Case Summary
| Case ID | 21F-H2120029-REL-RHG |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2021-10-12 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Adam D. Stone |
| Outcome | none |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Daniel J Coe | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association | Counsel | Edith Rudder |
Alleged Violations
No violations listed
Outcome Summary
The Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order vacating the scheduled hearing and remanding the matter to the Department of Real Estate, based on the Petitioner's motion to withdraw the rehearing petition.
Why this result: Petitioner withdrew the rehearing petition.
Key Issues & Findings
Motion to Withdraw Rehearing Petition
Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Rehearing Petition, advising that the scheduled hearing was not necessary.
Orders: Hearing vacated and matter remanded to the Department of Real Estate.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: procedural_closure
Analytics Highlights
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2120029-REL Decision – 916851.pdf
21F-H2120029-REL Decision – 890760.pdf
21F-H2120029-REL Decision – 916851.pdf
21F-H2120029-REL Decision – 890760.pdf
This summary details the administrative disposition of the legal matter between Daniel J Coe, Petitioner, and Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association, Respondent, identified as Case No. 21F-H2120029-REL-RHG, before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
Key Facts and Proceedings:
The Petitioner, Daniel J Coe, was involved in a dispute with the Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association. A hearing concerning this matter was scheduled before the OAH for October 12, 2021. However, the proceedings were terminated before the scheduled date. On October 8, 2021, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Rehearing Petition with the OAH. In this motion, the Petitioner explicitly advised that the scheduled hearing was "not necessary".
Main Issues and Legal Points:
The central legal point addressed in the order was the disposition of the Petitioner’s request for a hearing. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Adam D. Stone, determined that there was sufficient cause to act on the Petitioner's motion to withdraw the petition.
Outcome and Final Decision:
On October 12, 2021, the ALJ issued an ORDER VACATING HEARING. The Order formally vacated the scheduled hearing from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings. Crucially, the Order FURTHER ORDERED remanding this matter to the Department of Real Estate for further action. This administrative decision concluded the OAH's involvement in the pending hearing request, shifting the responsibility for subsequent steps back to the Department of Real Estate.
Questions
Question
Does the number of homeowners ineligible to vote (due to delinquency) lower the number required for a quorum?
Short Answer
No. The quorum is generally calculated based on the total class of membership, and subtracting ineligible voters to lower the quorum threshold is not automatically accepted without specific support.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the homeowner's argument that the quorum threshold should be lowered by subtracting the 222 members who were ineligible to vote due to delinquent accounts. The quorum remained 10% of the total membership class (1,626), not 10% of the eligible voters.
Alj Quote
Petitioner’s argument that because only 1,404 Members were eligible to vote, that quorum was established at 140 voting Members is erroneous. Moreover, Petitioner provided no statute, regulation, governing document, or other binding case law to support his contention.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Article III Section 3.6
Topic Tags
- Elections
- Quorum
- Voting Rights
Question
What happens to the results of an election if the required quorum is not met?
Short Answer
The election is invalid and no candidates are elected, even if votes were cast.
Detailed Answer
In this case, candidates received over 100 votes each, but because the total number of ballots cast (147) did not meet the quorum requirement (163), no one was elected to the Board.
Alj Quote
Although Alicia Chin received 109 votes, Randy Eilts received 103 votes, Petitioner received 103 votes… none were elected to the Board of Directors because the Association determined that quorum had not been met.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Article III Section 3.6
Topic Tags
- Elections
- Quorum
- Board of Directors
Question
Are CC&Rs considered a legally binding contract?
Short Answer
Yes, CC&Rs constitute an enforceable contract between the HOA and the homeowner.
Detailed Answer
When a person buys a property in an HOA, they agree to be bound by the CC&Rs, creating a contractual relationship.
Alj Quote
When a party buys a residential unit in the development, the party receives a copy of the CC&Rs and agrees to be bound by their terms. Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.
Legal Basis
Contract Law
Topic Tags
- CC&Rs
- Legal Standards
- Contracts
Question
Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove that the HOA violated the statutes or documents by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
- Procedure
- Burden of Proof
- Evidence
Question
What evidence is required to win a dispute about interpreting bylaws?
Short Answer
You generally need to provide statutes, regulations, governing documents, or binding case law that supports your interpretation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ denied the petition partly because the homeowner offered only an argument without supporting legal authority to counter the plain text of the bylaws.
Alj Quote
Petitioner provided no statute, regulation, governing document, or other binding case law to support his contention. Here, the clear authority lies within the plain text of Article III Section 3.6.
Legal Basis
Administrative Law
Topic Tags
- Evidence
- Legal Interpretation
- Bylaws
Question
Does the Administrative Law Judge have the power to interpret the HOA's contract/CC&Rs?
