018, the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings reviewed a complex dispute between homeowner Rex E. Duffett and the Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association. Presided over by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer, this consolidated hearing served as a critical examination of two pillars of HOA governance: the duty to maintain common structures and the statutory right of members to access association records.

Mr. Duffett’s legal challenge was comprised of two distinct petitions. The first sought to compel the HOA to repair exterior wall cracks that he alleged were causing interior damage. The second petition alleged a violation of state transparency laws regarding a records request that went unfulfilled. For homeowners and board members alike, the resulting decision offers a masterclass in the importance of evidentiary standards and the non-negotiable nature of statutory deadlines.

The Maintenance Dispute: Why Evidence is Everything

The primary conflict regarding maintenance involved the interpretation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Mr. Duffett testified that he discovered a leak in his garage ceiling. While a roofing company, Lyons Roofing, determined the roof itself was sound, they identified a crack in the exterior wall as the source of the leak. Although Lyons Roofing performed an emergency repair on the crack, they did not paint the area, and Mr. Duffett argued the HOA was responsible for the final repair and painting to prevent mold and structural decay.

In such proceedings, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof by a "preponderance of the evidence." This legal standard is defined as "the greater weight of the evidence" or the "most convincing force," rather than simply the number of witnesses.

The HOA’s defense noted that the Board intended to spend $46,000 in 2018 to repair stucco and paint all exterior walls in the community, though this plan was pending a potential special assessment. Notably, the current Community Manager, Rebecca Stowers, admitted during a 2018 inspection that she observed a missing area of stucco on the front of the garage. Despite this admission, the Petitioner’s case failed because his primary evidence—black and white photographs—was of such poor quality that the Judge could not discern the location or severity of the alleged damage.

Case Snapshot: CC&R Maintenance Provisions The Provision: A 1993 amendment to the Suntech Patio Homes CC&Rs mandates that the Association is responsible for the painting and maintenance of the exterior walls of all units. The Evidence Gap: The Petitioner claimed a garage ceiling leak was caused by wall cracks, supported by a repair performed by Lyons Roofing. however, he submitted black and white photographs at the hearing. Because these images failed to clearly document the damage, the Judge ruled the evidence lacked the "convincing force" necessary to prove the HOA had breached its maintenance duties.

The Right to Know: Understanding A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

While the maintenance claim faltered on evidence, the records dispute turned on the strict application of Arizona law. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), an association has exactly ten business days to provide copies of requested records or make them available for inspection.

On December 22, 2017, Mr. Duffett faxed a request for specific documents to the HOA’s management company. The requested items included:

Meeting notices and minutes for every meeting where rules and regulations were discussed.
Meeting notices and minutes for every meeting where the most recent HOA dues increase was discussed.
A copy of the notice for the last association rate increase, including any signed written consents for decisions made outside of formal meetings.

The Association argued that the request was "unclear" or "vague," noting that rules and regulations are discussed at nearly every meeting. However, Judge Eigenheer clarified a vital legal point: if a request is perceived as vague, the Association’s duty is to request additional clarification within the ten-day window, not to ignore the request or delay the response.

The "Transition Trap": When Management Changes Cause Legal Hurdles

A significant portion of the HOA’s defense involved its transition between management firms. At the time of the request, Suntech Patio Homes was managed by The Management Trust. On February 1, 2018, Pride Community Management took over.

Testimony from Pride’s owner, Frank Peake, and manager Rebecca Stowers revealed that the transition was fraught with difficulty. The HOA had attempted to terminate The Management Trust early for poor performance, but was held to the full contract term. When the handoff finally occurred, The Management Trust initially provided Pride with only "one box of information." It was only later that the former company informed Pride that seven or eight additional boxes of records were still sitting in storage.

The Judge ruled that these administrative failures—specifically those of the former management company—did not excuse the HOA. Because The Management Trust was the HOA's agent during the ten-day statutory window following the December 22 request, the HOA was legally responsible for the failure to respond. The "transition trap" of missing boxes and poor record-keeping is not a valid defense against A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

The Verdict: Final Rulings and Financial Consequences

Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a split decision that serves as a reminder that procedural compliance is just as important as substantive claims in HOA law.

Case Outcomes

Issue	Decision
Maintenance of Exterior Walls	Petition Denied
Access to Association Records	Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party

While the maintenance petition was denied due to poor photographic evidence, the Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding the records access. Consequently, the Judge ordered the HOA to pay Mr. Duffett $500.00 to reimburse his filing fee and issued a formal order for the Association to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) in all future matters.

