Tag Archives: Adam D. Stone

Thomas A & Jade Bossert v. Silverbell West Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120011-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-16
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after Respondent was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) for failing to provide specific financial records (bank statements, check copies) and A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) for failing to complete the 2019 financial compilation. The ALJ declined to impose a civil penalty but ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fees of $1,000.00.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas A & Jade Bossert Counsel Anthony Tsontakis
Respondent Silverbell West Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C Nogami & Timothy D Butterfield

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A) & ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after Respondent was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) for failing to provide specific financial records (bank statements, check copies) and A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) for failing to complete the 2019 financial compilation. The ALJ declined to impose a civil penalty but ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fees of $1,000.00.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to disclose records and complete annual financial compilation

Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to provide bank account statements and check copies, and violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) by failing to complete the 2019 financial compilation. Petitioner did not meet the burden regarding the 2018 financial report.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fees of $1,000.00 within 30 days.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Homeowners Association, Records Access, Financial Compilation, Statutory Violation, Condominium Association
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120011-REL Decision – 865401.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-27T09:41:32 (42.0 KB)

21F-H2120011-REL Decision – 872606.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-27T09:41:35 (153.6 KB)

This summary details the administrative hearing proceedings in the matter of *Thomas A & Jade Bossert vs. Silverbell West Association, Inc.*

Case Summary: Bossert v. Silverbell West Association, Inc.

Key Facts and Parties

The Petitioner, Thomas A. and Jade Bossert, are owners of a condominium unit and members of the Silverbell West Association, Inc. (Respondent). The dispute was heard by Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone in the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The evidentiary hearing took place on March 18, 2021.

Main Issues

The Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging the Association committed statutory violations:

  1. Failure to Disclose Records: Violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A) by failing to make financial and other records reasonably available for examination.
  2. Failure to Complete Financials: Violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J) by failing to complete an annual financial audit, review, or compilation within 180 days after the end of the 2018 and 2019 fiscal years.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

Petitioner testified that initial documents received following a June 2020 request were disorganized and incomplete. A subsequent request in July 2020 for specific missing items, including bank statements and cash journals, was never fulfilled. A bookkeeping expert testified that the records presented were disorganized, likely missing documents, and insufficient for making accurate 2018 and 2019 reports.

The Board President testified that they believed the initial request was met based on records held by the former Treasurer, Mr. Molley, but admitted the follow-up request was likely ignored. The tribunal found that Mr. Molley was "largely the one to blame" for unacceptable record-keeping, but also criticized the current Board President for failing to take a more active role in obtaining easily available bank statements.

Legal Conclusions and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner had sustained the burden of proving that the Association committed two specific violations:

  1. Violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A) (Records Disclosure): The Respondent violated the statute insofar as they failed to produce bank account statements and check copies. The fact that these records had still not been turned over was deemed "inexcusable".
  2. Violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J) (Financial Compilation): The Respondent violated the statute by failing to complete the 2019 financial compilation.
  • *Note:* The tribunal found Petitioner did *not* meet the burden of proof regarding the 2018 financial report, as Petitioner (who was Board President at the time) could have taken more aggressive measures to secure the necessary documentation.

Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge declined to impose a civil penalty, noting that the Board had subsequently taken steps to ensure better future record keeping.

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and the Association (Respondent) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fees of $1,000.00 within 30 days.

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to provide bank statements by claiming the Treasurer kept poor records?

Short Answer

No. The Board has a duty to obtain readily available records like bank statements directly from the bank if necessary.

Detailed Answer

The Board cannot excuse a failure to provide records by blaming a specific officer's poor record-keeping. If records like bank statements are missing from the files, the Board President or other officers should go to the bank to obtain copies.

Alj Quote

Mr. Warnix, as President of the Board, should have taken a more active role in at least obtaining all bank account records and copies of checks given his knowledge of Mr. Molley’s actions… he could have requested copies of the same in person at the bank. The fact that these records still have not been turned over is inexcusable.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • board duties
  • bank statements

Question

What is the deadline for the HOA to complete its annual financial compilation?

Short Answer

The compilation must be completed within 180 days after the fiscal year ends.

Detailed Answer

Unless the governing documents require an audit, the Board must provide for an annual financial audit, review, or compilation to be finished no later than 180 days after the fiscal year ends. It must be made available to owners within 30 days of completion.

Alj Quote

The audit, review or compilation shall be completed no later than one hundred eighty days after the end of the association's fiscal year and shall be made available on request to the unit owners within thirty days after its completion.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • financials
  • deadlines
  • compilation

Question

Will the judge always fine the HOA if they violate record-keeping laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the HOA fixes the issue and ensures future compliance, the judge may decline to issue a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

Even if violations are found, the ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties. If the HOA has hired a professional manager or taken steps to ensure better record-keeping moving forward, the judge might decide a penalty is not required.

Alj Quote

That being said, the tribunal believes that Board took the appropriate steps to ensure better record keeping in the future… Thus, the Administrative Law Judge declines to impose a civil penalty.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • civil penalty
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

What happens if I request specific accounting records (like ledgers) that the HOA simply never created?

Short Answer

The HOA cannot produce what doesn't exist, so they may not be penalized for failing to produce them, though the lack of records is a governance issue.

Detailed Answer

If there is no evidence that specific documents (like check registers or dues reports) were ever created due to poor management, the judge may find it impossible to rule that the HOA failed to provide existing records.

Alj Quote

With regards to the other records (check registers, cash receipt journals, dues reports, etc.), it is unclear from Mr. Bossert’s testimony, if those even existed… Thus, it is impossible to know if they even exist, as there was no evidence from Mr. Bossert that they do in fact exist.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • missing records
  • record keeping

Question

If I win my case against the HOA regarding records, can I get my filing fees back?

Short Answer

Yes, the prevailing party is typically entitled to reimbursement of filing fees.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner sustains their burden of proof and is deemed the prevailing party, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fees.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party and is entitled to his filing fees of $1,000.00, and Respondent must reimburse this within 30 days.

Legal Basis

Order based on prevailing party status

Topic Tags

  • reimbursement
  • fees
  • prevailing party

Question

Does a former Board President have a claim regarding missing financials from their own term?

Short Answer

It may be difficult to prove if the President had the authority to fix the issue at the time but didn't.

Detailed Answer

If a petitioner was the Board President during the time the violation occurred and had the power to remedy the situation (e.g., by taking over responsibility from a non-compliant Treasurer) but failed to do so, the tribunal may find they did not meet their burden of proof for that specific violation.

Alj Quote

Mr. Bossert, while acting as President, could have taken more aggressive measures with Mr. Molley to get him to provide the same… Therefore, Petitioner has not met his burden as to the 2018 financial report.

Legal Basis

Burden of proof standard

Topic Tags

  • board member rights
  • fiduciary duty

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120011-REL
Case Title
Thomas A & Jade Bossert vs. Silverbell West Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-04-16
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to provide bank statements by claiming the Treasurer kept poor records?

Short Answer

No. The Board has a duty to obtain readily available records like bank statements directly from the bank if necessary.

Detailed Answer

The Board cannot excuse a failure to provide records by blaming a specific officer's poor record-keeping. If records like bank statements are missing from the files, the Board President or other officers should go to the bank to obtain copies.

