The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated its documents. The Declaration and Rules unambiguously prohibited hard floor coverings (including vinyl) in the Petitioner's third-floor unit, and the Petitioner admitted installing the flooring without seeking approval.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. Petitioner received the governing documents prior to closing, failed to fully read them, and failed to seek permission from the Association prior to installing the prohibited Luxury Vinyl Plank flooring.
Key Issues & Findings
Flooring Restriction for New Units
Petitioner challenged the Association's enforcement of a declaration rule prohibiting hard floor coverings (like LVP) in his third-floor unit, arguing his chosen flooring had sufficient soundproofing. The Association argued the rule was clear, unambiguous, and mandatory for enforcement.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et al.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Flooring Restriction, Luxury Vinyl Plank (LVP), CCNR Enforcement, Third Floor Unit, Prior Approval
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et al.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H066-REL Decision – 1085177.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:06 (48.3 KB)
23F-H066-REL Decision – 1112087.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:14 (110.4 KB)
Questions
Question
Can I install hard flooring like vinyl or hardwood in my upper-floor condo unit?
Short Answer
Not if the CC&Rs specifically prohibit it to mitigate noise, even if the product is high quality.
Detailed Answer
If the governing documents explicitly prohibit hard floor coverings in specific units (such as second or third-floor units) to mitigate noise, the HOA can enforce this restriction regardless of the quality or sound rating of the material installed.
Alj Quote
Except for entry areas where hard floor coverings have been installed by Declarant, and except for kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas, hard floor coverings (e.g., ceramic tile, natural stone, vinyl, hardwood or laminated flooring) shall be prohibited in all other areas… and all third floor Units.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 4.24
Topic Tags
architectural restrictions
flooring
noise mitigation
Question
Is it a valid defense that I didn't read the CC&Rs before making a change?
Short Answer
No. If you received the documents, you are responsible for knowing the rules.
Detailed Answer
Admitting that you received the Declaration and Rules but did not read them is not a valid defense against a violation. The tribunal will likely find against a homeowner who had the opportunity to review the restrictions but failed to do so.
Alj Quote
Petitioner admitted in his testimony that he timely received a copy of the Declaration and Rules approximately a week prior to closing. Petitioner also admitted that he did not fully read the same… The tribunal finds that Petitioner has not met his burden.
Legal Basis
Contractual Obligation / Constructive Notice
Topic Tags
homeowner responsibilities
CC&Rs
ignorance of law
Question
Does my HOA have to approve a renovation if the new material is 'better' or more valuable than what is required?
Short Answer
No. Clear rules in the CC&Rs override arguments about aesthetics or resale value.
Detailed Answer
Even if a homeowner presents valid points about the superior look or potential resale value of a prohibited improvement (like LVP flooring vs. carpet), the ALJ will enforce the clear and unambiguous language of the governing documents.
Alj Quote
While Petitioner probably had valid points about the look and potential value of LVP flooring versus carpeting, unfortunately, the Declarations and Rules are clear and unambiguous…
Legal Basis
Enforcement of Governing Documents
Topic Tags
architectural control
property value
renovations
Question
What happens if I start a renovation without asking for HOA permission first?
Short Answer
You risk violating rules you weren't aware of and may be forced to stop or reverse the work.
Detailed Answer
Skipping the approval process is risky. If a homeowner fails to seek permission, they miss the opportunity to be informed of specific prohibitions before spending money on installation.
Alj Quote
Petitioner admitted that he did not seek permission from the Association to install the LVP flooring, which had he done, he probably would have been informed that the Rules did not allow for the same.
Legal Basis
Architectural Review Process
Topic Tags
procedural requirements
renovations
violations
Question
Who has to prove their case in an HOA dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the governing documents or laws.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the Declarations and Association Rules.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof (ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119)
Topic Tags
legal procedure
burden of proof
hearings
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is more likely true than not.
Detailed Answer
The standard involves superior evidentiary weight that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Legal Standard of Evidence
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
Question
If I lose my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
No. Reimbursement is generally denied if the petition is denied.
Detailed Answer
If the ALJ rules against the homeowner and denies the petition, the order will typically state that the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee…
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
costs
penalties
fees
Case
Docket No
23F-H066-REL
Case Title
Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-11-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can I install hard flooring like vinyl or hardwood in my upper-floor condo unit?
Short Answer
Not if the CC&Rs specifically prohibit it to mitigate noise, even if the product is high quality.
Detailed Answer
If the governing documents explicitly prohibit hard floor coverings in specific units (such as second or third-floor units) to mitigate noise, the HOA can enforce this restriction regardless of the quality or sound rating of the material installed.
Alj Quote
Except for entry areas where hard floor coverings have been installed by Declarant, and except for kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas, hard floor coverings (e.g., ceramic tile, natural stone, vinyl, hardwood or laminated flooring) shall be prohibited in all other areas… and all third floor Units.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 4.24
Topic Tags
architectural restrictions
flooring
noise mitigation
Question
Is it a valid defense that I didn't read the CC&Rs before making a change?
Short Answer
No. If you received the documents, you are responsible for knowing the rules.
Detailed Answer
Admitting that you received the Declaration and Rules but did not read them is not a valid defense against a violation. The tribunal will likely find against a homeowner who had the opportunity to review the restrictions but failed to do so.
Alj Quote
Petitioner admitted in his testimony that he timely received a copy of the Declaration and Rules approximately a week prior to closing. Petitioner also admitted that he did not fully read the same… The tribunal finds that Petitioner has not met his burden.
Legal Basis
Contractual Obligation / Constructive Notice
Topic Tags
homeowner responsibilities
CC&Rs
ignorance of law
Question
Does my HOA have to approve a renovation if the new material is 'better' or more valuable than what is required?
Short Answer
No. Clear rules in the CC&Rs override arguments about aesthetics or resale value.
Detailed Answer
Even if a homeowner presents valid points about the superior look or potential resale value of a prohibited improvement (like LVP flooring vs. carpet), the ALJ will enforce the clear and unambiguous language of the governing documents.
Alj Quote
While Petitioner probably had valid points about the look and potential value of LVP flooring versus carpeting, unfortunately, the Declarations and Rules are clear and unambiguous…
Legal Basis
Enforcement of Governing Documents
Topic Tags
architectural control
property value
renovations
Question
What happens if I start a renovation without asking for HOA permission first?