Conclusion: Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

The Suntech Patio Homes case provides three essential lessons for navigating the complexities of HOA disputes:

Visual Evidence Must Meet High Standards: In maintenance disputes, the "preponderance of the evidence" requires clear proof. Homeowners should use high-resolution, color photographs and professional reports (like those from Lyons Roofing) to ensure the Judge can clearly see the "location and severity" of the issue.
The 10-Day Rule is Absolute: A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) does not grant extensions for administrative convenience. If a board or manager finds a request vague, they have a legal obligation to seek clarification immediately rather than letting the ten-day clock expire.
Boards are Responsible for their Agents: An HOA cannot escape liability by blaming a previous management company for lost boxes or poor communication. Boards must ensure that their management contracts and transition protocols prioritize the preservation and accessibility of association records to remain in compliance with state law.

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

Posted on February 14, 2014 by [email protected]

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	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.
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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

13F-H1314003-BFS Decision – 382722.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:47:16 (114.5 KB)

13F-H1314003-BFS Decision – 388443.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:47:24 (59.2 KB)

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)

Briefing Document: Paula J. Nelson v. Landings Homeowners Association (Case No. 13F-H1314003-BFS)

Executive Summary

This briefing document details the administrative hearing and subsequent final agency action regarding a dispute between Paula J. Nelson (Petitioner) and the Landings Homeowners Association (Respondent/Association). Ms. Nelson alleged that the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide copies of requested association records within the mandated ten-day period.

The core of the dispute centered on Ms. Nelson's request for comprehensive roofing assessments and photographs following a community-wide roofing project. While the Association maintained that records were made "reasonably available for examination" at their management office, Ms. Nelson argued that specific binders and spreadsheets she believed existed were being withheld.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately determined that Ms. Nelson failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the Association violated the statute. The ALJ found that the Association complied with the records request in a reasonable manner and that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the existence or possession of the specific documents she claimed were missing. The decision, issued February 14, 2014, was certified as a final administrative action on March 31, 2014.

Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Compliance and the Definition of "Reasonably Available"

A central theme of the case was the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The Association argued that their obligation was met by allowing the Petitioner to review documents at the management company’s office.

Statute Component	Provision Details
Availability	Records must be made "reasonably available for examination" by a member or their representative.
Timeline	The association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies.
Format	The statute does not explicitly require an association to provide documents in a specific digital format (e.g., email) chosen by the member.
Fees	Associations may not charge for the review of materials but may charge up to $0.15 per page for copies.

The ALJ concluded that the Association’s invitation for Ms. Nelson to review records at the office satisfied the requirement of making records "reasonably available," even though Ms. Nelson preferred electronic delivery via email as had been done in the past.

2. Possession of Records and the Burden of Proof

Ms. Nelson asserted that the Association was withholding specific "binders and spreadsheets" containing individual roof assessments and photographs created by a former board representative, Tom Minor.

Petitioner's Claim: Evidence of payment to Mr. Minor for the creation of these materials proved the Association should possess them.
Respondent's Defense: The Association denied possessing such specific unit-by-unit assessments. They offered Ms. Nelson the opportunity to review the binders they did possess, which were held by their attorney.
ALJ Finding: The ALJ ruled that payment for the creation of documents does not equate to proof that the documents were actually created or delivered to the Association. Because Ms. Nelson never scheduled an appointment to review the binders the Association did proffer, she could not prove they were not the documents she sought.

3. Exclusions from Disclosure

The proceedings highlighted the legal limits of records requests under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B). The Association successfully argued that certain communications were protected. The ALJ reaffirmed that:

Privileged Communications: Associations are not required to disclose communications between the association and its attorney.
Other Protected Records: The statute also protects pending litigation, specific board meeting minutes, and personal, health, or financial records of individual members or employees.

Important Quotes and Contextual Analysis

On the Association's Duty to Provide Records

"A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) does not require that a planned community email documents or provide documents in a certain format chosen by the member. Instead, a planned community must simply make its records 'reasonably available for examination.'"

Context: This was the Association's primary defense against Ms. Nelson's claim that they violated the law by refusing to email documents as they had done previously.

On the Burden of Proof

"The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement… Proof by 'preponderance of the evidence' means that it is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is 'more likely true than not.'"

Context: This legal standard was used to evaluate Ms. Nelson's claims. The ALJ found that her assertions regarding the "missing" binders did not meet this threshold.

On the Non-Existence of Requested Documents

"The fact that the association may have paid Mr. Minor to create binders with photographs and individual assessments of the roofs… does not establish that such binders were created by Mr. Minor and delivered to the association."

Context: The ALJ noted that an association cannot be held liable for failing to produce records that it does not actually possess, regardless of whether it paid for their creation.

