Case Summary
| Case ID | 25F-H022-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2025-03-27 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Nicole Robinson |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Miera Phx LLC | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc | Counsel | — |
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Sections 17, 6.1, 6.2, 5; Bylaws Articles I, Section 3; Article VI, Section 3(b); Article IX, Section 2
Outcome Summary
The petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated the cited documents or statutes, as the ALJ determined the complaint was fundamentally a dispute regarding violations committed by individual unit owners (a homeowner vs. homeowner argument).
Why this result: The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to establish that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes, particularly noting that the Association cannot violate the Use & Occupancy restrictions cited, only a homeowner can. The statute regarding monetary penalties uses 'may' (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(11)), indicating discretion, not a mandatory duty enforceable as a violation against the HOA.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA's failure to enforce CC&Rs prohibiting transient/short-term rentals and managing parking/common areas misuse
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to enforce restrictions prohibiting short-term rentals (under 30 days) and misused parking/common areas by transient guests, citing conflicts of interest among Board members operating STRs.
Orders: Petition denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(11)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
- Dartmouth Trace CC&Rs Section 17
- Dartmouth Trace Bylaws Article VI Section 3(b)
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
25F-H022-REL Decision – 1264772.pdf
25F-H022-REL Decision – 1275713.pdf
25F-H022-REL Decision – 1275762.pdf
25F-H022-REL Decision – 1287568.pdf
25F-H022-REL Decision – 1318865.pdf
Briefing Document: Miera Phx LLC v. Dartmouth Trace Homeowners Association, Inc.
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Miera Phx LLC v. Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc. (No. 25F-H022-REL). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Homeowners Association (HOA) failed to enforce its governing documents, specifically the prohibition against short-term rentals (STRs) of less than 30 days.
The Petitioner, represented by homeowner Angel Miera, argued that the HOA’s inaction allowed STRs to proliferate, leading to safety concerns, nuisance issues, and a degradation of the community’s residential character. A central claim was that a conflict of interest existed, alleging the HOA Board President himself operated an STR. The Petitioner sought mandated enforcement, board reorganization, and financial compensation for HOA fees.
The Respondent HOA, represented by its management company and a board member, countered that enforcing the STR prohibition was practically impossible without “hard proof,” such as an exterior photo with a unit number, which is difficult to obtain. They cited financial constraints, other pressing maintenance priorities, and limitations imposed by state law on collecting fines as significant hurdles. The board also highlighted its own instability, with only two members remaining—both of whom were in the process of selling their properties—and a severe lack of community volunteers.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petition. The decision concluded that the Petitioner had not met the burden of proof. The ALJ reasoned that the underlying issue was a “homeowner versus homeowner argument,” as the HOA itself cannot violate the rental restrictions, only individual owners can. Furthermore, the governing statute is permissive, stating an association may impose penalties, not that it must. The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to order the reimbursement of HOA dues or to compel board stability.
Case Overview
Case Number
25F-H022-REL
Petitioner
Miera Phx LLC
Petitioner Representatives
Angel Miera (Manager), Bill Miera (Witness)
Respondent
Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.
Respondent Representatives
Gladis Hernandez (Community Manager, Ogden & Co.), Fernanda Lopez (Board VP)
Administrative Law Judge
Nicole Robinson
Hearing Date
February 19, 2025
ALJ Decision Date
March 27, 2025
Central Dispute: Failure to Enforce Short-Term Rental Prohibitions
The foundational issue of the case was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Dartmouth Trace HOA was in violation of its own governing documents by failing to enforce the prohibition on short-term rentals.
The primary governing rule cited is Section 17 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which states:
“No Owner shall permit his Unit to be used for transient or hotel purposes or shall enter into any Lease for less than the entire Unit or for a term of less than thirty (30) days.”
The Petitioner alleged that the HOA’s failure to act on violations of this rule undermined the community’s residential character, stability, and property values.
