**Case Title:** *Teresa J. Johnstonbaugh v. Clemente Ranch Homeowners Association* (No. 19F-H1919058-REL)

**Hearing Overview**
The hearing was convened on July 19, 2019, before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The proceeding addressed a petition filed by homeowner Teresa J. Johnstonbaugh (Petitioner) against the Clemente Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) regarding a dispute over wall repairs and maintenance assessments.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The central issue was whether the Respondent violated Bylaw Article 3.11(A)(5), which mandates that the Board provide for the operation, care, and maintenance of all Common Areas.

* **Petitioner’s Position:** The Petitioner was assessed a $9,342.60 fee (50% of the cost) for the repair of a wall separating her property from a common area along Queen Creek Road. She argued that the wall constituted a "boundary wall adjacent to the common area" under the CC&Rs and that the Association had historically maintained the area. In March 2019, the Respondent demolished the wall and replaced it with temporary chain-link fencing and plywood, taking no further action to rebuild it.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association argued that latent defects were discovered in the subdivision's walls, causing repair estimates to skyrocket to between $2.5 million and $3.1 million. The Board secured a $1.5 million loan, but because this was insufficient to cover the project, they attempted to pass costs to homeowners. The Association claimed that prior legal counsel had incorrectly advised them regarding their responsibility for these repairs and that they were attempting to pass a special assessment to fund the project.
* **Historical Context:** Evidence showed that in 2012, the Board explicitly resolved to pay for wall repairs along Queen Creek Road, noting it was "more efficient to have the Association pay for the cost of the wall repair". The Respondent only changed this stance after realizing the 2019 repair costs exceeded their loan and funding capabilities.

**Legal Findings and Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding she met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

* **Credibility and Responsibility:** The Judge found the Petitioner’s evidence more persuasive, establishing that the wall adjoined a