Final Agency Action and Procedural History

The case followed a strict administrative timeline leading to the final certification of the ALJ's decision.

Hearing Date: January 31, 2014.
ALJ Decision Issued: February 14, 2014.
Transmittal: The decision was sent to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on February 18, 2014.
Certification: Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08, the Department had until March 25, 2014, to accept, reject, or modify the decision. Since no action was taken by the Department by that date, the ALJ decision was certified as the final administrative decision on March 31, 2014.

Actionable Insights for Association Records Management

Based on the findings and conclusions of the ALJ in this matter, the following insights can be derived regarding the handling of association records requests:

Standardize Inspection Protocols: Associations fulfill their statutory duty by making records available for physical inspection within ten business days. While digital delivery is a courtesy, it is not a statutory requirement under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
Maintain Clear Possession Records: The dispute over the "Minor Binders" underscores the importance of associations maintaining a clear chain of custody for records created by third-party contractors or individual board members.
Proactive Proffer of Records: The Association’s defense was strengthened by the fact that they explicitly offered Ms. Nelson the opportunity to review the records they did possess (held by their attorney).
Distinguish Between Records and Formats: If a member requests a specific format (e.g., spreadsheets or binders), the association is only obligated to provide the data/records they actually have, regardless of the requested format or whether the association previously paid for the creation of such a format.
Assert Privileges Early: Records requests involving legal correspondence should be filtered through the lens of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) to ensure attorney-client privilege is maintained.

Study Guide: Paula J. Nelson vs. Landings Homeowners Association

This study guide examines the administrative hearing and subsequent decision regarding the legal dispute between Paula J. Nelson and the Landings Homeowners Association. It focuses on Arizona statutes governing homeowners' associations (HOAs), specifically concerning the production of and access to association records.

I. Case Overview and Core Themes

The case of Paula J. Nelson vs. Landings Homeowners Association (No. 13F-H1314003-BFS) centers on a dispute regarding the transparency and accessibility of records within a planned community. The Petitioner, Ms. Nelson, alleged that the Respondent, Landings Homeowners Association, failed to comply with statutory requirements for providing requested documents related to a significant roofing project.

Key Entities

Entity	Description
Paula J. Nelson	Petitioner; a homeowner and member of the Landings Homeowners Association.
Landings Homeowners Association	Respondent; a planned community organization located in Mesa, Arizona.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)	The Arizona agency responsible for hearing petitions regarding HOA violations.
Sprayfoam Southwest Inc.	The vendor selected to perform roofing replacement work for the association.
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety	The state department authorized to receive petitions and certify OAH decisions.

II. Relevant Statutes and Legal Provisions

The primary legal focus of the case is A.R.S. § 33-1805, which dictates how associations must manage and disclose records.

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): Records Availability

Examination: All financial and other records must be made "reasonably available for examination" by a member or their designated representative.
Timeframe: The association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of records.
Fees: An association may not charge for the review of records but may charge up to fifteen cents ($0.15) per page for copies.

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B): Statutory Exemptions

Records may be withheld from disclosure if they relate to:

Privileged Communication: Discussions between the association and its attorney.
Pending Litigation: Documents related to ongoing legal disputes.
Executive Sessions: Minutes or records of board meetings not required to be open to members under A.R.S. § 33-1804.
Personal Information: Health or financial records of individual members, employees, or contractor employees.
Employment Records: Job performance, compensation, or specific complaints regarding employees.

III. Summary of Testimony and Findings

Petitioner’s Claims

Ms. Nelson asserted that the association violated the law by:

Failing to provide records within the ten-day statutory window.
Refusing to provide documents via email (insisting on in-person review first).
Withholding specific "binders and spreadsheets" containing individual roof assessments and photographs created by a former board member, Mr. Minor.

Association’s Defense

Landings Homeowners Association argued:

They made documents "reasonably available" by offering an appointment for review within ten days.
The law does not require the association to provide documents in a specific format (e.g., email) chosen by the member.
They produced all documents in their possession and offered Ms. Nelson the opportunity to review binders held by their attorney.

Witness Highlights

Robyn McRae: Testified that some documents were missing during a pickup appointment and were promised within another ten days.
Robert William Timmons (Sprayfoam): Testified that a condensed assessment report was provided to the board, but he had "no idea" if the association possessed his full internal records or the hundreds of photos taken. He confirmed that no unit-by-unit individual assessment reports were ever created.

Judicial Conclusion

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that:

The association complied with requests in a reasonable manner.
The fact that the association paid for the creation of binders does not prove those binders were ever actually completed or delivered to the association.
The Petitioner failed to review the binders offered by the association's attorney, undermining the claim that they were being withheld.

