Case Summary
| Case ID |
08F-H078005-BFS |
| Agency |
DFBLS |
| Tribunal |
OAH |
| Decision Date |
2007-12-13 |
| Administrative Law Judge |
Lewis D. Kowal |
| Outcome |
Yes |
| Filing Fees Refunded |
$550.00 |
| Civil Penalties |
$0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner |
John and Deborah Sellers |
Counsel |
— |
| Respondent |
The Crossings at Willow Creek |
Counsel |
Maria R. Kupilas |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Outcome Summary
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, determining that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide unredacted records. The ALJ rejected the Association's argument that the records contained confidential personal information.
Key Issues & Findings
Records Request Violation
Petitioners requested unredacted copies of a 'Courtesy Notice' regarding ATV usage. The Association withheld the document claiming it contained personal information protected under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4). The ALJ found the information was not personal in nature and should have been disclosed.
Orders: Association ordered to provide unredacted copy of Courtesy Notice dated July 12, 2007 within 40 days and reimburse $550 filing fee.
Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
- A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
- A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)
Decision Documents
08F-H078005-BFS Decision – 181959.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:21:03 (100.0 KB)
Briefing Doc – 08F-H078005-BFS
Briefing Document: Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek (Case No. 08F-H078005-BFS)
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in the matter of John and Deborah Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek. The central dispute concerned the Association’s refusal to provide unredacted copies of community records, specifically “courtesy notice” letters regarding ATV usage, citing the “personal records” exemption under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805(B)(4).
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, establishing that the names and addresses of lot owners receiving violation notices do not constitute “personal information” that would justify withholding records from other members. The decision clarified the narrow scope of the personal records exemption and reinforced the Association’s statutory obligation to provide records within ten business days. The Association was ordered to produce the unredacted documents and reimburse the Petitioners’ filing fees.
Case Overview
Attribute
Details
Case Name
John and Deborah Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek
Case Number
08F-H078005-BFS
Hearing Date
December 3, 2007
Administrative Law Judge
Lewis D. Kowal
Primary Statute at Issue
A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Disclosure)
Findings of Fact
The dispute originated from a document request submitted by John and Deborah Sellers on August 16, 2007. The following timeline and status of records were established:
• Compliant Disclosures: The Association timely provided draft records of the Board of Director’s June 7, 2007 meeting and documents related to the retention of legal counsel (Mr. Adams).
• Non-Compliant Disclosures: The Association failed to provide correspondence or notices relating to “the Behns.”
• The Redacted Document: On October 24, 2007 (exceeding the 10-day statutory limit), the Association sent copies of letters regarding ATV usage. However, these documents were redacted to hide “personal information,” specifically the names and addresses of the lot owners receiving the notices.
• The “Courtesy Notice”: After the petition was filed, the Association provided a redacted courtesy notice letter dated July 12, 2007. The core issue of the hearing was the Association’s withholding of the unredacted version of this document.
Legal Analysis and Interpretation
Statutory Requirements (A.R.S. § 33-1805)
The ALJ emphasized that under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), all financial and other records of an association must be made “reasonably available for examination” within ten business days of a request. An association may only charge a maximum of fifteen cents per page for copies.
The Scope of the “Personal Records” Exclusion
The Association argued that names and addresses in violation notices are “personal information” excluded from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4). The ALJ rejected this interpretation based on several factors:
• Contractual Context: When individuals join a homeowner’s association, they enter a contract and agree to be bound by the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Enforcement of these rules is a business function of the Association.
• Publicly Available Information: The ALJ noted that the identity of a lot owner is public information available through various public entities.
• Business vs. Private Information: The ALJ distinguished between “personal records” and “business records”:
◦ Protected (Confidential): Sensitive information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, and specific times when a member might be away from home.
◦ Unprotected (Disclosable): Citations, notices of violations, and documents reflecting the general business of the Association.
• Policy Implications: If violation notices were considered private, a complaining member would be unable to verify if the Association had taken any action against an offending lot owner.
Limitations of Administrative Jurisdiction
The ALJ clarified that the Office of Administrative Hearings has limited jurisdiction. It cannot consider:
• The Arizona Constitution.
• A.R.S. Title 10 (Corporations).
• Common law or inherent powers.
• California case law (e.g., Chantiles v. Lake Forest II), as it is distinguishable and outside the ALJ’s statutory authority.
The ALJ’s role is strictly limited to determining violations of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9 or 16, or the planned community’s specific governing documents.
Final Decision and Order
The ALJ concluded that the Association failed to meet its burden of proof and violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Specifically, the Association did not provide the requested documents within the ten-day limit and improperly withheld unredacted copies of business-related notices.