Short Answer
You risk violating rules you weren't aware of and may be forced to stop or reverse the work.
Detailed Answer
Skipping the approval process is risky. If a homeowner fails to seek permission, they miss the opportunity to be informed of specific prohibitions before spending money on installation.
Alj Quote
Petitioner admitted that he did not seek permission from the Association to install the LVP flooring, which had he done, he probably would have been informed that the Rules did not allow for the same.
Legal Basis
Architectural Review Process
Topic Tags
procedural requirements
renovations
violations
Question
Who has to prove their case in an HOA dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the governing documents or laws.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the Declarations and Association Rules.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof (ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119)
Topic Tags
legal procedure
burden of proof
hearings
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is more likely true than not.
Detailed Answer
The standard involves superior evidentiary weight that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Legal Standard of Evidence
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
Question
If I lose my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
No. Reimbursement is generally denied if the petition is denied.
Detailed Answer
If the ALJ rules against the homeowner and denies the petition, the order will typically state that the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee…
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
costs
penalties
fees
Case
Docket No
23F-H066-REL
Case Title
Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-11-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Sebastien Verstraet(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Ron Riecks(witness) Flooring installer for Petitioner; also referred to as Ron Reichkes
Respondent Side
Joshua M. Bolen(attorney) Carpenter Hazlewood
Marcus R. Martinez(attorney) Carpenter Hazlewood
Robert Stein(property manager) City Property Management Testified as a witness for Respondent
Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
Counsel
Kyle A. von Johnson and Edith I. Rudder
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G
Outcome Summary
The ALJ affirmed the petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G by failing to provide 30 days' notice prior to the 2023 assessment increase. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to provide 30-day notice for 2023 dues increase
The HOA increased annual dues from $200.00 to $240.00 effective 1/1/2023 due to a financial crisis caused by embezzlement, but failed to provide the required 30-day written notice as mandated by the CC&Rs. Although the increase was later refunded, the ALJ affirmed the petition finding the HOA failed to comply with the CC&Rs.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is affirmed. Respondent is ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et al.
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Dues Increase, Notice Violation, CC&R Violation, Embezzlement, Filing Fee Refund, Assessment Timing
Additional Citations:
CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H061-REL Decision – 1077230.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:31 (41.5 KB)
23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095389.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:34 (44.3 KB)
23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095762.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:37 (6.7 KB)
23F-H061-REL Decision – 1102356.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:42 (110.9 KB)
Questions
Question
Can my HOA raise dues without proper notice if they are facing a severe financial emergency?
Short Answer
No, financial crises do not exempt the HOA from following the notice timelines in the CC&Rs.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that even though the HOA was in an 'untenable' position due to embezzlement and urgent debts, they were still strictly bound to provide the specific notice (30 days in this case) required by the governing documents before increasing assessments.
Alj Quote
First, while the tribunal sympathizes with the untenable and horrible position that the Association was facing, it still failed to comply with the CCR’s, by not providing the 30 day notice prior to the 2023 yearly Assessment.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Compliance
Topic Tags
Assessments
Emergency Powers
Notice Requirements
Question
If I win my hearing, will I get my filing fee back even if I tell the judge I don't want it?
Short Answer
Yes, the statute requires the filing fee to be reimbursed if the petitioner prevails, regardless of their personal preference.
Detailed Answer
The judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee because the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01) binds the tribunal to order reimbursement when the petitioner wins, even though the homeowner explicitly testified she did not wish to recover it.
Alj Quote
At hearing, Petitioner testified that she did not wish to recovery her filing fee, the tribunal is bound by the statute to order the same.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01; A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
Filing Fees
Reimbursement
Statutory Mandates
Question
What level of proof do I need to provide to win a dispute against my HOA?
Short Answer
You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning your claim is more probable than not.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner bears the burden of proof. The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal cases), but rather showing that the evidence is sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side over the other.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D); A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
Burden of Proof
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
Will the judge automatically fine the HOA if I prove they violated the rules?
Short Answer
No, if you do not specifically request a civil penalty in your petition, the judge generally will not award one.
Detailed Answer
In this case, although the HOA was found in violation, the judge ordered that no civil penalty be awarded specifically because the petitioner did not include a request for a penalty in her initial paperwork.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty be awarded as Petitioner did not request the same in her Petition.
Legal Basis
Administrative Discretion
Topic Tags
Civil Penalties
Fines
Petition Drafting
Question
If the HOA fixes the problem (like refunding money) before the decision, is the case dismissed?
Short Answer
Not necessarily; the judge may still issue a decision affirming the violation occurred.
Detailed Answer
The HOA had already refunded the improper assessment increase to members before the decision was written. However, the ALJ still issued an order affirming the petition and finding that the HOA had failed to comply with the CC&Rs.
Alj Quote
The tribunal finds that Petitioner has met her burden. … Fortunately for the Association and the homeowners, it … was able to issue a refund of $40.00 to its members.
Legal Basis
Mootness (Implicitly Rejected)
Topic Tags
Refunds
Violations
Case Outcomes
Case
Docket No
23F-H061-REL
Case Title
Megan E Gardner v Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-10-16
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA raise dues without proper notice if they are facing a severe financial emergency?
Short Answer
No, financial crises do not exempt the HOA from following the notice timelines in the CC&Rs.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that even though the HOA was in an 'untenable' position due to embezzlement and urgent debts, they were still strictly bound to provide the specific notice (30 days in this case) required by the governing documents before increasing assessments.
Alj Quote
First, while the tribunal sympathizes with the untenable and horrible position that the Association was facing, it still failed to comply with the CCR’s, by not providing the 30 day notice prior to the 2023 yearly Assessment.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Compliance
Topic Tags
Assessments
Emergency Powers
Notice Requirements
Question
If I win my hearing, will I get my filing fee back even if I tell the judge I don't want it?
Short Answer
Yes, the statute requires the filing fee to be reimbursed if the petitioner prevails, regardless of their personal preference.
Detailed Answer
The judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee because the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01) binds the tribunal to order reimbursement when the petitioner wins, even though the homeowner explicitly testified she did not wish to recover it.
Alj Quote
At hearing, Petitioner testified that she did not wish to recovery her filing fee, the tribunal is bound by the statute to order the same.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01; A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
Filing Fees
Reimbursement
Statutory Mandates
Question
What level of proof do I need to provide to win a dispute against my HOA?