IV. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. According to A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), how long does an association have to provide copies of requested records?

Answer: Ten business days.

2. What is the maximum fee per page an HOA can charge for making copies?

Answer: Fifteen cents ($0.15).

3. Under what circumstances can an association legally withhold records from a member?

Answer: If the records involve privileged attorney-client communication, pending litigation, private personal/health/financial info of members/employees, or records from closed board sessions.

4. Does A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) require an HOA to provide documents in a specific digital format like email?

Answer: No. The statute requires the association to make records "reasonably available for examination" and provide copies upon request, but it does not mandate a specific format.

5. Who bears the burden of proof in an administrative hearing regarding HOA violations?

Answer: The party asserting the claim (in this case, the Petitioner).

6. What is the "standard of proof" used in these administrative hearings?

Answer: A "preponderance of the evidence," meaning the claim is more likely true than not.

V. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The Concept of "Reasonable Availability" The Respondent argued that by offering an appointment for records review, they satisfied the requirement to make documents "reasonably available." Compare this to the Petitioner's demand for emailed copies. Based on the ALJ's decision, analyze the balance between a homeowner's right to information and an association's management of record-keeping.

2. Evidentiary Standards in Administrative Law The ALJ noted that the Petitioner failed to prove the association actually possessed the "missing" binders. Discuss the legal challenges a Petitioner faces when alleging that an organization is withholding documents that may or may not exist. How does the "preponderance of the evidence" standard apply to such claims?

3. Statutory Protections and Limitations Examine the exemptions listed in A.R.S. § 33-1805(B). Why are these specific protections (attorney-client privilege, personal health records, etc.) necessary for the functioning of a homeowners' association? Discuss how these exemptions might come into conflict with a member's desire for full transparency.

VI. Glossary of Important Terms

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over an administrative hearing and makes findings of fact and conclusions of law.
A.R.S. § 33-1805: The Arizona Revised Statute governing the inspection and copying of association records in planned communities.
Certification of Decision: The process by which the Director of the OAH finalizes the ALJ's decision after a period of review by the relevant state department.
Petitioner: The party who files a petition or claim (in this case, Paula J. Nelson).
Preponderance of the Evidence: A legal standard of proof where the evidence shows that a claim is "more likely true than not."
Privileged Communication: Information shared in confidence between a client (the association) and their legal counsel, which is protected from disclosure.
Respondent: The party against whom a petition or claim is filed (in this case, Landings Homeowners Association).
Tribunal: A person or institution with authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes.

Understanding HOA Record Requests: Key Lessons from Nelson v. Landings Homeowners Association

The legal obligations surrounding the production of records in Arizona homeowners associations (HOAs) are a frequent source of friction between residents and boards. The case of Paula J. Nelson vs. Landings Homeowners Association (Case No. 13F-H1314003-BFS) serves as a definitive case study for both parties. Heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, this dispute clarifies the statutory requirements of record production and, more importantly, highlights the procedural pitfalls that can dismantle a homeowner’s claim.

The Core Conflict: Email Requests vs. Physical Inspection

The dispute arose when the Petitioner, Ms. Nelson, alleged that Landings Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide requested records within the statutory ten-day window. The conflict centered not only on the existence of certain documents but also on the manner in which they were to be delivered.

The Homeowner’s Stance: Ms. Nelson submitted a voluminous records request and demanded that the association deliver copies via email within ten business days. She specifically alleged that the HOA failed to produce "roofing binders" containing unit-by-unit assessments and photographs related to a community-wide roofing project.
The Association’s Defense: The HOA maintained that it fulfilled its legal duty by making the records "reasonably available" for inspection at the management company’s office. Critically, the HOA demonstrated punctuality: after receiving the initial request on April 12, the community manager responded by April 22—fitting precisely within the 10-day window. The association argued that Arizona law does not mandate delivery in a specific digital format chosen by the member, nor is an HOA obligated to produce records that do not exist.

The Legal Standard: Decoding A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

In evaluating the case, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) looked to the specific language of the Arizona Revised Statutes. The law provides a clear timeline but also defines the standard of "availability."

"Except as provided in subsection B of this section, all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative… The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records by any member… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records." — A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

While transparency is the default, A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) identifies five specific categories of records that an association is legally permitted to withhold from disclosure:

Privileged communications between the association and its attorney.
Pending litigation.
Meeting minutes or records of board sessions not required to be open to all members.
Personal, health, or financial records of an individual member or employee.
Records regarding job performance, compensation, or specific complaints against employees or contractors.

The Evidence: Testimonies from the Hearing

Establishing the facts required testimony from the homeowner, a third-party witness, and the roofing contractor to determine what documents actually existed and where they were located.