——————————————————————————–
Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (Miera Phx LLC)
The Petitioner, Angel Miera, a resident of 11 years and an owner for three, built her case on several key arguments supported by extensive documentation submitted to the court.
Pervasive and Unenforced STR Activity
• Core Complaint: The community, located near the Chicago Cubs Spring Training facility, has been “overrun” with illegal STRs, transforming it into a “transient hotel.”
• Evidence Provided: Miera submitted numerous online listings from platforms like Airbnb and VRBO, dating from 2022 to the week before the hearing, which she alleged were units within Dartmouth Trace.
• Community Impact: The influx of transient guests has allegedly led to numerous disturbances, including noise complaints, police calls, and overuse of common amenities like the pool and parking. Miera noted her car had been dinged by vehicles in the adjacent STR unit’s parking space and that oversized vehicles often made it difficult for her to exit her own car.
• History of Complaints: Miera documented a three-year history of reporting suspected STRs to the HOA and its management company, Ogden & Company, Inc., which she claimed resulted in no meaningful enforcement action.
Conflict of Interest on the HOA Board
• Central Allegation: The failure to enforce the rules stems from a direct conflict of interest, as key board members have allegedly operated STRs themselves.
• Board President Rod Proce: Miera submitted a listing she claims was for Board President Rod Proce’s unit (Unit 29), which advertised it as a vacation rental. She also submitted his recent MLS listing for the sale of the unit, in which the description states, “This condo has been a great vacation rental.”
• Former Board Member: Allegations were also made against former board member Tiffany Barentine, who reportedly operated STRs and resigned from the board after Miera raised the issue.
Retaliation and Lack of Homeowner Engagement
• Perceived Retaliation: Miera testified that since she began raising the STR issue, her requests for essential landscaping maintenance for her unit have been ignored for three years, while common areas advertised in STR listings (e.g., the pool area) remain “impeccable.”
• Suppressed Engagement: The HOA moved from monthly meetings to a single annual meeting, which Miera argued made it “nearly impossible for homeowners to effectively raise concerns.” She also testified that her attempt to run for a board position was accepted and then blocked without explanation.
Requested Remedies
1. Mandated Enforcement: An order compelling the HOA to take “meaningful corrective action,” including issuing fines, notices, and liens against illegal STR owners.
2. Oversight and Transparency: Creation of a tracking system for STRs, installation of prohibitive signage, and mandatory disclosures to new buyers about STR restrictions.
3. Board Reorganization: The removal of the two current board members (Rod Proce and Fernanda Lopez) due to alleged mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and the fact that both had their units listed for sale.
4. Financial Compensation: Reimbursement for the $500 case filing fee and over $8,000 in HOA fees paid over the last three years, during which her safety and property concerns were allegedly ignored.
——————————————————————————–
Respondent’s Position and Rebuttal (Dartmouth Trace HOA)
The HOA and its representatives acknowledged the existence of STRs as a problem but argued that their ability to act was severely constrained by practical, legal, and financial limitations.
The Challenge of “Hard Proof”
• Enforcement Standard: Community Manager Gladis Hernandez stated that the HOA cannot issue fines without “hard proof” that would withstand a legal challenge. Based on legal advice, this means obtaining an online ad that includes an exterior photo showing the building and a specific unit number.
• Impracticality of Investigation: Hernandez argued it would be an improper use of association funds to book suspected STRs simply to obtain their addresses. She stated, “we don’t hunt them down.” The HOA does not have the resources or software to run license plates to identify owners.
• Action on Confirmed Units: Regarding Miera’s neighboring unit (Unit 26), Hernandez testified that upon confirmation, she contacted the owner. The owner asserted that her rental listing is for a 30-day minimum, which complies with the CC&Rs.
Resource and Legislative Constraints
• Volunteer Board: Board VP Fernanda Lopez emphasized that board members are unpaid volunteers. She herself joined the board as a “disgruntled resident” but was met with the reality of limited budgets and significant responsibilities. The board has only two members, both of whom are selling their units, and no other homeowners are willing to volunteer.