Short Answer
You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning your claim is more probable than not.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner bears the burden of proof. The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal cases), but rather showing that the evidence is sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side over the other.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D); A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
Burden of Proof
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
Will the judge automatically fine the HOA if I prove they violated the rules?
Short Answer
No, if you do not specifically request a civil penalty in your petition, the judge generally will not award one.
Detailed Answer
In this case, although the HOA was found in violation, the judge ordered that no civil penalty be awarded specifically because the petitioner did not include a request for a penalty in her initial paperwork.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty be awarded as Petitioner did not request the same in her Petition.
Legal Basis
Administrative Discretion
Topic Tags
Civil Penalties
Fines
Petition Drafting
Question
If the HOA fixes the problem (like refunding money) before the decision, is the case dismissed?
Short Answer
Not necessarily; the judge may still issue a decision affirming the violation occurred.
Detailed Answer
The HOA had already refunded the improper assessment increase to members before the decision was written. However, the ALJ still issued an order affirming the petition and finding that the HOA had failed to comply with the CC&Rs.
Alj Quote
The tribunal finds that Petitioner has met her burden. … Fortunately for the Association and the homeowners, it … was able to issue a refund of $40.00 to its members.
Legal Basis
Mootness (Implicitly Rejected)
Topic Tags
Refunds
Violations
Case Outcomes
Case
Docket No
23F-H061-REL
Case Title
Megan E Gardner v Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-10-16
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Megan E Gardner(petitioner) Property owner of Parcel 222
Respondent Side
Kyle A. von Johnson(HOA attorney) Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
Edith I. Rudder(HOA attorney) Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
Ronald Carter(Treasurer/Witness) Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc. Treasurer since June 2022. Referred to as 'Ronald Cotter' in the ALJ Decision Findings of Fact.
David Goodman(Witness) Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc. Appeared remotely; recruited to serve as President after previous board members resigned.
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
AHansen(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) Listed for copy transmittal
vnunez(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) Listed for copy transmittal
djones(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) Listed for copy transmittal
labril(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) Listed for copy transmittal
The Village at Elk Run Homeowners Association, Inc.
Counsel
Michael S. McLeran
Alleged Violations
Article 4, Section 4.1 of the Community’s CC&Rs; ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's petition, finding that the HOA's CC&Rs (Section 4.1) prohibited nonresidential use, including short-term renting (deemed a business by the tribunal), unless the lot was rented or leased for month-to-month or longer terms. Therefore, rentals shorter than a month were prohibited.
Why this result: The tribunal determined the Petitioner failed to meet her burden, as her short-term rental operation constituted a prohibited nonresidential use/business under Section 4.1 of the CC&Rs, which only permits leasing for Month to Month or Longer Terms.
Key Issues & Findings
Challenging HOA Violation Notice for Short-Term Rental Restriction
Petitioner challenged the Courtesy Violation Notice issued by the HOA for operating a short-term rental (Airbnb) with a minimum rental period less than month-to-month, arguing the CC&Rs did not explicitly prohibit such rentals. The HOA maintained that Section 4.1 prohibited nonresidential use, unless leased for month-to-month or longer terms, thereby prohibiting short-term rentals/business use.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition was denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
PAL versus Washburn 211 Arizona 553 2006
Burke versus Voiceream Wireless Corporation 2 2007 Arizona 393 quarter of appeal 2004
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et al.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 32-2199.01(D), 32-2199.02, and 41-1092
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA governance, short-term rental, CC&R interpretation, business use, 30-day minimum
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
PAL versus Washburn 211 Arizona 553 2006
Burke versus Voiceream Wireless Corporation 2 2007 Arizona 393 quarter of appeal 2004
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et al.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 32-2199.01(D), 32-2199.02, and 41-1092
If my CC&Rs allow leasing for 'month to month or longer terms', does that automatically prohibit short-term rentals like Airbnb?
Short Answer
Yes. The tribunal interprets 'month to month or longer' as an exclusive permission, meaning any rental term shorter than a month is prohibited.
Detailed Answer
Even if the CC&Rs do not explicitly state 'no short-term rentals', a clause permitting 'month to month or longer' terms generally implies that shorter terms are not permitted under the restrictions against non-residential use.
Alj Quote
Rather the tribunal reads the section to mean that nonresidential use is only permitted if the lots were rented or leased for month to month or longer terms. … Thus, as currently written, any renting or leasing shorted than a month was prohibited.
Legal Basis
Contract Interpretation / CC&R Section 4.1
Topic Tags
short-term rentals
CC&R interpretation
Airbnb
Question
Can listing a home on Airbnb be legally considered 'running a business' or 'non-residential use'?
Short Answer
Yes. Applying for a business license and remitting transaction privilege taxes can establish that a homeowner is conducting a business from the home.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that applying for a municipal business license and paying transaction taxes (which are typical for rentals) demonstrated that the homeowner was using the property for a gainful occupation or business, rather than simple residential use.
Alj Quote
Petitioner was clearly running a business out of the home, as she has applied for a business license with Flagstaff, and was remitting Transaction Privilege Tax.
Legal Basis
Finding of Fact 6 / Conclusion of Law 6
Topic Tags
business use
taxes
commercial activity
Question
Does an HOA have to explicitly use the phrase 'no short-term rentals' in the CC&Rs to ban them?
Short Answer
No. The absence of a specific exclusion for short-term rentals does not mean they are permitted if other language restricts leasing terms.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the argument that short-term rentals were allowed simply because the CC&Rs didn't explicitly name and ban them. The restrictions on non-residential use and specific permissions for monthly rentals were sufficient to create the ban.
Alj Quote
Further, tribunal was not convinced that simply because it does not mention the exclusion for short-term rentals that the same was permitted.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 6
Topic Tags
CC&R interpretation
implicit restrictions
rental rules
Question
Who has to prove their case in a hearing regarding an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
When a homeowner petitions for a hearing alleging the HOA violated statutes or documents, it is the homeowner's responsibility to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D).
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 3
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal procedure
evidence
Question
If I lose my hearing against the HOA, will I get my $500 filing fee reimbursed?
Short Answer
No. Reimbursement is typically denied if the petition is denied.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ordered that because the petition was denied, the Respondent (HOA) was not required to reimburse the filing fee paid by the homeowner.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.