Alj Quote

Mr. Warnix, as President of the Board, should have taken a more active role in at least obtaining all bank account records and copies of checks given his knowledge of Mr. Molley’s actions… he could have requested copies of the same in person at the bank. The fact that these records still have not been turned over is inexcusable.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • board duties
  • bank statements

Question

What is the deadline for the HOA to complete its annual financial compilation?

Short Answer

The compilation must be completed within 180 days after the fiscal year ends.

Detailed Answer

Unless the governing documents require an audit, the Board must provide for an annual financial audit, review, or compilation to be finished no later than 180 days after the fiscal year ends. It must be made available to owners within 30 days of completion.

Alj Quote

The audit, review or compilation shall be completed no later than one hundred eighty days after the end of the association's fiscal year and shall be made available on request to the unit owners within thirty days after its completion.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • financials
  • deadlines
  • compilation

Question

Will the judge always fine the HOA if they violate record-keeping laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the HOA fixes the issue and ensures future compliance, the judge may decline to issue a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

Even if violations are found, the ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties. If the HOA has hired a professional manager or taken steps to ensure better record-keeping moving forward, the judge might decide a penalty is not required.

Alj Quote

That being said, the tribunal believes that Board took the appropriate steps to ensure better record keeping in the future… Thus, the Administrative Law Judge declines to impose a civil penalty.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • civil penalty
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

What happens if I request specific accounting records (like ledgers) that the HOA simply never created?

Short Answer

The HOA cannot produce what doesn't exist, so they may not be penalized for failing to produce them, though the lack of records is a governance issue.

Detailed Answer

If there is no evidence that specific documents (like check registers or dues reports) were ever created due to poor management, the judge may find it impossible to rule that the HOA failed to provide existing records.

Alj Quote

With regards to the other records (check registers, cash receipt journals, dues reports, etc.), it is unclear from Mr. Bossert’s testimony, if those even existed… Thus, it is impossible to know if they even exist, as there was no evidence from Mr. Bossert that they do in fact exist.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • missing records
  • record keeping

Question

If I win my case against the HOA regarding records, can I get my filing fees back?

Short Answer

Yes, the prevailing party is typically entitled to reimbursement of filing fees.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner sustains their burden of proof and is deemed the prevailing party, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fees.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party and is entitled to his filing fees of $1,000.00, and Respondent must reimburse this within 30 days.

Legal Basis

Order based on prevailing party status

Topic Tags

  • reimbursement
  • fees
  • prevailing party

Question

Does a former Board President have a claim regarding missing financials from their own term?

Short Answer

It may be difficult to prove if the President had the authority to fix the issue at the time but didn't.

Detailed Answer

If a petitioner was the Board President during the time the violation occurred and had the power to remedy the situation (e.g., by taking over responsibility from a non-compliant Treasurer) but failed to do so, the tribunal may find they did not meet their burden of proof for that specific violation.

Alj Quote

Mr. Bossert, while acting as President, could have taken more aggressive measures with Mr. Molley to get him to provide the same… Therefore, Petitioner has not met his burden as to the 2018 financial report.

Legal Basis

Burden of proof standard

Topic Tags

  • board member rights
  • fiduciary duty

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120011-REL
Case Title
Thomas A & Jade Bossert vs. Silverbell West Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-04-16
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas A Bossert (petitioner)
    Former Board President; testified on own behalf
  • Jade Bossert (petitioner)
  • Anthony Tsontakis (petitioner attorney)
    Tsontakis Law
  • Barbara Schoneck (witness)
    Digit & Docs LLC
    Called by Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas C Nogami (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Timothy D Butterfield (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Rex Warnix, III (board member; witness)
    Silverbell West Association, Inc.
    Current Board President; testified for Respondent/Association
  • Linda Garner (property manager; witness)
    Adam LLC
    Property manager for the Association
  • Donald Molley (board member; treasurer)
    Silverbell West Association, Inc.
    Board Treasurer responsible for financial records

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Lynda Meadows (accountant)
    Prepared 2018 financial compilation
  • LDettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient
  • ncano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient

Other Participants

  • c. serrano (ADRE staff)
    Individual listed on transmission details

The Sun Groves Homeowners Association v. David L & Makenzie Lockhart

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-02-10
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Petitioner (HOA) prevailed as the Respondents stipulated they violated the CC&R Article 10.11.1 concerning parking, and were ordered to pay the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fees.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sun Groves Homeowners Association Counsel Robert H. Willis, Esq.
Respondent David L. and Stephanie J. Lockhart Counsel Andrew Ellis, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article 10.11.1 of the SGHA CC&R’s

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner (HOA) prevailed as the Respondents stipulated they violated the CC&R Article 10.11.1 concerning parking, and were ordered to pay the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fees.

Why this result: Respondents stipulated that they were in violation of Article 10.11.1 of the SGHA CC&R’s.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of parking restrictions

Respondents stipulated that they were in violation of the SGHA CC&R’s regarding parking restrictions.

Orders: Petition granted; Respondents assessed the cost of Petitioner’s filing fees in the amount of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Stipulation, CC&R Violation, Parking
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120019-REL Decision – 854057.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:30:59 (84.7 KB)

The administrative legal case hearing, *The Sun Groves Homeowners Association (SGHA) v. David L. and Stephanie J. Lockhart*, was held on February 9, 2021, before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The proceeding was overseen by Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone.

Key Facts and Jurisdiction

The Petitioner, Sun Groves Homeowners Association, is a planned community organization. Respondents, David L. and Stephanie J. Lockhart, are homeowners and members of SGHA. The case was filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE), which, along with the OAH, is authorized by A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) to hear petitions regarding violations of planned community documents.

Main Issue and Legal Points

SGHA filed a complaint alleging that the Lockharts were in violation of Article 10.11.1 of the SGHA CC&R’s. This specific article restricts the parking of private passenger automobiles or pickup trucks, requiring them to be parked within a garage, in a private driveway, or in Board-designated areas. The most critical legal point of the hearing was that the Respondents stipulated (agreed) that they were in violation of Article 10.11.1 of the CC&R’s. The Respondents also stipulated that SGHA was the prevailing party in the matter.

Final Decision and Outcome

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the tribunal issued a Conclusion of Law finding that the Respondents had violated Article 10.11.1 of the SGHA CC&R’s. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioners’ petition. As the prevailing party, SGHA was awarded costs, and the Lockharts were ordered to pay Petitioner’s filing fees in the amount of $500.00. The Order became binding unless a request for rehearing was filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days.

Questions

Question

Can my HOA restrict parking on the street or in front of my house?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs specifically restrict parking to garages or driveways.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ upheld a CC&R provision that prohibited parking private passenger automobiles or pickup trucks anywhere on the property or adjacent roadways, except within a garage or private driveway.

Alj Quote

No private passenger automobiles or pickup trucks shall be parked upon the Property or any roadway adjacent thereto except within a garage, in a private driveway appurtenant to a Dwelling Unit, or within areas designated for such purpose by the Board.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 10.11.1

Topic Tags

  • Parking
  • CC&Rs
  • Restrictions

Question

If I admit to a violation during a hearing, what happens?

Short Answer

The judge will accept the admission and issue a finding that the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

When a homeowner stipulates (agrees) that they were in violation of a specific rule, the tribunal accepts this admission as fact and rules accordingly without needing further evidence.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the tribunal finds that Respondents violated Article 10.11.1 of the SGHA CC&R’s.