Robyn McRae: Ms. McRae, who accompanied the Petitioner to the management office, testified that several requested documents were allegedly missing during their visit. She noted a management representative’s statement that certain files were with another individual and would require additional time to produce.
Robert William Timmons: As the representative for Sprayfoam Southwest Inc., the roofing contractor, Mr. Timmons provided testimony that was fatal to several of the Petitioner's claims. While hundreds of photos were taken, he testified that he worked directly with a former board member, Mr. Minor, and that he had no idea if the management company possessed those specific files. Crucially, Mr. Timmons testified that there were no unit-by-unit assessment reports—the very documents Ms. Nelson insisted were being withheld.
Paula J. Nelson: Ms. Nelson admitted that the majority of the requested records were eventually provided. However, she acknowledged a significant strategic oversight: although the association’s attorney had informed her that the roofing binders were available for review at the attorney’s office, she never scheduled an appointment to inspect them.

The Mystery of the Missing Binders: Why the Petition Failed

The ALJ’s decision rested on the "burden of proof." In administrative hearings, the Petitioner must prove their case by a "preponderance of the evidence"—meaning the claim is more likely true than not.

Ms. Nelson’s claim regarding the roofing binders failed for two primary reasons. First, the association cannot be found in violation for failing to produce documents it does not possess; while Ms. Nelson proved the HOA had paid Mr. Minor for the creation of binders, she could not prove those binders were ever actually delivered to or remained in the possession of the current board or management.

Second, the Petitioner’s refusal to inspect the binders offered by the association’s attorney was a fatal strategic error. The ALJ noted that because Ms. Nelson chose not to review the materials proffered, she could not legally prove they were insufficient or that the HOA was withholding information.

Final Ruling and Practical Takeaways

The Administrative Law Judge ordered the dismissal of the petition and certified Landings Homeowners Association as the prevailing party. The ruling concluded that by providing physical access and responding to the initial request within 10 days, the association acted in a reasonable manner.

Key Takeaways for Homeowners and HOAs

Reasonable Availability: "Available for examination" is the statutory standard. This does not mandate that the association must provide records in a specific digital format, such as email, unless the community's own governing documents require it.
The 10-Day Clock and the "Moving Target": While the 10-day response window is strict, homeowners must realize that subsequent or expanded requests create a "moving target." The ALJ viewed the association's response to Ms. Nelson’s repeated, evolving inquiries as evidence of reasonable compliance.
Burden of Proof: The burden lies with the petitioner to provide credible evidence that the association actually possesses the records in question. One cannot demand the production of documents, such as unit-by-unit assessments, that never existed in the first place.
Review Before Redress: Filing a legal petition without first exhausting the available means of inspection is a high-risk strategy. If an association offers an inspection—even at an attorney's office—the member must review those materials before claiming they are insufficient. Failure to do so almost guarantees a dismissal and the likelihood of being labeled the non-prevailing party.

Note on Certification and Finality

This decision was certified as the final administrative action of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on March 31, 2014. Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D), the ALJ’s decision became final after the Department took no action to modify or reject the ruling within the statutory timeframe following its initial filing in February 2014.

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

Posted on December 12, 2013 by [email protected]

Case Summary

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

13F-H1314001-BFS Decision – 374343.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:46:42 (114.2 KB)

13F-H1314001-BFS Decision – 378997.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:46:46 (59.2 KB)

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)

Briefing Document: Alexander Winter vs. Cortina Homeowners Association (Case No. 13F-H1314001-BFS)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing between Petitioner Alexander Winter and Respondent Cortina Homeowners Association. The dispute centered on the Association’s alleged failure to comply with Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 regarding the timely provision and inspection of association records.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that while the Association fulfilled its duties for certain financial records by making them available for pickup, it violated the statute in two critical areas: the failure to provide redacted invoices for management services and the failure to allow for the inspection of contracts within the mandated 10-business-day window. Consequently, the Association was ordered to provide the records and reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $550.00.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Compliance with Document Requests

The central theme of the case is the strict adherence to A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs how planned community associations must handle member requests for records. Under this statute:

The 10-Day Rule: Associations have ten business days to fulfill a request for the examination of records or to provide copies of requested records.
Reasonable Availability: Financial and other records must be made "reasonably available" for examination.
Fees: Associations may charge up to $0.15 per page for copies but cannot charge for making materials available for review.

2. Redaction vs. Total Withholding

The Association argued that certain invoices from Renaissance Community Partners (the management company) were exempt from disclosure because they contained financial records of individual members, such as assessments and late fees.