Legal Basis
Order / ARS § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
fees
penalties
costs
Case
Docket No
23F-H043-REL
Case Title
Jennifer J Sullivan vs The Village at Elk Run Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-08-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If my CC&Rs allow leasing for 'month to month or longer terms', does that automatically prohibit short-term rentals like Airbnb?
Short Answer
Yes. The tribunal interprets 'month to month or longer' as an exclusive permission, meaning any rental term shorter than a month is prohibited.
Detailed Answer
Even if the CC&Rs do not explicitly state 'no short-term rentals', a clause permitting 'month to month or longer' terms generally implies that shorter terms are not permitted under the restrictions against non-residential use.
Alj Quote
Rather the tribunal reads the section to mean that nonresidential use is only permitted if the lots were rented or leased for month to month or longer terms. … Thus, as currently written, any renting or leasing shorted than a month was prohibited.
Legal Basis
Contract Interpretation / CC&R Section 4.1
Topic Tags
short-term rentals
CC&R interpretation
Airbnb
Question
Can listing a home on Airbnb be legally considered 'running a business' or 'non-residential use'?
Short Answer
Yes. Applying for a business license and remitting transaction privilege taxes can establish that a homeowner is conducting a business from the home.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that applying for a municipal business license and paying transaction taxes (which are typical for rentals) demonstrated that the homeowner was using the property for a gainful occupation or business, rather than simple residential use.
Alj Quote
Petitioner was clearly running a business out of the home, as she has applied for a business license with Flagstaff, and was remitting Transaction Privilege Tax.
Legal Basis
Finding of Fact 6 / Conclusion of Law 6
Topic Tags
business use
taxes
commercial activity
Question
Does an HOA have to explicitly use the phrase 'no short-term rentals' in the CC&Rs to ban them?
Short Answer
No. The absence of a specific exclusion for short-term rentals does not mean they are permitted if other language restricts leasing terms.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the argument that short-term rentals were allowed simply because the CC&Rs didn't explicitly name and ban them. The restrictions on non-residential use and specific permissions for monthly rentals were sufficient to create the ban.
Alj Quote
Further, tribunal was not convinced that simply because it does not mention the exclusion for short-term rentals that the same was permitted.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 6
Topic Tags
CC&R interpretation
implicit restrictions
rental rules
Question
Who has to prove their case in a hearing regarding an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
When a homeowner petitions for a hearing alleging the HOA violated statutes or documents, it is the homeowner's responsibility to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D).
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 3
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal procedure
evidence
Question
If I lose my hearing against the HOA, will I get my $500 filing fee reimbursed?
Short Answer
No. Reimbursement is typically denied if the petition is denied.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ordered that because the petition was denied, the Respondent (HOA) was not required to reimburse the filing fee paid by the homeowner.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.
Legal Basis
Order / ARS § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
fees
penalties
costs
Case
Docket No
23F-H043-REL
Case Title
Jennifer J Sullivan vs The Village at Elk Run Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-08-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jennifer J Sullivan(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
David Sheffield(petitioner attorney) Provided legal opinion to Petitioner in 2020
Respondent Side
Michael S. McLeran(HOA attorney) Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC Represented Respondent
Teresa Bale(board member) The Village at Elk Run Homeowners Association, Inc. Board President; Witness for Respondent
John R. Bale(developer/witness) The Village at Elk Run Homeowners Association, Inc. Original developer who drafted/signed CC&Rs; Witness for Respondent
Jason Miller(attorney) Provided opinion letter regarding CC&Rs to the Board
Beth Moly(attorney) Issued formal opinion letter regarding Section 4.1
The Administrative Law Judge denied the single-issue petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(D). The ALJ found that the gathering was a 'workshop' and not necessarily a formal 'meeting of the board of directors,' and further found that the Petitioner had received sufficient notice regardless.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required by a preponderance of the evidence for the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(D). The tribunal determined the meeting was advertised as a workshop and not a statutory board meeting, and the Petitioner had timely opened the notice email a week prior.
Key Issues & Findings
Petitioner alleges the Respondent has violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by holding a meeting that 'had not been properly noticed…'
Petitioner alleged that the March 14, 2023 meeting was not properly noticed because customary channels (email, calendar, sandwich boards) were not used, and the notice provided did not include the meeting location. Respondent argued notice was given through email survey and the community calendar, meeting the statutory requirements, and that the event was a workshop.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A).
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Notice Requirements, HOA Board Meeting, Workshop, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H054-REL Decision – 1068018.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:36 (54.7 KB)
23F-H054-REL Decision – 1078258.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:40 (113.6 KB)
Questions
Question
Does an HOA workshop count as a 'board meeting' that requires formal legal notice?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If no votes are taken or decisions made, it may not be considered a meeting of the board of directors under the statute.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that an event advertised as a 'workshop,' where comments and survey results were discussed but no items were voted on or decisions made, did not qualify as a 'meeting of the board of directors' requiring statutory notice.
Alj Quote
The tribunal was not convinced that this was a 'meeting of the board of directors' under the statute. … There was no expectation that items would be voted on or decisions made.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
meetings
workshops
definitions
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner must convince the trier of fact that their contention is '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 ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D).
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
procedure
Question
Does a member's failure to see a meeting notice invalidate the actions taken at that meeting?
Short Answer
No. The validity of actions taken at a meeting is not affected if a member fails to receive actual notice.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute explicitly states that if a member does not receive actual notice, it does not void the meeting's actions, provided the notice was properly issued.
Alj Quote
The failure of any member to receive actual notice of a meeting of the board of directors does not affect the validity of any action taken at that meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)
Topic Tags
notice
validity
homeowner rights
Question
How far in advance must an HOA provide notice for a board meeting?
Short Answer
Notice must be given at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Detailed Answer
Unless emergency circumstances exist, the board must provide notice to members via newsletter, conspicuous posting, or other reasonable means at least 48 hours prior.
Alj Quote
notice to members of meetings of the board of directors shall be given at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)
Topic Tags
notice
timelines
HOA obligations
Question
Can a Zoom link be considered the 'location' of a meeting for notice purposes?
Short Answer
Yes, providing a Zoom link can satisfy the requirement for a meeting location.
Detailed Answer
The decision accepted testimony that a reminder notice containing a Zoom link was considered the location of the meeting, contributing to sufficient notice.
Alj Quote
Ms. Busey testified that a reminder notice was sent out the day of the workshop with the Zoom link, which was considered the 'location' of the meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
virtual meetings
notice
technology
Question
If I lose my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
No. If the petition is denied, the filing fee is generally not reimbursed.