Mandated Actions
1. Unredacted Disclosure: The Association was ordered to provide the Petitioners with an unredacted copy of the July 12, 2007 Courtesy Notice within forty days.
2. Financial Restitution: As the prevailing party, the Petitioners were awarded their filing fee of $550.00, to be reimbursed by the Association within forty days.
This decision is the final administrative action and is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings.
Study Guide – 08F-H078005-BFS
Study Guide: Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek
This study guide examines the administrative law proceedings and legal interpretations regarding the disclosure of association records under Arizona law. It focuses on the specific case of John and Deborah Sellers versus The Crossings at Willow Creek, highlighting statutory requirements, jurisdictional boundaries, and the definition of personal information in community management.
1. What was the central dispute between the Petitioners and the Association in this case? The primary conflict involved a records request filed by the Petitioners for various Association documents, specifically regarding a “Courtesy Notice” about ATV usage. While some documents were provided, the Association withheld an unredacted copy of one notice, claiming that the names and addresses of lot owners constituted protected personal information.
2. According to A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), what are the time requirements and potential costs for fulfilling a records request? The statute requires an association to fulfill a request for the examination of records within ten business days. If the member requests copies of these records, the association also has ten business days to provide them and may charge a fee of no more than fifteen cents per page.
3. What is the legal standard for “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the document? Drawing from Black’s Law Dictionary, the document defines a preponderance of the evidence as evidence that carries greater weight or is more convincing than the opposing evidence. It essentially means that the facts sought to be proved are shown to be more probable than not.
4. Under what specific conditions does A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) allow an association to withhold records? Records may be withheld to the extent they relate to the personal, health, or financial information of an individual member of the association, an employee of the association, or an employee of a contractor for the association. This includes records directly related to such sensitive individual data.
5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determine that the Chantiles v. Lake Forest II Master Homeowner’s Assoc. case was not applicable? The ALJ found the case distinguishable because the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has limited jurisdiction and cannot consider constitutional privacy rights as the California court did. The OAH is strictly confined to determining violations of specific Arizona statutes and planned community documents.
6. How does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) derive its authority, and what are the limits of that authority? The OAH is an administrative agency whose powers are limited to those granted by statute; it possesses no common law or inherent powers. In this context, its jurisdiction is limited to determining if an association violated its own governing documents or specific chapters of A.R.S. Title 33.
7. How did the ALJ define the term “personal” in the context of A.R.S. § 33-1805? Using a dictionary definition, “personal” was defined as “of or relating to a particular person.” However, the ALJ emphasized that the term must be interpreted within the context of what is being regulated, namely the business and records of a homeowner’s association.
8. What reasoning did the ALJ provide for concluding that violation notices do not constitute confidential “personal” records? The ALJ noted that the identity of lot owners is public information and that the Association’s own policy reveals the identity of complainants in initial notices. Furthermore, by analogy, legal proceedings involving violations are generally public unless specifically made confidential by statute.
9. What types of information did the ALJ identify as legitimately falling under the “personal records” exclusion? The ALJ specified that sensitive information a reasonable person would expect to remain confidential—such as social security numbers, birth dates, and specific schedules of when a member will be away from their home—would be subject to the disclosure exclusion.
10. What was the final order issued by the ALJ regarding the “Courtesy Notice” and the filing fees? The ALJ ordered the Association to provide the Petitioners with an unredacted copy of the July 12, 2007, Courtesy Notice within forty days. Additionally, the Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for their $550.00 filing fee within the same timeframe.
Answer Key
1. The dispute concerned the withholding of unredacted records (names and addresses) in an association notice regarding ATV usage.
2. The deadline is ten business days for both examination and copies, with a maximum copy fee of fifteen cents per page.
3. It is evidence that is more convincing or has greater weight than the opposition, making a fact more probable than not.
4. When records contain personal, health, or financial information of an individual member or employee.
5. The OAH lacks the jurisdiction to apply constitutional privacy balancing tests used in other states, as it is restricted to specific Arizona statutes.
6. Authority is granted strictly by statute; the OAH cannot consider legal authorities like the Arizona Constitution or Title 10 in these cases.
7. It means “of or relating to a particular person,” interpreted specifically within the context of association management.
8. Lot owner identities are already public, and the Association’s own compliance policies disclose such information during enforcement.
9. Social security numbers, birth dates, and sensitive details like home vacancy schedules.
10. The Association had to provide the unredacted document and pay the Petitioners $550.00 to cover the filing fee.
Essay Questions
1. The Scope of Administrative Jurisdiction: Discuss the limitations placed on the Administrative Law Judge in this case. How does the restricted jurisdiction of the OAH impact the types of legal arguments (e.g., constitutional vs. statutory) that can be successfully used in homeowner association disputes?