Legal Basis

Stipulation of Parties

Topic Tags

  • Hearing Procedure
  • Stipulation
  • Evidence

Question

Can the HOA force me to pay their filing fees if they win?

Short Answer

Yes, the judge can order the homeowner to pay the HOA's filing fees.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowners agreed to pay the HOA's $500.00 filing fee as part of the stipulation that the HOA was the prevailing party, and the judge ordered this assessment.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED assessing the cost of Petitioner’s filing fees in the amount of $500.00.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • Fines
  • Fees
  • Costs

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have authority to hear HOA violation cases?

Short Answer

Yes, state law allows owners or HOAs to file petitions regarding violations of community documents.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute permits planned community organizations (HOAs) or owners to file petitions with the Department regarding violations, which are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents under the authority Title 33, Chapter 16.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • ADRE
  • Process

Question

Is the Administrative Law Judge's decision final?

Short Answer

Yes, the order is binding unless a rehearing is granted.

Detailed Answer

The decision issued by the ALJ is legally binding on both the homeowner and the HOA unless a request for a rehearing is successfully granted.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Status
  • Appeals
  • Binding Order

Question

How much time do I have to appeal or request a rehearing?

Short Answer

You must file a request for rehearing within 30 days of the service of the order.

Detailed Answer

If a party wishes to challenge the decision, they must file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • Appeals
  • Deadlines
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120019-REL
Case Title
The Sun Groves Homeowners Association vs. David L & Makenzie Lockhart
Decision Date
2021-02-10
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA restrict parking on the street or in front of my house?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs specifically restrict parking to garages or driveways.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ upheld a CC&R provision that prohibited parking private passenger automobiles or pickup trucks anywhere on the property or adjacent roadways, except within a garage or private driveway.

Alj Quote

No private passenger automobiles or pickup trucks shall be parked upon the Property or any roadway adjacent thereto except within a garage, in a private driveway appurtenant to a Dwelling Unit, or within areas designated for such purpose by the Board.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 10.11.1

Topic Tags

  • Parking
  • CC&Rs
  • Restrictions

Question

If I admit to a violation during a hearing, what happens?

Short Answer

The judge will accept the admission and issue a finding that the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

When a homeowner stipulates (agrees) that they were in violation of a specific rule, the tribunal accepts this admission as fact and rules accordingly without needing further evidence.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the tribunal finds that Respondents violated Article 10.11.1 of the SGHA CC&R’s.

Legal Basis

Stipulation of Parties

Topic Tags

  • Hearing Procedure
  • Stipulation
  • Evidence

Question

Can the HOA force me to pay their filing fees if they win?

Short Answer

Yes, the judge can order the homeowner to pay the HOA's filing fees.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowners agreed to pay the HOA's $500.00 filing fee as part of the stipulation that the HOA was the prevailing party, and the judge ordered this assessment.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED assessing the cost of Petitioner’s filing fees in the amount of $500.00.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • Fines
  • Fees
  • Costs

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have authority to hear HOA violation cases?

Short Answer

Yes, state law allows owners or HOAs to file petitions regarding violations of community documents.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute permits planned community organizations (HOAs) or owners to file petitions with the Department regarding violations, which are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents under the authority Title 33, Chapter 16.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • ADRE
  • Process

Question

Is the Administrative Law Judge's decision final?

Short Answer

Yes, the order is binding unless a rehearing is granted.

Detailed Answer

The decision issued by the ALJ is legally binding on both the homeowner and the HOA unless a request for a rehearing is successfully granted.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Status
  • Appeals
  • Binding Order

Question

How much time do I have to appeal or request a rehearing?

Short Answer

You must file a request for rehearing within 30 days of the service of the order.

Detailed Answer

If a party wishes to challenge the decision, they must file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • Appeals
  • Deadlines
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120019-REL
Case Title
The Sun Groves Homeowners Association vs. David L & Makenzie Lockhart
Decision Date
2021-02-10
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert H. Willis (attorney)
    Burdman Willis, PLLC

Respondent Side

  • David L. Lockhart (respondent)
  • Stephanie J. Lockhart (respondent)
    Proper co-Respondent in this matter
  • Makenzie Lockhart (listed respondent)
    Respondent’s daughter
  • Andrew Ellis (attorney)

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Erik R. Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020053-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-02-10
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 11.1 because that section grants the Board discretion, rather than a mandatory obligation, in the timing of enforcement actions.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Erik R. Pierce Counsel James C. Frisch
Respondent Sierra Morado Community Association Counsel Nicholas C.S. Nogami and Heather M. Hampstead

Alleged Violations

Article 11, Section 11.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 11.1 because that section grants the Board discretion, rather than a mandatory obligation, in the timing of enforcement actions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated CC&R Section 11.1, as the ALJ found the Board's decision to temporarily delay enforcement pending litigation and settlement discussions fell within the discretion granted by the CC&R.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure of HOA to Enforce Architectural Approval Conditions (Hot Tub Screening)

Petitioner alleged that the HOA failed to enforce the mandatory installation of a pergola and screening around a neighbor's hot tub, a condition imposed by the Architectural Review Committee when retroactively approving the installation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • CC&R Article 11, Section 11.1
  • CC&R Article 4, Section 4.27

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, CC&R Dispute, Architectural Control, Discretionary Enforcement
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Article 4, Section 4.27
  • CC&R Article 11, Section 11.1
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850237.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:52:48 (43.0 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850239.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:52:51 (7.1 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 853778.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:52:54 (119.9 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the key findings and judicial decision in the administrative case of Erik R. Pierce versus the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA), Case No. 20F-H2020053-REL. The petition, filed by homeowner Erik R. Pierce, was ultimately denied by the Administrative Law Judge on February 10, 2021.

The core of the dispute was Pierce’s allegation that the SMCA failed to enforce its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) against his neighbors, the Kinstles, who installed a hot tub visible from Pierce’s property, creating a privacy violation. While the SMCA Board retroactively approved the hot tub, it did so with the explicit condition that a pergola and screening be installed to mitigate the visibility issue. The Kinstles subsequently failed to install the required screening.

The judge concluded that the SMCA’s conditional approval resolved the initial violation claim under CC&R Section 4.27. The central issue then became whether the SMCA’s subsequent failure to compel the installation of the screening constituted a violation of its enforcement duty under CC&R Section 11.1. The judge ruled that it did not, finding that the CC&Rs grant the Association a discretionary right to enforce its rules, not an absolute obligation. The judge found persuasive the SMCA’s testimony that it delayed enforcement actions due to the ongoing litigation and in an attempt to foster a settlement between the neighbors. This exercise of discretion was deemed permissible under the Association’s governing documents.

1. Case Overview

Parties and Legal Representation

Entity

Legal Counsel

Petitioner

Erik R. Pierce

James C. Frisch, Esq. & Michael Resare, Esq. (King & Frisch, P.C.)