Detailed Answer
The order specifically stated that because the petition was denied, the Respondent (HOA) was not required to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
fees
penalties
outcomes
Question
Can opening an email with a survey link constitute receiving notice of a meeting?
Short Answer
Yes. Evidence that a homeowner opened an email/link about the event in advance can establish sufficient notice.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that because the Petitioner clicked a survey link related to the workshop a week prior, they had sufficient notice of the event.
Alj Quote
Petitioner opened the email regarding the survey and clicked on the link on March 7, 2023, a week prior to the workshop. Therefore, even if this were considered a 'board meeting' Petitioner would have had sufficient notice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
notice
email
digital communication
Case
Docket No
23F-H054-REL
Case Title
Felicia Woodward vs The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association
Decision Date
2023-07-28
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Does an HOA workshop count as a 'board meeting' that requires formal legal notice?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If no votes are taken or decisions made, it may not be considered a meeting of the board of directors under the statute.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that an event advertised as a 'workshop,' where comments and survey results were discussed but no items were voted on or decisions made, did not qualify as a 'meeting of the board of directors' requiring statutory notice.
Alj Quote
The tribunal was not convinced that this was a 'meeting of the board of directors' under the statute. … There was no expectation that items would be voted on or decisions made.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
meetings
workshops
definitions
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner must convince the trier of fact that their contention is '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 ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D).
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
procedure
Question
Does a member's failure to see a meeting notice invalidate the actions taken at that meeting?
Short Answer
No. The validity of actions taken at a meeting is not affected if a member fails to receive actual notice.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute explicitly states that if a member does not receive actual notice, it does not void the meeting's actions, provided the notice was properly issued.
Alj Quote
The failure of any member to receive actual notice of a meeting of the board of directors does not affect the validity of any action taken at that meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)
Topic Tags
notice
validity
homeowner rights
Question
How far in advance must an HOA provide notice for a board meeting?
Short Answer
Notice must be given at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Detailed Answer
Unless emergency circumstances exist, the board must provide notice to members via newsletter, conspicuous posting, or other reasonable means at least 48 hours prior.
Alj Quote
notice to members of meetings of the board of directors shall be given at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)
Topic Tags
notice
timelines
HOA obligations
Question
Can a Zoom link be considered the 'location' of a meeting for notice purposes?
Short Answer
Yes, providing a Zoom link can satisfy the requirement for a meeting location.
Detailed Answer
The decision accepted testimony that a reminder notice containing a Zoom link was considered the location of the meeting, contributing to sufficient notice.
Alj Quote
Ms. Busey testified that a reminder notice was sent out the day of the workshop with the Zoom link, which was considered the 'location' of the meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
virtual meetings
notice
technology
Question
If I lose my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
No. If the petition is denied, the filing fee is generally not reimbursed.
Detailed Answer
The order specifically stated that because the petition was denied, the Respondent (HOA) was not required to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
fees
penalties
outcomes
Question
Can opening an email with a survey link constitute receiving notice of a meeting?
Short Answer
Yes. Evidence that a homeowner opened an email/link about the event in advance can establish sufficient notice.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that because the Petitioner clicked a survey link related to the workshop a week prior, they had sufficient notice of the event.
Alj Quote
Petitioner opened the email regarding the survey and clicked on the link on March 7, 2023, a week prior to the workshop. Therefore, even if this were considered a 'board meeting' Petitioner would have had sufficient notice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
notice
email
digital communication
Case
Docket No
23F-H054-REL
Case Title
Felicia Woodward vs The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association
Decision Date
2023-07-28
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Felicia Woodward(petitioner) Property owner/Association member Full name is Felicia Anne Woodward; Appeared via Google Meet.
Respondent Side
Jonathan D. Ebertshauser(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado, & Bolen Represented Respondent.
Marcus R. Martinez(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado, & Bolen Represented Respondent.
Erin Busey(witness/general manager) First Service Residential (The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association) Called as a witness by Respondent; Identified herself as Aaron Ducy during testimony.
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmission.
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmission.
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmission.
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmission.
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmission.
Other Participants
Debbie Robinson(witness) Referenced by Petitioner as the person who took a screenshot exhibit; Presence/testimony not confirmed in hearing record.
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws by not holding elections. The Bylaw states the annual meeting is for the purpose of 'electing or announcing the results of the election of Directors' and transacting 'other business' (which included dissolution), and the HOA was not required to hold elections if results could have been announced or if dissolution proceedings were underway.
Why this result: The Bylaws did not strictly require elections be held, and Petitioner failed to object to the board remaining in place to oversee the dissolution.
Key Issues & Findings
Annual meeting
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws by failing to hold Board of Directors elections at the 2021 annual meeting. Respondent argued the language ('for the purpose of electing or announcing the results') did not require elections and that the dissolution vote superseded the immediate need for elections, especially since no one objected at the meeting.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition was 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. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H031-REL Decision – 1035344.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:49 (51.8 KB)
23F-H031-REL Decision – 1049021.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:51 (114.7 KB)
Study Guide – 23F-H031-REL
Select all sources
1035344.pdf
1045278.aac
1049021.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
23F-H031-REL
3 sources
These sources document a legal dispute between Clifford S. Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association regarding an alleged violation of community bylaws. The conflict centers on a December 2021 annual meeting where the association voted to dissolve the organization but did not hold new elections for its leadership. Burnes argued that Article 2.1 of the bylaws mandated an election, while the association maintained that the dissolution vote rendered new elections unnecessary. An administrative hearing transcript captures the testimony of both parties, highlighting disagreements over meeting procedures and the legal interpretation of governing documents. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that no mandatory election requirement was violated. The final decision emphasizes that the petitioner failed to object during the meeting and did not meet the burden of proof for his claims.
What are the legal arguments for and against dissolving the HOA?
How did the judge interpret the ‘purpose’ of the annual meeting?
Explain the role of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:17 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 23F-H031-REL
Select all sources
1035344.pdf
1045278.aac
1049021.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
23F-H031-REL
3 sources
These sources document a legal dispute between Clifford S. Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association regarding an alleged violation of community bylaws. The conflict centers on a December 2021 annual meeting where the association voted to dissolve the organization but did not hold new elections for its leadership. Burnes argued that Article 2.1 of the bylaws mandated an election, while the association maintained that the dissolution vote rendered new elections unnecessary. An administrative hearing transcript captures the testimony of both parties, highlighting disagreements over meeting procedures and the legal interpretation of governing documents. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that no mandatory election requirement was violated. The final decision emphasizes that the petitioner failed to object during the meeting and did not meet the burden of proof for his claims.