• Financial Priorities: The HOA faces significant expenses for larger projects like roofing ($35,000 for parking lot repairs) and rising water bills, leaving limited funds for other issues like comprehensive landscaping or legal battles over STRs.
• Limited Power of Fines: Hernandez testified that recent changes in state legislation prevent HOAs from pursuing foreclosure based on unpaid fines. This weakens the power of fines as a deterrent, as homeowners can choose to pay their assessments but ignore fines without severe consequence.
Response to Specific Allegations
• Board President’s Actions: Hernandez confirmed that Rod Proce admitted to a past STR listing from around 2022 but stated it was no longer active.
• Retaliation Claim: Lopez countered the landscaping claim by stating that Miera’s unit is in the same section as Rod Proce’s unit, and “he’s looking at bare dirt as well.” She asserted that she gave Miera’s unit “preferential treatment” with the new landscaping company to address her long-standing complaints.
——————————————————————————–
Key Testimonies
Angel Miera, Petitioner: “For the governing documents to have any real meaning, they must be enforced. This court has the authority to require the HOA to fulfill its obligations, and I ask that it does so today.”
Gladis Hernandez, Community Manager: “It is not proper to go spend association money to see if this unit… is being Airbnbed out to go and spend association money just to find out if it’s a unit within that community itself. … I believe that every homeowner that pays their assessments would also agree that it’s not proper use of funds.”
Fernanda Lopez, Board Vice President: “I highly recommend that you change your LLC to your name so that you can be part of that board and have those conversations and figure out solutions because it’s not just easy. You can complain every single day, but to find solutions is the difficult part.”
Bill Miera, Petitioner’s Witness, on the Board President’s attitude: “[He said] ‘well, you know, we don’t want to be the meanies and you know, give out violations.’ That was his response.”
——————————————————————————–
Final Judgment and Rationale
On March 27, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety.
Conclusions of Law
The ALJ’s decision was based on the following key legal conclusions:
1. Homeowner vs. Homeowner Dispute: The judge determined that the core issue was a dispute between homeowners, not a direct violation by the HOA itself. The decision states, “Ultimately, Petitioner’s underlying complaint is a homeowner versus homeowner argument and that type of complaint is not addressed in this forum.”
2. HOA Cannot Violate Occupancy Rules: The Association itself cannot violate the Use & Occupancy restrictions or the Bylaws cited by the Petitioner; only a homeowner can.
3. Enforcement is Permissive, Not Mandatory: The judge cited Arizona statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(11)), which states that an “Association MAY… impose reasonable monetary penalties.” The use of the word “may” makes the action discretionary, not mandatory. Therefore, the HOA’s failure to issue fines was not a violation of the law or its governing documents.
4. Lack of Jurisdiction for Requested Remedies: The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to order the reimbursement of HOA dues or to intervene in the internal stability of the HOA board.
Final Order
• The Petitioner’s petition was denied.
• The Respondent HOA was not ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.
• The decision noted that the Petitioner is not barred from seeking further legal recourse outside the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of Real Estate.