Respondent

Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA)

Heather M. Hampstead, Esq. & Nicholas C.S. Nogami, Esq. (Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP)

Key Case Details

• Case Number: 20F-H2020053-REL

• Presiding Judge: Adam D. Stone, Administrative Law Judge

• Hearing Date: January 25, 2021 (conducted via Google Meet)

• Decision Date: February 10, 2021

• Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) is statutorily authorized to hear petitions from homeowners’ association members. This case was referred by the ADRE to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

2. Core Dispute and Allegations

Petitioner’s Complaint

On March 23, 2020, Erik R. Pierce filed a complaint with the ADRE alleging that the SMCA was in violation of its own CC&Rs, specifically Sections 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas) and 11.1 (Enforcement).

The dispute originated with the installation of a hot tub by Pierce’s neighbors, the Kinstles. Pierce testified that the hot tub and its occupants were visible from inside his house, and that occupants of the hot tub could look directly into his home, violating his right to privacy.

Timeline of Key Events

• September 4, 2019: Pierce submits his initial complaint to the SMCA, noting the hot tub’s visibility and asserting that the Kinstles had failed to obtain prior approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).

• Post-September 2019: The SMCA informs the Kinstles that they installed the hot tub without approval and directs them to submit plans for the proper approval process.

• February 10, 2020: After several rejections, the SMCA Board approves the Kinstles’ hot tub installation on the condition that a pergola and screening are installed.

• March 3, 2020: Pierce receives a letter from the property management company, AAM, LLC, stating that the installation was approved with the screening requirement and that the complaint was closed.

• January 25, 2021: At the time of the hearing, the Kinstles had still not installed the required pergola and screening.

3. Analysis of Key Testimonies

The decision was informed by testimony from four witnesses presented by the Petitioner.

• Erik R. Pierce (Petitioner): Outlined the timeline of the dispute, the visibility of the neighbors’ hot tub, the resulting privacy violation, and the SMCA Board’s failure to enforce its own conditional approval requiring a pergola and screening.

• Bill Oliver (Former SMCA President, Fall 2019 – April 2020): Confirmed that the Board approved the hot tub retroactively with the stipulation for a pergola and screening. He stated the Board had a “rigorous process of enforcement” but could not recall if a specific violation letter was sent to the Kinstles after the conditional approval was granted.

• Jodie Cervantes (Former Community Manager, 2019 – June 2020): Testified that she believed the CC&Rs were enforced and the matter was closed. She suggested the Kinstles had a six-month period to comply with the screening requirement, which she believed was in the Design Guidelines, but could not point to the specific language.

• Martin Douglas (Current SMCA President, from April 2020): Stated he had been to the Pierce residence for another matter and the hot tub was not visible to him. He attributed the lack of enforcement action to the “ongoing litigation and multiple settlement offers which were being exchanged.” He testified that upon resolution of the case, the Board “will follow through with enforcement actions should the Kinstle’s fail to comply.”

4. Judicial Reasoning and Decision

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision centered on the interpretation of the SMCA’s CC&Rs and the discretionary power of its Board.

Governing CC&R Provisions

The ruling rested on the specific language of two sections of the SMCA CC&Rs:

• Section 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas): This section permits the installation of a hot tub only if it is “properly screened… if neither it nor its occupants are Visible from Neighboring Property, and with the prior written approval of the Architectural Review Committee.”

• Section 11.1 (Enforcement): This section states that “The Association or any Owner shall have the right to enforce the Project Documents… The failure of the Association or an Owner to take enforcement action with respect to a violation of the Project Documents shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver of the right of the Association or any Owner to enforce the Project Documents in the future.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions

1. Resolution of the Section 4.27 Claim: The judge determined that the initial issue regarding the unapproved hot tub “was essentially resolved by the Board instructing the Kinstle’s erect a pergola and install screening.” By making its approval conditional on a privacy solution, the Board addressed the core requirement of the section.

2. The “Heart of the Matter” – Section 11.1 Enforcement: The judge identified the central question as whether the SMCA violated Section 11.1 by failing to enforce the screening requirement against the Kinstles.

3. Discretionary vs. Mandatory Enforcement: The judge concluded that the language of Section 11.1 grants the Board a “right to enforce, not an absolute obligation.”

4. Rationale for Delayed Enforcement: The judge found the testimony of the current SMCA President, Martin Douglas, to be “more persuasive.” Douglas’s explanation—that the Board delayed enforcement to “foster an agreement with the neighbors” amid ongoing litigation—was accepted as a valid exercise of the Board’s discretion.

5. Final Ruling: The judge stated, “Section 11.1 expressly granted the Board this discretion, and it should not be disturbed.” Consequently, the judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated CC&R Section 11.1.

Final Order

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.

The order was issued on February 10, 2021, and is binding unless a rehearing is granted.

Study Guide: Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association (Case No. 20F-H2020053-REL)

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing concerning the dispute between Erik R. Pierce and the Sierra Morado Community Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a comprehensive glossary of terms and entities involved in the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each of the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based on the provided source documents.

1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what were their respective roles?

2. What was the initial reason for Mr. Pierce’s complaint against his neighbors, the Kinstles?

3. Which two sections of the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA) CC&Rs did Mr. Pierce allege were violated?

4. What action did the SMCA Board take after being informed that the Kinstles had installed a hot tub without prior approval?

5. What specific conditions did the SMCA Board require for the retroactive approval of the Kinstles’ hot tub installation?

6. According to former Board President Bill Oliver’s testimony, what was the Board’s common practice regarding architectural requests made after an installation?

7. What reason did Community Manager Jodie Cervantes give for her belief that no further enforcement action could be taken against the Kinstles?

8. According to current SMCA Board President Martin Douglas, why had the Board delayed enforcement actions against the Kinstles?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision regarding the alleged violation of CC&R Section 11.1?

10. How did the judge interpret the Board’s enforcement power as described in Section 11.1 of the CC&Rs?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Erik R. Pierce, who was the Petitioner filing the complaint, and the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA), which was the Respondent. Mr. Pierce is a homeowner and member of the SMCA.

2. Mr. Pierce’s complaint originated because his neighbors, the Kinstles, installed a hot tub that was visible from his backyard. He testified that occupants in the hot tub were visible from inside his house, violating his privacy.

3. The Petitioner, Mr. Pierce, alleged that the Respondent, SMCA, was in violation of sections 4.27 and 11.1 of the SMCA CC&Rs. Section 4.27 pertains to the installation of spas, and Section 11.1 addresses the enforcement of project documents.

4. After Mr. Pierce filed his complaint, the SMCA informed the Kinstles that they had installed the hot tub without approval. The Board then directed the Kinstles to submit their plans and go through the proper architectural approval process.

5. The Kinstles’ hot tub was approved retroactively on February 10, 2020, on the condition that they install a pergola and screening. This was intended to address the visibility of the hot tub from Mr. Pierce’s property.

6. Bill Oliver, the SMCA President from fall 2019 to April 2020, testified that the Board would approve architectural requests retroactively. He confirmed that this is what occurred in the case of the Kinstles’ hot tub.

7. Jodie Cervantes, the Community Manager, testified that she believed the matter was closed because the Kinstles had six months to comply with the pergola and screening requirements. She believed this six-month deadline was outlined in the Design Guidelines, though she could not locate the specific language.

8. Martin Douglas, who became Board President in April 2020, testified that the Board delayed enforcement actions due to the ongoing litigation. He stated that multiple settlement offers were being exchanged in an effort to foster an agreement between the neighbors.

9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The judge concluded that Mr. Pierce did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the SMCA had violated CC&R Section 11.1.