The ALJ ruled that while A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) allows for the withholding of personal financial information, it does not permit the total withholding of a document if the sensitive information can be redacted. The Association had a statutory obligation to provide redacted copies rather than denying the request entirely.

3. The Impact of Management Availability on Inspection Rights

A significant violation occurred when the Association’s manager, Kevin Bishop, informed the Petitioner that he could not inspect contracts until Mr. Bishop returned from vacation.

The Request Date: June 12, 2013.
The Proposed Appointment: After July 7, 2013 (18 business days later).
The Ruling: Personal schedules or vacations of management staff do not waive the statutory 10-business-day deadline. Failure to provide access within the window constitutes a violation.

4. Trade Secrets and Contract Confidentiality

The Association attempted to withhold contract copies by citing "trade secrets" under A.R.S. § 44-401, claiming that the management contract’s unique structure provided a "marketing differential."

Finding: The ALJ did not find it necessary to rule on whether the contracts actually contained trade secrets.
Observation: The Petitioner had initialed a form acknowledging that contracts would only be available for inspection and not for copying. Therefore, the violation was not the refusal to provide copies, but the failure to allow the inspection within the required timeframe.

Document Request Status and Disposition

The following table summarizes the specific documents requested by the Petitioner and the ALJ's findings regarding the Association's compliance.

Requested Document	Status of Association Compliance	ALJ Finding
2012/2013 Budgets	Made available for pickup.	No Violation. Petitioner’s failure to pick up documents is not an HOA violation.
GL Detail Reports (2012)	Made available for pickup.	No Violation.
Clean Cut Invoices	Made available for pickup (as a compiled report).	No Violation.
Renaissance Invoices	Withheld due to privacy concerns.	Violation. Association was required to provide redacted copies.
Active Contracts	Inspection offered 18 business days later.	Violation. Failure to meet the 10-business-day statutory window.

Important Quotes with Context

On the Obligation to Redact

"Respondent’s records could be withheld from disclosure 'to the extent that the portion withheld relates to' the financial records and information of individual members… Accordingly, Respondent had a statutory obligation to provide redacted copies of those documents to Petitioner."

Context: This quote explains the ALJ’s legal reasoning for rejecting the Association’s argument that privacy concerns justified a total refusal to produce management company invoices.

On Statutory Deadlines and Manager Vacations

"Even though Petitioner’s request may be interpreted to be seeking only an inspection of the contracts, Respondent failed to make those documents available for review within 10 business days of the request as evidenced by Mr. Bishop’s email reply that he was on vacation… which is a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)."

Context: This highlights that administrative or personal delays on the part of the HOA’s statutory agent do not excuse non-compliance with the 10-day legal requirement.

On the Burden of Proof

"Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805… evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not."

Context: This defines the legal standard used in the Office of Administrative Hearings to determine if the Association was at fault.

Actionable Insights

For Associations and Property Managers

Redaction Policy: Establish a clear process for redacting personal, health, or individual financial information from records. Total denial of a records request based on the presence of sensitive data is legally insufficient if redaction is possible.
Contingency Planning: Ensure that records inspections can be facilitated by more than one individual. A manager’s vacation does not pause the 10-business-day statutory clock.
Evidence of Readiness: If copies are prepared for a member, document the notification sent to the member and keep a record that the documents were ready for pickup to defend against claims of non-delivery.

For Homeowners

Specificity in Requests: Clearly distinguish between requests for "copies" and requests for "inspection," as different rules and fee structures may apply.
Follow-up Procedures: If an association claims a document is protected by privacy or trade secret laws, request a redacted version rather than accepting a flat denial.
Pickup Responsibility: If the association makes documents available for pickup rather than mailing them, the member is responsible for retrieving them; failure to do so may invalidate a claim of non-compliance.

Final Decision Certification

On January 17, 2014, the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, Cliff J. Vanell, certified the ALJ's decision as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. This occurred because the Department did not act to accept, reject, or modify the decision within the timeframe required by A.R.S. § 41-1092.08.

Study Guide: Homeowner Records Access and A.R.S. § 33-1805

This study guide examines the legal requirements for homeowners associations (HOAs) regarding the disclosure of records to members, using the administrative case Alexander Winter vs. Cortina Homeowners Association (No. 13F-H1314001-BFS) as a primary case study.

I. Statutory Framework: A.R.S. § 33-1805

The central statute governing records access in Arizona planned communities is A.R.S. § 33-1805. It establishes the rights of members to examine association records and the obligations of the association to fulfill those requests.