What are the legal arguments for and against dissolving the HOA?
How did the judge interpret the ‘purpose’ of the annual meeting?
Explain the role of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:17 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford S. Burnes(petitioner) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Member Also referred to as Clifford (Norm) Burnes.
Respondent Side
John T. Crotty(HOA attorney) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Esmerina Martinez(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association President; referred to as Serena Martinez or Esmerelda Martinez in sources.
Dave Madill(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Vice President; referred to as Dave Matt or Dave Mel in testimony.
Joseph Martinez(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
CC&R’s Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3; Summit View Community Plat Notes
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the walls were built on the common area. Since HOA maintenance responsibility primarily attached to the common area, and the location of the walls relative to the lots remained unproven, the HOA was not found in violation of its maintenance obligations.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls were located in a common area. No survey evidence was presented to determine whether the walls were on the individual lots (Owner responsibility) or the common area (HOA responsibility).
Key Issues & Findings
HOA failure to maintain perimeter walls and improper charging of homeowners for repairs.
Petitioner alleged that the HOA (SVHA) violated CC&R Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3, and the Community Plat Notes by failing to maintain the subdivision perimeter walls and charging homeowners for repairs, arguing the walls abutted and were part of the Common Area (NAOS), making maintenance the HOA's responsibility.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
CC&R Article XI, Section 1
CC&R Article XI, Section 2
CC&R Article XI, Section 3
Summit View Community Plat Notes
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, Maintenance, Perimeter Walls, CC&R, Common Area, Burden of Proof, NAOS, Lot Line Dispute
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the person filing the petition is responsible for proving that the HOA committed the alleged violations. The HOA does not have to disprove the allegations initially; the homeowner must first provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
procedural requirements
Question
What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?
Short Answer
A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more likely true than not.
Detailed Answer
The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' like in criminal cases. Instead, the homeowner must show that their version of the facts is more probable than the HOA's version. It relies on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
hearings
Question
If a wall touches an HOA common area, does the HOA automatically have to maintain it?
Short Answer
No. The location of the wall's foundation (on the lot vs. common area) determines responsibility.
Detailed Answer
Simply abutting a common area does not make a structure part of the common area. Unless the homeowner can prove the structure was actually built *on* the common area land, the HOA may not be responsible for its maintenance.
Alj Quote
There was no persuasive evidence presented that simply because on the other side of the wall there was a common area, does not prove that the wall was actually built on the common area.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
maintenance
common areas
boundaries
Question
Is a professional survey necessary to prove a boundary or maintenance dispute?
Short Answer
Yes, often. Without a survey, it is difficult to prove exactly where a structure lies.
Detailed Answer
If there is a dispute about whether a wall or structure is on private property or common area, failing to provide a professional survey can result in losing the case. The judge generally cannot assume a location without specific evidence.
Alj Quote
However, again, no evidence was presented to determine exactly where the wall was built. Perhaps if this evidence was presented there may be a different result.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
evidence
surveys
property lines
Question
Does the alignment of walls affect who is responsible for them?
Short Answer
Yes. If walls are not uniformly aligned, it suggests they follow individual lot lines rather than a subdivision perimeter.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the judge noted that because the walls were not in a straight, uniform line across lots (likely due to varying lot sizes), it supported the conclusion that the walls were built on individual lots rather than being a single common area perimeter wall.
Alj Quote
Further, the tribunal notes that the walls were not uniformly even across the individual lots. This was presumably because each lot is a different size, which also would lead to the conclusion that each wall was built on each individual lot.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
maintenance
construction
HOA obligations
Question
Can I rely solely on Plat Notes to prove HOA maintenance responsibility?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, especially if physical evidence contradicts the interpretation that a structure is a 'perimeter wall'.
Detailed Answer
Even if a Plat Note says the HOA maintains 'subdivision perimeter walls,' the homeowner must still prove that the specific wall in question fits that definition and location. If the evidence suggests the wall is on a private lot, the general note may not apply.
Alj Quote
Petitioner testified that she believed that based upon the 'Notes' section on the plat map, this created an obligation on the SVHA… [However] Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls in questions are in a common area.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
cc&rs
plat maps
interpretation
Case
Docket No
23F-H017-REL
Case Title
Carolyn Wefsenmoe vs Summit View Homeowner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the person filing the petition is responsible for proving that the HOA committed the alleged violations. The HOA does not have to disprove the allegations initially; the homeowner must first provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
procedural requirements
Question
What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?
Short Answer
A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more likely true than not.
Detailed Answer
The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' like in criminal cases. Instead, the homeowner must show that their version of the facts is more probable than the HOA's version. It relies on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
hearings
Question
If a wall touches an HOA common area, does the HOA automatically have to maintain it?
Short Answer
No. The location of the wall's foundation (on the lot vs. common area) determines responsibility.
Detailed Answer
Simply abutting a common area does not make a structure part of the common area. Unless the homeowner can prove the structure was actually built *on* the common area land, the HOA may not be responsible for its maintenance.
Alj Quote
There was no persuasive evidence presented that simply because on the other side of the wall there was a common area, does not prove that the wall was actually built on the common area.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
maintenance
common areas
boundaries
Question
Is a professional survey necessary to prove a boundary or maintenance dispute?
Short Answer
Yes, often. Without a survey, it is difficult to prove exactly where a structure lies.
Detailed Answer
If there is a dispute about whether a wall or structure is on private property or common area, failing to provide a professional survey can result in losing the case. The judge generally cannot assume a location without specific evidence.
Alj Quote
However, again, no evidence was presented to determine exactly where the wall was built. Perhaps if this evidence was presented there may be a different result.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
evidence
surveys
property lines
Question
Does the alignment of walls affect who is responsible for them?
Short Answer
Yes. If walls are not uniformly aligned, it suggests they follow individual lot lines rather than a subdivision perimeter.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the judge noted that because the walls were not in a straight, uniform line across lots (likely due to varying lot sizes), it supported the conclusion that the walls were built on individual lots rather than being a single common area perimeter wall.