10. The judge determined that Section 11.1 grants the Board a right to enforce the rules, not an absolute obligation to do so. This interpretation means the Board has the discretion to delay enforcement, which it did in this case to facilitate a potential settlement.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Use evidence and testimony from the case documents to construct a thorough analysis. No answers are provided.

1. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Analyze why the Petitioner, Erik R. Pierce, failed to meet this burden of proof concerning the violation of CC&R Section 11.1.

2. Trace the timeline of events from Mr. Pierce’s initial complaint on September 4, 2019, to the final decision on February 10, 2021. Discuss the key actions, delays, and decisions made by the SMCA Board during this period.

3. Compare and contrast the testimonies of Bill Oliver, Jodie Cervantes, and Martin Douglas. How do their different roles and timeframes with the SMCA shape their perspectives on the association’s enforcement process and the specific handling of the Kinstle case?

4. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of CC&R Section 11.1. Discuss the distinction made between a “right to enforce” and an “absolute obligation,” and explain how this interpretation was central to the final ruling.

5. Based on the judge’s findings and the testimony of Martin Douglas, what are the likely next steps for the SMCA regarding the Kinstles’ non-compliance with the pergola and screening requirement? Evaluate the potential for future conflict or resolution between the parties involved.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Entity

Definition

AAM, LLC

The property management company that employed Community Manager Jodie Cervantes and managed the Sierra Morado Community Association during the period of the dispute.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, the ALJ was Adam D. Stone of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Architectural Committee (ARC)

The committee within the SMCA responsible for approving construction, installations, and alterations to properties, as referenced in CC&R Section 4.27.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearing from members of homeowners’ associations. Mr. Pierce filed his initial complaint with this department.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove its allegations. In this case, the Petitioner had the burden to establish his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents or rules of a planned community. The dispute centered on alleged violations of Sections 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas) and 11.1 (Enforcement).

Hearing

The formal proceeding held on January 25, 2021, where the parties presented exhibits and witness testimony to the Administrative Law Judge.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or complaint to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was Erik R. Pierce.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA).

Retroactive Approval

The act of approving an architectural installation (such as a hot tub) after it has already been completed, which the SMCA Board did in this case.

Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA)

The homeowners’ association in Tucson, Arizona, of which Erik R. Pierce and the Kinstles are members.

Stipulation

An agreement between the parties in a legal proceeding. In this case, the parties stipulated to enter all submitted exhibits into the record.

Your HOA Can Ignore Its Own Rules? A Surprising Legal Case Every Homeowner Needs to Understand

Introduction: The Homeowner’s Dilemma

Most homeowners in a planned community operate under a simple assumption: if a neighbor violates a clear rule, you can file a complaint, and the Homeowners Association (HOA) is required to take action. It’s the fundamental promise of an HOA—consistent enforcement to protect property values and quality of life.

But what happens when the HOA agrees a violation has occurred, demands a fix, and then… does nothing to enforce it?

A real-world legal case, Erik R. Pierce versus the Sierra Morado Community Association, provides a surprising and cautionary answer. The final court decision reveals a critical loophole that may exist in your own HOA agreement. This article will break down the three most counter-intuitive takeaways from that case that every homeowner should understand.

Takeaway 1: “A Right to Enforce” Isn’t an “Obligation to Enforce”

The core of the dispute was straightforward. Homeowner Erik Pierce filed a complaint because his neighbors, the Kinstles, installed a hot tub that was visible from his property, a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—the legally binding rules that govern the community. The HOA’s Architectural Committee retroactively approved the hot tub, but only on the condition that the neighbors install a pergola and screening to shield it from view.

The neighbors never installed the required screening, yet the HOA took no further enforcement action. This inaction led Mr. Pierce to sue the HOA.

The judge’s decision hinged on a crucial interpretation of the HOA’s governing documents. The judge ruled in favor of the HOA because the documents gave the Board the right to enforce the rules, not an absolute obligation to do so. This distinction granted the HOA discretion to choose its strategy. The judge found the board’s reasoning for the delay persuasive: it was deliberately choosing negotiation over immediate punitive action to resolve the conflict. The board’s discretion wasn’t just a right to do nothing; it was a right to choose a different path to compliance.

The key phrase here is “shall have the right to enforce.” Had the documents stated the board “shall enforce,” the outcome would likely have been entirely different. This single phrase transforms enforcement from a mandate into a strategic option for the board.

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision highlights this critical point:

“…Section 11.1 only gives the Board a right to enforce, not an absolute obligation. While Petitioner is understandably upset that there has yet to be any follow through on enforcement of the screening requirements, this tribunal finds the testimony of Mr. Douglas more persuasive, namely that the Board has delayed in enforcing because it was trying to foster an agreement with the neighbors. Section 11.1 expressly granted the Board this discretion, and it should not be disturbed.”

This finding is shocking for most homeowners, who reasonably assume that the rules laid out in their CC&Rs are mandates for the board, not a menu of discretionary options.

Takeaway 2: Suing Your HOA Can Ironically Pause Enforcement

The board’s discretionary power was put on full display when Mr. Pierce filed his lawsuit, creating a legal Catch-22. The current SMCA Board President, Martin Douglas, testified that the board deliberately paused formal enforcement actions against the neighbors who had violated the architectural requirement.

The judge ultimately found that the board’s rationale for this pause was a valid exercise of its discretion. The decision to delay was framed not as inaction, but as a strategic choice “to foster an agreement with the neighbors” amidst the complexities of litigation.

This reveals a deep irony: by filing a petition to force the HOA’s hand, the homeowner inadvertently provided the context for the HOA to justify a delay. The judge accepted that the board’s attempt to find a negotiated solution instead of escalating fines and penalties during an active lawsuit was a reasonable use of its discretionary authority. This case demonstrates how legal action, intended to accelerate a resolution, can sometimes be used by an HOA board to justify a different, slower approach.

Takeaway 3: A Clear Rule Violation Doesn’t Guarantee a Win in Court

One of the most surprising aspects of this case is that the facts of the violation were not in dispute. The judge explicitly acknowledged that the neighbors were in violation of the Architectural Review Committee’s requirement. The official decision states:

“Based upon the evidence provided, the Kinstle’s are in violation of the requirement the ARC Committee imposed on them.”

Despite this clear violation by the neighbor, the homeowner, Mr. Pierce, still lost his case against the HOA.

The case was lost on a critical legal distinction: the lawsuit was not about the neighbor’s violation, but about the HOA’s alleged failure to act. Since the judge determined the HOA had the discretionary right—not the mandatory obligation—to enforce the rule, its choice to pursue negotiation rather than immediate punitive action was not considered a violation of its duties.

The lesson here is profound: proving a neighbor is breaking the rules is only the first step. To win a case against your HOA for non-enforcement, you must also prove that its response (or lack thereof) constitutes a breach of its specific duties as outlined in your community’s governing documents.

Conclusion: Know Your Documents, Temper Your Expectations

The case of Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association serves as a stark reminder that HOA governance is often more complex than it appears. The precise wording of your community’s CC&Rs is critically important, as a single phrase can be the difference between a mandatory duty and a discretionary power. This case illustrates that the gap between a rule existing on paper and the board’s power to enforce it can be vast.

As a homeowner, your first step should be to obtain a copy of your community’s most recent CC&Rs and search for the enforcement clause—does it say your board “shall” enforce the rules, or does it say they have the “right” to?

