**Case Summary: *Greg Fish v. Flynn Lane Biltmore Assoc, Inc.***
**Case No.** 14F-H1414007-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety)
**Date of Hearing:** November 4, 2014
**Administrative Law Judge:** M. Douglas

**Overview and Main Issues**
This case involved a dispute between Petitioner Greg Fish, a unit owner, and Respondent Flynn Lane Biltmore Assoc, Inc. (Biltmore), a condominium association. The central legal issue was whether the Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the calculation of homeowner assessments,. Specifically, the Petitioner alleged that Biltmore billed assessments equally among all units, whereas CC&Rs 7 and 8 required assessments to be prorated based on each unit's proportionate share of ownership of the Common Elements,.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Mr. Fish argued that the Association knowingly failed to follow the CC&Rs. He testified that assessments should be based on square footage/percentage ownership. Witnesses for the Petitioner calculated that he had been overcharged approximately $1,860 over the previous six years due to the incorrect billing method,,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** Biltmore admitted that the CC&Rs required prorated assessments. However, the Association argued that equal billing had been the policy for 46 years, originally because the cost difference was negligible (43 cents in 1968). They claimed the majority of owners preferred equalized assessments and that the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) had mandated equal assessments in the 1980s,.
* **Testimony:** Both the former community manager and the current Board President admitted they understood Biltmore was not following the CC&Rs but continued the practice anyway,. The current property manager testified that the Board finally voted on November 1, 2014, to implement the correct percentage-based method effective January 1, 2015.

**Legal Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the Petitioner’s testimony and evidence credible. The Tribunal concluded that Biltmore knowingly violated CC&R 8(B) by splitting assessments equally rather than using the required percentage of ownership method,. The ALJ noted that the Association persisted in this violation despite knowledge of the requirement.

**Outcome and Order**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, deeming him the prevailing party. The final order mandated the following:
1. **Compliance:** Biltmore must fully comply with the applicable provisions of its CC&Rs in the future.
2. **Restitution:** Biltmore was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $550.00.
3. **Penalty:** Biltmore was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $200.00 to the Department.

**Final Status**
The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not reject or modify the ALJ's decision within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision on January 8, 2015,.