Short Answer
Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.
Detailed Answer
The tribunal is authorized to hear disputes and interpret the governing documents (the contract) to resolve the case.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)… OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH also has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199
Topic Tags
- Jurisdiction
- OAH Authority
- Contracts
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
It is the greater weight of convincing evidence, enough to incline a fair mind to one side, even if doubts remain.
Alj Quote
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Legal Basis
Arizona Law of Evidence
Topic Tags
- Legal Standards
- Definitions
- Evidence
Case
- Docket No
- 21F-H2120029-REL
- Case Title
- Daniel J. Coe v. Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association
- Decision Date
- 2021-06-24
- Alj Name
- Jenna Clark
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Questions
Question
Does the number of homeowners ineligible to vote (due to delinquency) lower the number required for a quorum?
Short Answer
No. The quorum is generally calculated based on the total class of membership, and subtracting ineligible voters to lower the quorum threshold is not automatically accepted without specific support.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the homeowner's argument that the quorum threshold should be lowered by subtracting the 222 members who were ineligible to vote due to delinquent accounts. The quorum remained 10% of the total membership class (1,626), not 10% of the eligible voters.
Alj Quote
Petitioner’s argument that because only 1,404 Members were eligible to vote, that quorum was established at 140 voting Members is erroneous. Moreover, Petitioner provided no statute, regulation, governing document, or other binding case law to support his contention.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Article III Section 3.6
Topic Tags
- Elections
- Quorum
- Voting Rights
Question
What happens to the results of an election if the required quorum is not met?
Short Answer
The election is invalid and no candidates are elected, even if votes were cast.
Detailed Answer
In this case, candidates received over 100 votes each, but because the total number of ballots cast (147) did not meet the quorum requirement (163), no one was elected to the Board.
Alj Quote
Although Alicia Chin received 109 votes, Randy Eilts received 103 votes, Petitioner received 103 votes… none were elected to the Board of Directors because the Association determined that quorum had not been met.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Article III Section 3.6
Topic Tags
- Elections
- Quorum
- Board of Directors
Question
Are CC&Rs considered a legally binding contract?
Short Answer
Yes, CC&Rs constitute an enforceable contract between the HOA and the homeowner.
Detailed Answer
When a person buys a property in an HOA, they agree to be bound by the CC&Rs, creating a contractual relationship.
Alj Quote
When a party buys a residential unit in the development, the party receives a copy of the CC&Rs and agrees to be bound by their terms. Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.
Legal Basis
Contract Law
Topic Tags
- CC&Rs
- Legal Standards
- Contracts
Question
Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove that the HOA violated the statutes or documents by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
- Procedure
- Burden of Proof
- Evidence
Question
What evidence is required to win a dispute about interpreting bylaws?
Short Answer
You generally need to provide statutes, regulations, governing documents, or binding case law that supports your interpretation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ denied the petition partly because the homeowner offered only an argument without supporting legal authority to counter the plain text of the bylaws.
Alj Quote
Petitioner provided no statute, regulation, governing document, or other binding case law to support his contention. Here, the clear authority lies within the plain text of Article III Section 3.6.
Legal Basis
Administrative Law
Topic Tags
- Evidence
- Legal Interpretation
- Bylaws
Question
Does the Administrative Law Judge have the power to interpret the HOA's contract/CC&Rs?
Short Answer
Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.
Detailed Answer
The tribunal is authorized to hear disputes and interpret the governing documents (the contract) to resolve the case.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)… OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH also has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199
Topic Tags
- Jurisdiction
- OAH Authority
- Contracts
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
It is the greater weight of convincing evidence, enough to incline a fair mind to one side, even if doubts remain.
Alj Quote
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Legal Basis
Arizona Law of Evidence
Topic Tags
- Legal Standards
- Definitions
- Evidence
Case
- Docket No
- 21F-H2120029-REL
- Case Title
- Daniel J. Coe v. Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association
- Decision Date
- 2021-06-24
- Alj Name
- Jenna Clark
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Daniel J. Coe (petitioner)
Also a candidate for Board Member Elect - Randy Eilts (board member candidate)
Also listed as an observer - Summer Wierth (board member candidate)
Also listed as an observer - Alicia Chin (board member candidate)
- Albert Barnes (board member candidate)
Respondent Side
- Ed O’Brien (attorney)
Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association - Michael LaPoint (witness)
- Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
Counsel for Respondent - Edith Rudder (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Counsel for Respondent in later filing
Neutral Parties
- Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH
Issued Administrative Law Judge Decision - Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
OAH
Issued Order Vacating Hearing - AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - c. serrano (OAH staff)
OAH
Transmitting staff
Other Participants
- Andrea Chin (observer)