This case forces every homeowner to ask: If your governing documents give your board the ‘right’ to act, what leverage do you truly have to ensure they actually will?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Erik R. Pierce (petitioner)
  • James C. Frisch (petitioner attorney)
    King & Frisch, P.C.
  • Michael Resare (petitioner attorney)

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas C.S. Nogami (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Heather M. Hampstead (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Jodie Cervantes (property manager/witness)
    AAM, LLC
    Community Manager for Respondent SMCA
  • Bill Oliver (board member/witness)
    Former SMCA President (Fall 2019 to April 2020)
  • Martin Douglas (board member/witness)
    Current SMCA Board President (since April 2020)

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • LDettorre (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • AHansen (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • djones (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • DGardner (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • ncano (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • c. serrano (clerk)
    Signed document transmission

Lori & James Jordan v. The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners’

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120014-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-12-01
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated the CC&Rs regarding sewer maintenance or deductible apportionment, finding that the Association properly applied its 2012 Rules and Regulations.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Lori & James Jordan Counsel —
Respondent The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Sections 3.04, 3.07 & 3.09; 2012 Rules and Regulations Section 19

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated the CC&Rs regarding sewer maintenance or deductible apportionment, finding that the Association properly applied its 2012 Rules and Regulations.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs in apportioning a proportionate share of the insurance deductible.

Key Issues & Findings

Dispute over apportionment of insurance deductible following sewer backup damage in a common area.

Petitioner challenged the Association's decision to apportion 43.84% ($10,958.96) of the insurance deductible to her unit following damage caused by a main sewer line blockage in a common area.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • Title 33, Chapter 9 of the Arizona Revised Statutes
  • CC&Rs Sections 3.04, 3.07, 3.09
  • 2012 Rules and Regulations Section 19

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Deductible Apportionment, Sewer Maintenance, Common Area, Condominium Documents, Rules and Regulations
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • Title 33, Chapter 9 of the Arizona Revised Statutes

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120014-REL Decision – 840033.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:35:25 (138.3 KB)

This summary details the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Lori & James Jordan vs. The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association, Inc.. The hearing was held on November 23, 2020, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner, Lori Jordan, is a property owner and member of The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association (“Association”). The dispute centered on damage caused to her unit (Unit 1006) around October 2018 due to a sewer backup in the main sewer line, which was allegedly caused by tree root growth in a common area.

The core issue was whether the Association violated its Community Documents—specifically CC&Rs Sections 3.04, 3.07, and 3.09—by apportioning a share of the insurance deductible to the Petitioner. Petitioner's unit was apportioned 43.84% of the deductible, totaling $10,958.96.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

  1. Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner Lori Jordan and witness Chuck Stewart argued that the sewer line blockage occurred in the common area, and because the CC&Rs (Section 3.09) made the Association responsible for the maintenance and repair of the "sewer collection system within the Property," the Association should bear the full insurance deductible.
  2. Respondent's Argument: Sean Lissarrague, Vice President of the Board, testified that the Board fulfilled its obligations under the CC&Rs by paying for the line repairs. He argued that the apportionment of the deductible was proper based on Section 19 of the 2012 Rules and Regulations. Section 19(b) and (c) grant the Board the authority to apportion the deductible when damage occurs to more than one unit and the common areas. The Association also stated that unit owners are responsible for maintaining proper gap insurance coverage.

Legal Points and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the matter was within the Department of Real Estate’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.

The ALJ made the following crucial findings:

  • No CC&R Violation: Although CC&R Section 3.09 mandates the Association to maintain and repair the sewer collection system, the Association did coordinate and accomplish these repairs. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Association neglected its duty regarding maintenance or repair.
  • Deductible Allocation Upheld: The ALJ recognized that the Petitioner was primarily challenging Section 19 of the 2012 Rules and Regulations. The scenario involved damage to two units and the common area, and the Association properly applied Section 19(b) and (c) of the Rules in apportioning the deductible.

Final Decision: Based on the evidence, the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Association violated the CC&Rs by apportioning a share of the insurance deductible. The Petitioner’s petition was therefore denied. This decision is binding unless a rehearing is granted.

Questions

Question

Can the HOA require a homeowner to pay a portion of the association's insurance deductible for damage caused by a common element failure?

Short Answer

Yes, if the community Rules and Regulations authorize the Board to apportion the deductible based on repair costs.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the Association's Board had the authority to adopt rules regarding insurance deductibles. Specifically, the rules allowed the Board to apportion the deductible among unit owners and the association based on the proportion of repair costs when damage affects multiple units and common areas, even if the damage originated from a common element like a sewer line.

Alj Quote

Sections 19(b) and (c) appears to have anticipated the present scenario. There was damaged caused to two units and the common area, and Petitioner was apportioned 43.84% of the deductible. From the evidence presented, the Association also properly applied the applicable Rules and Regulations.

Legal Basis

Rules and Regulations Section 19

Topic Tags

  • insurance
  • deductible
  • assessments
  • common elements

Question

Who is responsible for ensuring insurance coverage for the 'gap' created by an HOA's insurance deductible?

Short Answer

The homeowner is responsible for obtaining personal insurance to cover the gap.

Detailed Answer

The decision highlights that governing documents or rules may explicitly state that owners must be aware of the deductible amount and secure their own coverage to handle that cost if assessed.

Alj Quote

Each Owner needs to be aware of the amount of the Association’s insurance deductible so that the Owner can determine that their personal insurance coverage will cover any gap.

Legal Basis

Rules and Regulations Section 19(e)

Topic Tags

  • insurance
  • homeowner responsibilities

Question

If the HOA fixes a maintenance issue after it occurs (like a sewer backup), can I still claim they violated their maintenance duty to avoid paying the deductible?

Short Answer

Likely no, as long as the HOA coordinated and accomplished the repairs.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that because the Association coordinated and completed the repairs once the issue occurred, the homeowner failed to prove that the Association neglected its maintenance duties under the CC&Rs. Therefore, the assessment of the deductible was not invalidated by a failure to maintain.

Alj Quote

Once the sewer backed up, the Association coordinated the repairs and accomplished the same. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Association failed to properly attend to the maintenance and/or repair of the sewer lines.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 3.09

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • repairs
  • negligence

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA decision in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim must be shown to be more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&Rs… '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

Standard of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • evidence
  • burden of proof

Question

Can the HOA Board create rules that change how financial liabilities (like deductibles) are handled without amending the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to adopt rules for the regulation of the property.

Detailed Answer

The decision upheld the enforcement of a rule regarding insurance deductibles found in the 'Rules and Regulations,' noting that the CC&Rs granted the authority to adopt such rules.

Alj Quote

Section 4.10 of the CC&Rs granted authority to adopt rules 'for the regulation and operation of the Property…'

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 4.10

Topic Tags

  • rulemaking
  • board authority
  • governing documents

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120014-REL
Case Title
Lori & James Jordan vs. The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2020-12-01
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can the HOA require a homeowner to pay a portion of the association's insurance deductible for damage caused by a common element failure?

Short Answer

Yes, if the community Rules and Regulations authorize the Board to apportion the deductible based on repair costs.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the Association's Board had the authority to adopt rules regarding insurance deductibles. Specifically, the rules allowed the Board to apportion the deductible among unit owners and the association based on the proportion of repair costs when damage affects multiple units and common areas, even if the damage originated from a common element like a sewer line.