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H022-REL”, “case_title”: “Miera Phx LLC v. Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc”, “decision_date”: “2025-03-27”, “alj_name”: “Nicole Robinson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce rules against my neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Likely no. The tribunal views disputes about rule enforcement against other residents as ‘homeowner versus homeowner’ arguments, which are outside its forum.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ clarified that while a petitioner may be diligent in reporting neighbors (such as those violating short-term rental or parking rules), the underlying complaint is fundamentally between homeowners. The administrative hearing process is designed for disputes between an owner and the association regarding the association’s specific violations, not to compel the association to police other owners in specific ways.”, “alj_quote”: “Ultimately, Petitioner’s underlying complaint is a homeowner versus homeowner argument and that type of complaint is not addressed in this forum.”, “legal_basis”: “Jurisdictional Limitations”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA legally required to fine homeowners who violate the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No. State statute provides that an association ‘may’ impose penalties, implying it is discretionary rather than mandatory.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision highlights that Arizona Revised Statutes grant the association the power to impose penalties but do not mandate it. Therefore, an HOA failing to issue fines is not necessarily violating the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1242(A)(11) which states in pertinent part that the ‘Association MAY. . . . impose reasonable monetary penalties.'”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(11)”, “topic_tags”: [ “fines”, “penalties”, “statutory interpretation” ] }, { “question”: “Can the administrative tribunal order the HOA to reimburse my assessment fees if they fail to manage the property well?”, “short_answer”: “No. The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to mandate the reimbursement of HOA dues.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if a homeowner feels the HOA has failed in its duties or that services (like landscaping) have declined, the Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority to order the return of assessments paid.”, “alj_quote”: “In addition, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to mandate that the Association reimburse Petitioner’s HOA dues which is out of the purview per this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Jurisdictional Limitations”, “topic_tags”: [ “assessments”, “reimbursement”, “dues” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.'”, “detailed_answer”: “This standard means the homeowner must show that their contention is more probably true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the amount of evidence or number of witnesses.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the aforementioned CC&Rs and the Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA itself be found guilty of violating use and occupancy restrictions in the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “Generally, no. Use and occupancy restrictions apply to the conduct of homeowners, not the corporate entity of the HOA.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that an Association cannot violate restrictions designed for residents (like short-term rental bans); only the individual homeowners can violate those specific rules.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association cannot violate the Use & Occupancy restrictions or the Bylaws cited by Petitioner in her complaint; a homeowner can but not the HOA.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&Rs”, “occupancy restrictions”, “liability” ] }, { “question”: “Can the judge force the HOA to fill vacant board seats if no one wants to volunteer?”, “short_answer”: “No. The tribunal cannot compel individuals to run for election or remain in board positions.”, “detailed_answer”: “While a lack of participation or board vacancies may cause instability, the administrative law judge has no jurisdiction to force homeowners to serve on the board or to create stability in governance.”, “alj_quote”: “The Tribunal heard testimony regarding the lack of participation of homeowners to become Board Directors, however, individuals cannot be forced into an election or made to remain in their positions.”, “legal_basis”: “Governance”, “topic_tags”: [ “board of directors”, “elections”, “volunteers” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have the authority to interpret the contract between a homeowner and the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The OAH has the authority to interpret the contract (CC&Rs and Bylaws) between the parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that the OAH is an independent agency authorized to decide contested cases and interpret the governing documents (contract) between the association and the owner.”, “alj_quote”: “OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract interpretation”, “OAH authority” ] } ] }
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H022-REL”, “case_title”: “Miera Phx LLC v. Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc”, “decision_date”: “2025-03-27”, “alj_name”: “Nicole Robinson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce rules against my neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Likely no. The tribunal views disputes about rule enforcement against other residents as ‘homeowner versus homeowner’ arguments, which are outside its forum.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ clarified that while a petitioner may be diligent in reporting neighbors (such as those violating short-term rental or parking rules), the underlying complaint is fundamentally between homeowners. The administrative hearing process is designed for disputes between an owner and the association regarding the association’s specific violations, not to compel the association to police other owners in specific ways.”, “alj_quote”: “Ultimately, Petitioner’s underlying complaint is a homeowner versus homeowner argument and that type of complaint is not addressed in this forum.”, “legal_basis”: “Jurisdictional Limitations”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA legally required to fine homeowners who violate the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No. State statute provides that an association ‘may’ impose penalties, implying it is discretionary rather than mandatory.