Core Provisions

Availability: All financial and other records of the association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member or their designated representative.
Timeline: The association has 10 business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.
Cost: Associations cannot charge for the review of materials but may charge a fee of no more than $0.15 per page for copies.
Redaction and Withholding: Records may be withheld if they relate to:
Personal, health, or financial records of an individual member.
Information that would violate state or federal law if disclosed.

Trade Secrets (A.R.S. § 44-401)

Associations may occasionally argue that contracts contain trade secrets. Under Arizona law, a trade secret must:

Derive independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable.
Be the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.

II. Case Study: Winter v. Cortina Homeowners Association

Background

In June 2013, Petitioner Alexander Winter requested several documents from the Cortina Homeowners Association, including budgets, General Ledger (GL) reports, active contracts, and invoices for two vendors: Clean Cuts and Renaissance Community Partners.

The Conflict

The association, through its manager Kevin Bishop, raised several objections:

Personal Privacy: Claimed Renaissance invoices contained individual member financial data (assessments/late fees).
Trade Secrets: Claimed contracts were uniquely structured and provided a marketing advantage, thus disclosure could harm the vendor’s business.
Logistics: The manager was on vacation, delaying the inspection of contracts beyond the 10-day statutory limit.

Legal Findings

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reached the following conclusions:

Redaction vs. Withholding: While invoices contained protected individual member data, the association had a statutory obligation to provide redacted copies rather than withholding the documents entirely.
Statutory Deadlines: An association manager’s vacation does not exempt the association from the 10-business-day deadline. Delaying an appointment for 18 business days is a violation.
Member Responsibility: If an association makes documents available for pick-up and the member fails to retrieve them, the association has not violated the statute for those specific documents.

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. According to A.R.S. § 33-1805, how many business days does an HOA have to provide copies of records once requested? Answer: 10 business days.

2. What is the maximum per-page fee an association can charge for copies? Answer: $0.15 per page.

3. Under what circumstances can an association legally withhold financial records of an individual member? Answer: Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4), an association may withhold records to the extent they relate to the personal, health, or financial records of an individual member.

**4. In Winter v. Cortina HOA, why was the delay in inspecting contracts deemed a violation?** Answer: The manager’s unavailability due to vacation pushed the appointment to 18 business days after the request, exceeding the 10-day limit required by law.

5. If a document contains both public association information and private member data, what is the association's legal obligation? Answer: The association must provide a redacted version of the document, withholding only the protected portions.

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The Tension Between Transparency and Privacy Analyze the association's duty to provide financial transparency to its members versus its duty to protect the private financial information of individual homeowners. Use the ALJ’s ruling on the Renaissance Community Partners invoices to support your argument.

2. Defining and Protecting Trade Secrets in HOA Contracts Discuss the criteria required for information to be classified as a "trade secret" under A.R.S. § 44-401. Evaluate the manager’s claim in the Winter case that a management contract’s "unique structure" constitutes a trade secret. Should vendor business interests supersede homeowner oversight rights?

3. Administrative Liability and the Burden of Proof In administrative hearings regarding HOA disputes, the petitioner bears the "burden of proof." Explain what a "preponderance of the evidence" means in this context and how Alexander Winter successfully met this burden regarding the 10-day rule violation.

V. Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition
A.R.S. § 33-1805	The Arizona Revised Statute governing the inspection of records for planned communities.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	A judge who conducts hearings and issues decisions for government agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Burden of Proof	The obligation of a party to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.
General Ledger (GL)	A report detailing the history of accounts, including journal entries for operating and reserve funds.
Preponderance of the Evidence	A standard of proof meaning that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not (greater than 50% likelihood).
Redaction	The process of editing a document to obscure or remove sensitive or protected information before disclosure.
Statutory Agent	An individual or entity designated to receive legal documents and official correspondence on behalf of a corporation or association.
Trade Secret	Information (formula, pattern, technique, etc.) that has economic value because it is not generally known and is kept secret through reasonable efforts.

Your Right to Know: Lessons from a Homeowner’s Legal Victory over an HOA

1. Introduction: The Battle for Transparency

In the world of planned communities, homeowners often find themselves locked in a David-vs-Goliath battle against opaque boards. While these boards act as stewards of community funds, they frequently treat financial records like state secrets. Transparency, however, isn't a courtesy—it is a statutory right.

The case of Alexander Winter vs. Cortina Homeowners Association (No. 13F-H1314001-BFS) stands as a definitive victory for homeowner rights. When Alexander Winter sought to inspect contracts and financial records, he was met with a wall of administrative excuses and "trade secret" defenses. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) saw through the smoke, ruling that the HOA had violated Arizona law. This case serves as a roadmap for any homeowner demanding the accountability they are legally owed.