Alj Quote

Sections 19(b) and (c) appears to have anticipated the present scenario. There was damaged caused to two units and the common area, and Petitioner was apportioned 43.84% of the deductible. From the evidence presented, the Association also properly applied the applicable Rules and Regulations.

Legal Basis

Rules and Regulations Section 19

Topic Tags

  • insurance
  • deductible
  • assessments
  • common elements

Question

Who is responsible for ensuring insurance coverage for the 'gap' created by an HOA's insurance deductible?

Short Answer

The homeowner is responsible for obtaining personal insurance to cover the gap.

Detailed Answer

The decision highlights that governing documents or rules may explicitly state that owners must be aware of the deductible amount and secure their own coverage to handle that cost if assessed.

Alj Quote

Each Owner needs to be aware of the amount of the Association’s insurance deductible so that the Owner can determine that their personal insurance coverage will cover any gap.

Legal Basis

Rules and Regulations Section 19(e)

Topic Tags

  • insurance
  • homeowner responsibilities

Question

If the HOA fixes a maintenance issue after it occurs (like a sewer backup), can I still claim they violated their maintenance duty to avoid paying the deductible?

Short Answer

Likely no, as long as the HOA coordinated and accomplished the repairs.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that because the Association coordinated and completed the repairs once the issue occurred, the homeowner failed to prove that the Association neglected its maintenance duties under the CC&Rs. Therefore, the assessment of the deductible was not invalidated by a failure to maintain.

Alj Quote

Once the sewer backed up, the Association coordinated the repairs and accomplished the same. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Association failed to properly attend to the maintenance and/or repair of the sewer lines.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 3.09

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • repairs
  • negligence

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA decision in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim must be shown to be more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&Rs… '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

Standard of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • evidence
  • burden of proof

Question

Can the HOA Board create rules that change how financial liabilities (like deductibles) are handled without amending the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to adopt rules for the regulation of the property.

Detailed Answer

The decision upheld the enforcement of a rule regarding insurance deductibles found in the 'Rules and Regulations,' noting that the CC&Rs granted the authority to adopt such rules.

Alj Quote

Section 4.10 of the CC&Rs granted authority to adopt rules 'for the regulation and operation of the Property…'

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 4.10

Topic Tags

  • rulemaking
  • board authority
  • governing documents

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120014-REL
Case Title
Lori & James Jordan vs. The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2020-12-01
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Lori Jordan (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified at the hearing
  • James Jordan (petitioner)
  • Chuck Stewart (witness)
    The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association, Inc. Board
    Testified for Petitioner; later joined Board and voted against apportionment

Respondent Side

  • Sean Lissarrague (board member)
    The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association, Inc.
    Vice President of the Board; appeared and testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Received electronic transmission of the decision

Other Participants

  • c. serrano (administrative staff)
    Transmitted the electronic decision

Douglas E Kupel v. Hidden Valley Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120006-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-10-30
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association's conduct did not violate ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 because the Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requested records were in existence and subject to disclosure.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Douglas E. Kupel Counsel —
Respondent Hidden Valley Association Counsel Timothy Butterfield, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association's conduct did not violate ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 because the Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requested records were in existence and subject to disclosure.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that the requested records (communications) were in existence and subject to disclosure.

Key Issues & Findings

Failing to fulfill Petitioner’s records request

Petitioner claimed the HOA failed to provide copies of all communications (written/electronic) related to information requests, open meeting law compliance, and changes to bylaws, arguing they were not exempt from disclosure under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B). The HOA asserted no disclosable records existed.

Orders: Petitioner's petition and request for civil penalty are denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Records Disclosure, ARIZ. REV. STAT. 33-1805, Burden of Proof, Preponderance of Evidence
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120006-REL Decision – 834142.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:29:50 (147.6 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Kupel vs. Hidden Valley Association

Executive Summary

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings denied a petition filed by homeowner Douglas E. Kupel against the Hidden Valley Association (HVA). The core of the dispute was Kupel’s allegation that HVA violated Arizona statute ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to completely fulfill a comprehensive records request. While HVA provided its records retention policy and legal invoices, it withheld two categories of electronic and hard copy communications, claiming no such disclosable records existed.

Kupel argued that statements made in emails by HVA Board President Gary Freed—specifically that certain communications would be “filed as an HVA business record”—proved the existence of the requested records. HVA countered that this statement was a mistake on Freed’s part, resulting from an initial misunderstanding of retention requirements, and that no records subject to disclosure actually existed.

The ALJ ultimately concluded that Kupel failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required to prove his claim. The judge found that the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove that the requested records existed and were being improperly withheld. Consequently, the petition was denied, and Kupel’s requests for reimbursement of his filing fee and the imposition of a civil penalty against HVA were also denied.

Case Overview

Case Name

Douglas E Kupel, Petitioner, vs. Hidden Valley Association, Respondent

Case Number

21F-H2120006-REL

Jurisdiction

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone

Hearing Date

October 22, 2020

Decision Date

October 30, 2020

Key Parties

Douglas E. Kupel (Petitioner), Hidden Valley Association (Respondent), Gary Freed (HVA Board President)

Core Dispute: The Records Request

The central issue of the hearing was whether the Hidden Valley Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with a records request submitted by Kupel on June 22, 2020. HVA, through its community manager HOAMCO, provided a partial response on July 1, 2020.

Breakdown of the Records Request:

• Request 1 (Fulfilled): A copy of the HVA records retention policy adopted on January 15, 2020.

• Request 2 (Denied): Copies of all communications (email and hard copy) to or from current and former HVA Board and committee members regarding “information requests or open meeting law compliance” from July 2019 to the present.

• Request 3 (Denied): Copies of all communications (email and hard copy) to or from current and former HVA Board and committee members regarding any proposed, discussed, or adopted changes to the Association bylaws from January 2019 to the present.

• Request 4 (Fulfilled): Copies of invoices, billing statements, and payment records for legal services associated with revisions to the Association bylaws from January 2019 to the present.

HVA and its President, Gary Freed, asserted that the denied communications were not subject to disclosure under the exceptions outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B).

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (Douglas E. Kupel)

• Allegation: Kupel accused HVA of willfully failing to fulfill his request, alleging that non-exempt records did exist and should have been disclosed.

• Primary Evidence: Kupel submitted several email messages from HVA President Gary Freed which contained the statement: “This communication has been received, and will be filed as an HVA business record in the files maintained by HOAMCO for the benefit of HVA” or substantially similar language.

• Argument: Kupel testified that these emails proved the existence of communications that did not meet the statutory exclusions and, therefore, HVA had failed to fully respond to his request.

• Requested Relief:

1. An order compelling HVA to abide by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

2. Reimbursement of the $500 filing fee.

3. The levying of a civil penalty against HVA.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Hidden Valley Association)

• Witness Testimony: HVA Board President Gary Freed testified on behalf of the association.

• Core Defense: Freed testified that based on HVA’s records retention policy and his understanding of open meeting laws, “no records existed which were subject to disclosure.”

• Explanation of Contested Emails: Freed explained that his prior email statements about filing all communications were a mistake. He testified that he initially believed all communications needed to be retained but later learned this was incorrect.