Alj Quote
Further, the tribunal notes that the walls were not uniformly even across the individual lots. This was presumably because each lot is a different size, which also would lead to the conclusion that each wall was built on each individual lot.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
maintenance
construction
HOA obligations
Question
Can I rely solely on Plat Notes to prove HOA maintenance responsibility?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, especially if physical evidence contradicts the interpretation that a structure is a 'perimeter wall'.
Detailed Answer
Even if a Plat Note says the HOA maintains 'subdivision perimeter walls,' the homeowner must still prove that the specific wall in question fits that definition and location. If the evidence suggests the wall is on a private lot, the general note may not apply.
Alj Quote
Petitioner testified that she believed that based upon the 'Notes' section on the plat map, this created an obligation on the SVHA… [However] Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls in questions are in a common area.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
cc&rs
plat maps
interpretation
Case
Docket No
23F-H017-REL
Case Title
Carolyn Wefsenmoe vs Summit View Homeowner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Carolyn Wefsenmoe(petitioner) Appeared via Google Meet on her own behalf
Respondent Side
Chad M. Gallacher(HOA attorney) Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Bick Smith(witness/board president) Summit View Homeowner's Association Also referred to as Vic Smith; testified for Respondent
Henry(board member) Summit View Homeowner's Association Discussed erosion issues; toured walls with Bick Smith
Denise(board member) Summit View Homeowner's Association Participated in special board meeting
Larry Burns(property manager/GM) Summit View Homeowner's Association General Manager who wrote community painting update; participated in board meeting
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Transmitted minute entry to
James Knupp(Acting Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Transmitted order to
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Transmitted ALJ decision to
AHansen(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email recipient for transmitted documents
vnunez(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email recipient for transmitted documents
djones(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email recipient for transmitted documents
labril(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email recipient for transmitted documents
c. serrano(OAH Staff) OAH Signed minute entries for transmission
Helen Purcell(county recorder) Maricopa County Recorded Amended CC&R Declaration in 2004
Maria Rosana Pira(notary public) Maricopa County Notarized Amended CC&R and Bylaws in 2004
Other Participants
Elelliana(unknown) Correspondent in objected-to email exhibit
Beth Mulcahy(attorney) Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C. Firm filed the Amended CC&R Declaration in 2004
LizzieG(customer service rep) Brown Community Management Customer service contact listed on billing document
The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after establishing that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812 by improperly combining two separate expenditure proposals (roadway preservation and gate replacement) into a single vote on a ballot, failing to provide an opportunity to vote on each action separately. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee and pay a $500.00 civil penalty.
Key Issues & Findings
Combining two separate proposed actions into a single vote action on a ballot.
The Respondent HOA combined two separate proposed expenditures ($30,000 total for roadway asset preservation and common area gate replacement) into one vote on a ballot sent to homeowners, violating statutory requirements that each proposed action must be voted upon separately.
Orders: Respondent must abide by A.R.S. § 33-1812; Respondent must refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee; Respondent must pay a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.
Can my HOA combine multiple capital improvement projects into a single 'Yes' or 'No' vote?
Short Answer
No. The HOA must allow homeowners to vote for or against each proposed action separately.
Detailed Answer
Even if the projects are related or presented in the same letter, the ballot itself must provide an opportunity to vote on each specific expenditure or project individually. Combining them into one vote violates Arizona statutes.
Alj Quote
Thus, the tribunal finds the ballot improper because it did not contain the opportunity to vote on each separate proposal.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
assessments
Question
If the HOA conducts a vote by mail or email rather than at a live meeting, do they still have to list voting items separately?
Short Answer
Yes. The requirement to list each proposed action separately applies to absentee ballots and written ballots used without a meeting.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the argument that voting requirements only apply to in-person meetings. Statutes governing both planned communities and nonprofit corporations require that written ballots set forth each proposed action.
Alj Quote
According to that statute, the ballots still must set for each action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each action. … Therefore, this ballot runs afoul of A.R.S. § 33-1812.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812; A.R.S. § 10-3708
Topic Tags
absentee ballots
voting
mail-in voting
Question
Can the Administrative Law Judge force the HOA to undo a project (like a road repair) if the vote was illegal?
Short Answer
Generally, no. The ALJ lacks the statutory authority to order projects rescinded once completed.
Detailed Answer
While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order the association to 'un-do' the physical work or rescind the project.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to order the projects rescinded…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
remedies
powers of ALJ
construction
Question
What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
evidence
Question
Can the HOA claim that their specific bylaws or CC&Rs override state laws regarding ballot formats?
Short Answer
No. The relevant state statute explicitly overrides community documents regarding absentee ballot requirements.
Detailed Answer
The statute begins with 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents,' meaning the state law requirements for ballots take precedence over the HOA's internal rules.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1812 provides… 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents… any action taken… shall comply with all of the following…'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
Topic Tags
governing documents
statutory interpretation
supremacy of law
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the Petitioner.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Order of the ALJ
Topic Tags
remedies
fees
penalties
Question
Does a majority vote of the homeowners cure a defective ballot?
Short Answer
No. Even if the vast majority of homeowners approved the spending, the ballot can still be ruled a violation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ noted that although most homeowners approved the proposal, the violation still stood because allowing such ballots would leave 'virtually no remedy' for future procedural violations.
Alj Quote
In this case, although the vast majority of homeowners approved the proposals, the Administrative Law Judge is concerned that this type of ballot could be used in the future, leaving virtually no remedy.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812
Topic Tags
voting results
procedural violations
compliance
Case
Docket No
23F-H020-REL
Case Title
Daniel Mayer vs Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-02-17
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA combine multiple capital improvement projects into a single 'Yes' or 'No' vote?
Short Answer
No. The HOA must allow homeowners to vote for or against each proposed action separately.
Detailed Answer
Even if the projects are related or presented in the same letter, the ballot itself must provide an opportunity to vote on each specific expenditure or project individually. Combining them into one vote violates Arizona statutes.
Alj Quote
Thus, the tribunal finds the ballot improper because it did not contain the opportunity to vote on each separate proposal.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
assessments
Question
If the HOA conducts a vote by mail or email rather than at a live meeting, do they still have to list voting items separately?
Short Answer
Yes. The requirement to list each proposed action separately applies to absentee ballots and written ballots used without a meeting.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the argument that voting requirements only apply to in-person meetings. Statutes governing both planned communities and nonprofit corporations require that written ballots set forth each proposed action.
