**Case Summary: Santomarco v. Mountainview Lake Estates Homeowner Association**
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212012-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety)

**Overview**
This case involved a dispute between Petitioners Cynthia and Bruce Santomarco and Respondent Mountainview Lake Estates Homeowner Association (MLE). The Petitioners alleged that MLE violated the community's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the handling of roof repairs following a severe weather event.

**Key Facts**
* **The Incident:** On October 5, 2010, a severe hailstorm damaged roofs within the MLE community, which consists of 68 units.
* **Maintenance Responsibility:** Under the CC&Rs, MLE is generally responsible for the maintenance and repair of unit roofs.
* **Repair Proposal:** Following the storm, USA Roofing offered to repair the hail damage for approximately $500 per unit.
* **Legal Advice:** MLE obtained a legal opinion stating that owners were only obligated to use their personal insurance proceeds for repairs if the roofs were "substantially destroyed". Because the damage was minor ($500 to repair), MLE determined it was appropriate for the Association to perform the repairs.
* **HOA Action:** MLE informed homeowners they could voluntarily file insurance claims or have the Association complete the repairs. Fourteen owners filed claims; the remainder had their roofs repaired by USA Roofing.

**The Dispute**
The Petitioners filed a complaint alleging that MLE violated the CC&Rs by failing to *require* all homeowners to file claims against their insurance policies for the storm damage.

**Legal Arguments and Analysis**
The hearing focused on the interpretation of Articles VI and VII of the CC&Rs:

1. **"Act of God" Defense:** The Petitioners argued that the hailstorm constituted an "Act of God" under Article VI. They contended this relieved MLE of its maintenance duties and shifted the burden to the homeowners.
2. **"Substantially Destroyed" Threshold:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that while Article VI excludes "Acts of God" from standard maintenance, it specifically refers such cases to Article VII, Section 4 for governance. Article VII, Section 4 mandates that owners repair their lots using insurance proceeds only if the structure is "**substantially destroyed**".
3. **Evidence of Damage:** The ALJ found that repairs costing $500 per unit did not constitute substantial destruction. Although one witness recommended roof replacement, other evidence showed the repairs were compliant with Registrar of Contractors standards, and no homeowners reported leaks following the work.

**Decision and Outcome**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent (MLE), concluding the following:
* Because the roofs were not "substantially destroyed," the provision requiring owners to use insurance proceeds was not triggered.
* Therefore, it remained MLE's responsibility to repair and maintain the roofs under the CC&Rs.
* The Petitioners failed to prove a violation of the CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.

**Final Order:** The Petition was dismissed on October 4, 2012. The decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on November 13, 2012.