• Search Process: Freed admitted that neither he nor other board members conducted a one-by-one search of every single email. However, he testified that he “may have scanned his personal e-mail” and did not dismiss the petitioner’s request “out-of-hand.”

• Association Practices: Freed asserted that HVA business was conducted via open meetings, with the exception of a single emergency situation, implying that no discoverable email correspondence regarding official business would exist.

Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Conclusion

The ALJ’s decision rested on the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as proof convincing the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner, Kupel, bore the burden of meeting this standard.

• Evaluation of Evidence: The judge found Kupel’s primary argument unpersuasive. The decision states, “Essentially, Petitioner is claiming that there must be other records in existence because of the language that Mr. Freed used… This is not persuasive as there was no evidence presented by Petitioner to prove that the records were in existence.”

• Credibility of Testimony: The judge gave weight to Freed’s testimony that he had been mistaken about record-keeping protocols. The decision also noted that HVA’s official records retention policy, adopted six months prior to the request, specifically outlined which communications were to be kept.

• Lack of Proof: The judge concluded that Freed believed any documents that might have existed were subject to statutory exemptions and that all relevant business was conducted in open meetings. Ultimately, Kupel failed to provide sufficient proof that discoverable records actually existed.

• Final Ruling: The ALJ concluded that “the Association’s conduct, as outlined above, did not violate the charged provisions of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:

Outcome

Petitioner’s Petition

Denied

Request for Civil Penalty

Denied

Reimbursement of Filing Fee

Denied (Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s fee)

The decision is binding on the parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within thirty days of the order’s service.

Study Guide: Kupel v. Hidden Valley Association, No. 21F-H2120006-REL

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision in the matter of Douglas E. Kupel versus the Hidden Valley Association. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test comprehension of the facts, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided source document.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this hearing, and what were their respective roles?

2. What was the specific violation alleged by the Petitioner in his petition to the Department of Real Estate?

3. What four categories of records did the Petitioner request from the Hidden Valley Association (HVA) on June 22, 2020?

4. Which parts of the Petitioner’s records request did the HVA fulfill, and which parts did it deny?

5. What was the Petitioner’s central piece of evidence to argue that the HVA was improperly withholding existing communications?

6. How did HVA Board President Gary Freed explain the discrepancy between his email statements and the association’s refusal to provide the requested communications?

7. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and which party was required to meet this standard?

8. According to Mr. Freed’s testimony, where was all official HVA business conducted?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the HVA’s conduct in this matter?

10. What three specific outcomes were mandated by the final ORDER issued on October 30, 2020?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, a property owner and member of the Hidden Valley Association, and the Respondent, the Hidden Valley Association (HVA). The Petitioner brought the complaint against the Respondent, alleging a violation of state law.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Hidden Valley Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to completely fulfill his records request. Specifically, he claimed the association improperly withheld communications records.

3. The Petitioner requested: (1) the records retention policy; (2) communications regarding information requests or open meeting law compliance; (3) communications regarding proposed changes to the association bylaws; and (4) legal invoices and payment records related to bylaw revisions.

4. The HVA fulfilled the request for the records retention policy and the legal invoices. It denied the two requests for communications between board and committee members, claiming the requested records were not subject to disclosure.

5. The Petitioner’s central evidence consisted of several emails from HVA Board President Gary Freed in which Mr. Freed stated, “[t]his communication has been received, and will be filed as an HVA business record.” The Petitioner argued this proved that such communications existed and were official records.

6. Mr. Freed testified that he was initially mistaken in his belief that all communications needed to be retained and that this was why he included that language in his emails. He clarified that based on the HVA’s records retention policy and open meeting laws, no disclosable records of the type requested existed.

7. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof requiring the evidence to convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, bore the burden of proving his case by this standard.

8. Mr. Freed testified that all HVA business was conducted via open meetings. He stated that there were no meetings conducted solely by email, with the exception of a single emergency situation.

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HVA was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. The judge found the HVA’s conduct did not violate the charged statute.

10. The final ORDER (1) denied the Petitioner’s petition, (2) denied the Petitioner’s request for a civil penalty against the Respondent, and (3) ordered that the Respondent shall not be required to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for in-depth analysis and discussion. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, and the Respondent, Hidden Valley Association. How did each party use the evidence and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 to support their position?

2. Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in this case. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge determined that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden of proof.

3. Evaluate the testimony of HVA Board President Gary Freed. How did his explanations regarding his email statements and the association’s record-keeping practices influence the judge’s final decision?

4. Examine ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B), which outlines the exceptions for withholding records. Based on the case details, explain why the communications requested by the Petitioner were ultimately deemed non-disclosable or non-existent under this statute.

5. Describe the complete procedural history of the case, from the initial filing of the petition to the final order. Include key dates, entities involved (such as the Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings), and the final remedies sought by the Petitioner versus the actual outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings and makes decisions on behalf of a government agency. In this case, the ALJ was Adam D. Stone.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

The Arizona Revised Statute that governs the examination and disclosure of a homeowners’ association’s financial and other records by its members. It outlines the process for requests, a ten-business-day fulfillment window, and specific exemptions allowing an association to withhold certain records.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)

The Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner that allows an administrative law judge to levy a civil penalty against a party found to be in violation of the law.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to provide sufficient evidence to prove their allegations. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The official governing documents that establish the rules and obligations for a homeowners’ association and its members.

Department of Real Estate (“Department”)

The Arizona state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving disputes between homeowners and their associations.

Hidden Valley Association (HVA)

The Respondent in the case; a homeowners’ association for the Hidden Valley Ranch subdivision in Prescott, Arizona, governed by CC&Rs and a Board of Directors.

HOAMCO

The company that served as the Community Manager for the Hidden Valley Association and initially responded to the Petitioner’s records request.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona to which the Department of Real Estate referred this matter for an evidentiary hearing.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was Douglas E. Kupel, a homeowner and member of the HVA.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other, making the contention more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond to the allegations. In this case, the Respondent was the Hidden Valley Association.

Select all sources
834142.pdf

No emoji found

Loading

21F-H2120006-REL

1 source

The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings in Arizona, concerning a dispute between Petitioner Douglas E. Kupel and the Hidden Valley Association (HVA), a homeowners’ association. The core issue of the hearing, held on October 22, 2020, was whether the HVA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill Kupel’s records request for communications regarding open meeting law compliance and bylaw changes. Petitioner Kupel argued that undisclosed records existed based on emails sent by HVA Board President Gary Freed, while Freed testified that no disclosable records existed due to statutory exceptions and a mistaken belief about record retention. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s claim, concluding that Kupel failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the statute, thereby also denying his request for reimbursement and civil penalties.

1 source

What are the legal requirements governing homeowner association record disclosure in Arizona?
What was the core dispute between the petitioner and the homeowner association?
How did the Administrative Law Judge decide the outcome of this specific case?

Audio Overview

Video Overview

Video Overview

Mind Map Mind Map

Reports Reports

Flashcards

Flashcards

Quiz

Quiz

00:00 / 00:00

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Douglas E. Kupel (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Timothy Butterfield (HOA attorney)
    Hidden Valley Association
    Represented Respondent
  • Gary Freed (board member)
    Hidden Valley Association
    Hidden Valley Ranch Association Board President and witness for HVA
  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Received service of the Order

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the Administrative Law Judge Decision