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision highlights that Arizona Revised Statutes grant the association the power to impose penalties but do not mandate it. Therefore, an HOA failing to issue fines is not necessarily violating the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1242(A)(11) which states in pertinent part that the ‘Association MAY. . . . impose reasonable monetary penalties.'”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(11)”, “topic_tags”: [ “fines”, “penalties”, “statutory interpretation” ] }, { “question”: “Can the administrative tribunal order the HOA to reimburse my assessment fees if they fail to manage the property well?”, “short_answer”: “No. The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to mandate the reimbursement of HOA dues.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if a homeowner feels the HOA has failed in its duties or that services (like landscaping) have declined, the Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority to order the return of assessments paid.”, “alj_quote”: “In addition, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to mandate that the Association reimburse Petitioner’s HOA dues which is out of the purview per this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Jurisdictional Limitations”, “topic_tags”: [ “assessments”, “reimbursement”, “dues” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.'”, “detailed_answer”: “This standard means the homeowner must show that their contention is more probably true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the amount of evidence or number of witnesses.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the aforementioned CC&Rs and the Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA itself be found guilty of violating use and occupancy restrictions in the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “Generally, no. Use and occupancy restrictions apply to the conduct of homeowners, not the corporate entity of the HOA.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that an Association cannot violate restrictions designed for residents (like short-term rental bans); only the individual homeowners can violate those specific rules.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association cannot violate the Use & Occupancy restrictions or the Bylaws cited by Petitioner in her complaint; a homeowner can but not the HOA.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&Rs”, “occupancy restrictions”, “liability” ] }, { “question”: “Can the judge force the HOA to fill vacant board seats if no one wants to volunteer?”, “short_answer”: “No. The tribunal cannot compel individuals to run for election or remain in board positions.”, “detailed_answer”: “While a lack of participation or board vacancies may cause instability, the administrative law judge has no jurisdiction to force homeowners to serve on the board or to create stability in governance.”, “alj_quote”: “The Tribunal heard testimony regarding the lack of participation of homeowners to become Board Directors, however, individuals cannot be forced into an election or made to remain in their positions.”, “legal_basis”: “Governance”, “topic_tags”: [ “board of directors”, “elections”, “volunteers” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have the authority to interpret the contract between a homeowner and the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The OAH has the authority to interpret the contract (CC&Rs and Bylaws) between the parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that the OAH is an independent agency authorized to decide contested cases and interpret the governing documents (contract) between the association and the owner.”, “alj_quote”: “OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract interpretation”, “OAH authority” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Angel Miera (petitioner)
Miera Phx LLC
Manager of LLC; testified on own behalf. - Bill Miera (witness)
Miera Phx LLC
Father of Angel Miera.
Respondent Side
- Gladis Hernandez (community manager)
Ogden Community Management
Community Manager since October 2023; testified on behalf of Respondent. - Fernanda Lopez (board member)
Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.
Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer; testified on behalf of Respondent. - Rod Proce (board member (President))
Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.
Board President; alleged STR host; did not appear at hearing due to health issues. - Lori Percival (Ogden President / Registered Agent)
Ogden & Company, Incorporated
Registered Agent for Dartmouth Trace HOA. - Tiffany Barentine (former board member)
Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.
Alleged STR host; resigned from the board. - Erica Proy (STR host)
Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.
Wife of Rod Proce; associated with STR listing. - Megan Wasik (Ogden staff)
Ogden Community Management
Ogden employee who responded to Petitioner's inquiries.
Neutral Parties
- Nicole Robinson (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Issued decision on March 27, 2025; Amended hearing date via Nunc Pro Tunc Order on June 19, 2025. - Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
ADRE - vnunez (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of official case documents. - djones (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of official case documents. - labril (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of official case documents. - mneat (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of official case documents. - lrecchia (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of official case documents. - gosborn (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of official case documents.
Other Participants
- Bethany Willis (homeowner/STR host)
Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.
Unit 26 owner and Petitioner's neighbor. - Sharon Woods (former community manager)
Ogden Community Management
Managed Dartmouth Trace prior to Gladis Hernandez. - Chris Lindberg (former community manager)
Ogden Community Management
Former manager who enacted fine resolution for STRs. - Julie (former board member)
Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.
Former board member who resigned. - Jennifer Salazar (STR co-owner)
Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.
Co-owner/operator of listings associated with Tiffany Barentine (also mentioned as Callie Salazar). - Nah Holani Cutting (homeowner/STR host)
Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.
Unit owner identified in STR listing.