2. Defining Privacy in a Contractual Community: Analyze the Association’s argument regarding the privacy of its members versus the ALJ’s conclusion that homeowners enter into a contract that necessitates certain disclosures. How does the act of moving into a planned community alter an individual’s expectation of privacy regarding rule violations?
3. Statutory Interpretation of “Personal Records”: Evaluate the ALJ’s method of defining “personal” information. Compare the types of data the ALJ deemed “sensitive” (like SSNs) versus data deemed “business-related” (like violation notices). Is this distinction sufficient to protect members?
4. Transparency in Association Governance: A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) mandates that records be “reasonably available.” Explore the importance of this transparency in the context of a member’s ability to verify that an association is fairly enforcing its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
5. The Consequences of Non-Compliance: Using the case as a reference, discuss the legal and financial repercussions for an association that fails to adhere to the ten-day statutory window for records requests. What does this suggest about the legislature’s intent regarding the promptness of association transparency?
Glossary of Key Terms
• A.R.S. § 33-1805: The Arizona Revised Statute that governs the inspection and copying of association records by members, including specific exceptions for withholding information.
• In Camera: A legal term referring to a judge’s private review of evidence (such as the redacted document in this case) to determine its admissibility or status before it is shown to the other parties.
• Limited Jurisdiction: A legal principle where a court or tribunal’s authority is restricted to specific types of cases or specific statutory violations, rather than having broad or inherent power.
• Planned Community Documents: The collective term for the governing rules of an association, including the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
• Preponderance of the Evidence: The burden of proof in civil and administrative cases, requiring that a claim be more likely true than not.
• Redacted: The process of censoring or obscuring specific parts of a document (such as names or addresses) before it is released to a requesting party.
• Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, The Crossings at Willow Creek.
• Summary Judgment: A legal motion where one party asks the judge to decide the case based on written arguments and stipulated facts without a full trial or evidentiary hearing.
Blog Post – 08F-H078005-BFS
Case Title: John and Deborah Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek Case No.: 08F-H078005-BFS Forum: Office of Administrative Hearings Date of Decision: December 13, 2007
Proceedings and Key Facts On December 3, 2007, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal presided over a hearing regarding a records request dispute1. The Petitioners, John and Deborah Sellers, submitted a request to the Respondent, The Crossings at Willow Creek (the “Association”), on August 16, 20072. While the Association provided some records, it withheld an unredacted copy of a “Courtesy Notice” letter dated July 12, 2007, regarding ATV usage3. The Association had redacted the names and addresses of the lot owners to whom the letters were addressed34.
Main Issues The primary legal issues were:
1. Whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide requested records within the statutory ten-day period56.
2. Whether the redacted names and addresses constituted “personal… records” under the statutory exception in A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4), thereby justifying the Association’s refusal to disclose them78.
Key Arguments
• Petitioners: Argued that the Association failed to comply with the statute by not providing all requested documents within ten business days8.
• Respondent: Argued that the names and addresses of members receiving violation notices constitute “personal information.” They contended that disclosure was prohibited under the A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) exception for personal records8. The Association cited Chantiles v. Lake Forest II Master Homeowner’s Assoc. and constitutional privacy rights to support withholding the information9.
Legal Analysis and Findings The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected the Association’s arguments on the following grounds:
• Jurisdiction: The ALJ noted that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to specific statutes (A.R.S. Title 33) and does not extend to constitutional privacy claims or common law; therefore, the Chantiles case was distinguishable and not controlling1011.
• Definition of “Personal”: The ALJ determined that “personal records” in the context of the statute refers to sensitive data such as social security numbers, health information, or dates a member is away from home12.
• Public Nature of Violations: The identity of lot owners is public information13. The ALJ reasoned that violation notices regarding Association rules are not inherently “personal” or confidential14. Furthermore, allowing the Association to withhold such information would prevent members from verifying if the Association is properly enforcing rules against other members13.
Final Decision and Outcome The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, concluding that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)6. The Tribunal found that the document in question did not fall within the “personal records” classification and was subject to disclosure15.
1. The Association was ordered to provide the Petitioners with an unredacted copy of the July 12, 2007 Courtesy Notice within 40 days6.
2. The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00 within 40 days16.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- John Sellers (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf
- Deborah Sellers (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf; deferred presentation to husband
Respondent Side
- Maria R. Kupilas (HOA attorney)
Elmark & Elmark, L.L.C.
Listed in distribution; Respondent filed Motion for Summary Judgment
- Mr. Adams (attorney)
Subject of records request regarding retention as legal counsel
Neutral Parties
- Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
- Robert Barger (Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Listed in distribution
- Debra Blake (agency staff)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Listed in distribution