2. The 10-Day Rule: Why Timelines Matter

Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805(A) is clear: an association has a strict window of 10 business days to fulfill a records request. In the Winter case, the HOA attempted to rewrite the law based on their own calendar.

After Mr. Winter submitted his request on June 12, 2013, the HOA’s statutory agent and manager, Kevin Bishop, claimed he could not fulfill the request because he was on vacation. He didn't offer an appointment until July 7—effectively forcing the homeowner to wait 18 business days. The ALJ was unimpressed, explicitly citing Conclusion of Law #11 to dismantle this defense. The law applies to the association as an entity; it does not pause because a specific employee leaves the office.

Administrative absences, such as a manager’s vacation or office scheduling conflicts, do not exempt an association from its 10-business-day statutory deadline. The association has a mandatory legal obligation to ensure records remain accessible.

3. Invoices and Privacy: The Duty to Redact

The most common weapon HOAs use to block transparency is the "privacy" shield. The Cortina HOA refused to provide invoices from Renaissance Community Partners, arguing that because the documents contained private financial data of individual members (protected under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)), the records were entirely off-limits.

Management even testified that the invoices were so detailed that redacting them would leave the documents useless. The Judge rejected this "all-or-nothing" fallacy. Under Conclusion of Law #6, the association has a "statutory obligation" to provide the documents. If a record contains private info, you don't bury the record; you redact the sensitive parts.

The Renaissance Invoice Dispute:

What the Invoices Contained: Granular details on homeowner assessments, late fees, and specific individual financial matters.
The Association's Legal Obligation: The HOA must provide redacted copies. They are only permitted to withhold specific portions related to private data, not the entire invoice.

4. The "Trade Secrets" Defense and Contract Access

In a desperate attempt to shield their contracts, the HOA claimed that their agreement with Renaissance Community Partners contained "trade secrets." They argued that the contract’s unique structure provided a "marketing differential" and that disclosure could harm the vendor’s business.

The board’s hesitancy was fueled by the Petitioner’s professional life; Mr. Winter owned a landscaping management company and assisted his ex-wife with her property management firm. The HOA essentially argued that providing records to a "competitor" was a risk. However, the ALJ bypassed the "trade secret" debate entirely. Because the HOA had already committed a procedural violation by failing the 10-day availability test, the trade secret defense was secondary. A "marketing differential" does not overrule a statutory deadline.

5. The "Legal Trap": Why Homeowners Must Follow Through

As an advocate, I must warn: even when the law is on your side, you can lose by being a passive participant. The HOA successfully avoided violations on several items—the 2012/2013 budgets, General Ledger (GL) reports, and Clean Cut invoices—because they actually had them ready.

Because the HOA notified Mr. Winter that these specific records were "ready for pickup" and he failed to collect them, the Judge ruled there was no violation for those documents.

Warning to Homeowners:

Pick Up the Records: If the HOA says records are ready, go get them. Don't hand the board an easy win by failing to show up.
Written Trails Only: Mr. Winter testified about a phone call to the management office where a staffer knew nothing of his request. The Judge found this testimony insufficient (Conclusion of Law #5). Never rely on phone calls. If it isn't in an email or a letter, it didn't happen in the eyes of the court.

6. The Final Verdict and Financial Consequences

The ALJ’s Recommended Order was a total rebuke of the HOA’s delay tactics. The Cortina HOA was ordered to provide all requested documents—redacted where necessary—within ten days.

The board’s obstructionism also came with a price tag. The Association was ordered to reimburse Mr. Winter his $550.00 filing fee. When HOAs play games with records, the homeowners end up paying for the board's mistakes.

**Final Certification: The decision in Alexander Winter vs. Cortina Homeowners Association was officially certified as the final administrative decision on January 17, 2014.**

7. Key Takeaways for Homeowners

Redaction Over Rejection: If a board says "we can't show you this because of privacy," remind them of their statutory duty to redact. They cannot block entire documents based on a few lines of private data.
Statutory Deadlines are Firm: A manager’s vacation is not a legal excuse. The 10-business-day rule is a hard deadline.
Watch the Fine Print on Request Forms: In this case, Mr. Winter initialed a pre-printed HOA form acknowledging that contracts were for "inspection only." This almost cost him his right to copies. Always read—and if necessary, amend—the association’s own request forms before signing.

8. Conclusion: Empowerment Through Information

The Winter vs. Cortina victory reinforces A.R.S. § 33-1805 as the "sunshine law" of planned communities. These statutes exist to prevent boards from operating in the shadows. By understanding legal precedents like this, you can stop being a spectator in your own community and start being an informed advocate for your rights. Accountability begins with the right to look at the books.

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