Alj Quote
According to that statute, the ballots still must set for each action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each action. … Therefore, this ballot runs afoul of A.R.S. § 33-1812.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812; A.R.S. § 10-3708
Topic Tags
absentee ballots
voting
mail-in voting
Question
Can the Administrative Law Judge force the HOA to undo a project (like a road repair) if the vote was illegal?
Short Answer
Generally, no. The ALJ lacks the statutory authority to order projects rescinded once completed.
Detailed Answer
While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order the association to 'un-do' the physical work or rescind the project.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to order the projects rescinded…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
remedies
powers of ALJ
construction
Question
What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
evidence
Question
Can the HOA claim that their specific bylaws or CC&Rs override state laws regarding ballot formats?
Short Answer
No. The relevant state statute explicitly overrides community documents regarding absentee ballot requirements.
Detailed Answer
The statute begins with 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents,' meaning the state law requirements for ballots take precedence over the HOA's internal rules.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1812 provides… 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents… any action taken… shall comply with all of the following…'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
Topic Tags
governing documents
statutory interpretation
supremacy of law
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the Petitioner.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Order of the ALJ
Topic Tags
remedies
fees
penalties
Question
Does a majority vote of the homeowners cure a defective ballot?
Short Answer
No. Even if the vast majority of homeowners approved the spending, the ballot can still be ruled a violation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ noted that although most homeowners approved the proposal, the violation still stood because allowing such ballots would leave 'virtually no remedy' for future procedural violations.
Alj Quote
In this case, although the vast majority of homeowners approved the proposals, the Administrative Law Judge is concerned that this type of ballot could be used in the future, leaving virtually no remedy.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812
Topic Tags
voting results
procedural violations
compliance
Case
Docket No
23F-H020-REL
Case Title
Daniel Mayer vs Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-02-17
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Daniel Mayer(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Mr. D'Angelo(witness) Petitioner's husband
Respondent Side
Sandy Chambers(board president) Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc. Appeared on behalf of Respondent; also referred to as 'Andrew Chambers' and 'Miss Chambers' in the transcript
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Miranda(OAH staff) OAH Front desk staff mentioned by ALJ
James Knupp(commissioner) ADRE Acting Commissioner listed on initial transmittal
Susan Nicolson(commissioner) ADRE
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Transmittal recipient
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE Transmittal recipient
labril(ADRE staff) ADRE Transmittal recipient
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Transmittal recipient
Other Participants
jzipprich(property manager) Desert Management Email contact for Respondent HOA
The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the Sanalina HOA did not violate its Bylaws when it removed Petitioner John Zumph from the Board of Directors. The tribunal held that a 'regular meeting' can occur even without the presence of a quorum necessary to conduct business, validating the HOA's decision to declare his office vacant after three consecutive absences.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the Bylaws. The ALJ determined that the meetings existed despite lack of quorum, and the Petitioner's intentional absences constituted an abuse of process and were not in the spirit of the bylaws.
Key Issues & Findings
Wrongful removal from the Board of Directors
Petitioner challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, arguing that his three consecutive absences from regularly scheduled meetings (July 8, 2021, September 9, 2021, and November 11, 2021) did not count because no quorum was met at those meetings, meaning the meetings did not exist.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-1092
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Sanalina Bylaws Article VII Section 1(d)
Sanalina Bylaws Article VI Section 3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Board Removal, Quorum Dispute, Bylaw Interpretation, Director Absence, Regular Meeting Definition
These sources document an Arizona administrative hearing and the subsequent legal ruling regarding a dispute between John Zumph and the Sanalina Homeowners Association. Zumph challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, which the association justified based on his absence from three consecutive meetings. While Zumph argued that these sessions did not legally qualify as meetings due to a lack of quorum, the association contended he intentionally skipped them to obstruct board business and force leadership changes. The provided transcript details the testimony and cross-examination of the parties involved, highlighting the internal conflicts within the board. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that meetings can exist even without a quorum to transact business. The final decision affirmed that Zumph’s intentional absences harmed the community and legally permitted the board to declare his seat vacant.
What was the core disagreement regarding the definition of a quorum?
Explain the impacts of the board’s inability to conduct official business.
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the petitioner’s removal?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 1:35 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 22F-H2222049-REL
Select all sources
986676.aac
988629.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
22F-H2222049-REL
2 sources
These sources document an Arizona administrative hearing and the subsequent legal ruling regarding a dispute between John Zumph and the Sanalina Homeowners Association. Zumph challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, which the association justified based on his absence from three consecutive meetings. While Zumph argued that these sessions did not legally qualify as meetings due to a lack of quorum, the association contended he intentionally skipped them to obstruct board business and force leadership changes. The provided transcript details the testimony and cross-examination of the parties involved, highlighting the internal conflicts within the board. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that meetings can exist even without a quorum to transact business. The final decision affirmed that Zumph’s intentional absences harmed the community and legally permitted the board to declare his seat vacant.
What was the core disagreement regarding the definition of a quorum?
Explain the impacts of the board’s inability to conduct official business.
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the petitioner’s removal?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 1:35 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John Zumph(petitioner) Sanalina Homeowners Association Also referred to as John Zump or John Edward Dump; Former Board member removed from his position
Pete Selei(board member) Sanalina Homeowners Association Aligned with petitioner's refusal to attend meetings; Board member removed/vacated position; Also referred to as Joe Pete or Pete
Joe(board member) Sanalina Homeowners Association Aligned with petitioner's refusal to attend meetings
Respondent Side
Nick Eicher(HOA attorney) Sanalina Homeowners Association Also referred to as Nick Aker
Lisa Jean Terror(board member) Sanalina Homeowners Association Board Secretary; witness for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary)
Other Participants
Thomas Campanella(property manager) Sanalina Homeowners Association Community Manager; Also referred to as Thomas Pampanella
Javier Gimenez(management representative) Sanalina Homeowners Association Handled minutes for March meeting
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), finding that the HOA and its property managers had made records reasonably available for examination.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required by A.A.C. R2-19-119. The evidence showed Respondent responded timely to requests, provided some documents, and offered Petitioner appointments to review other sensitive or older records in the office, which she failed to schedule.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to provide books, records and accounts
Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide required HOA records, including bank statements, invoices, and contracts, following requests made primarily in March 2022, thereby violating statute A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
Orders: Petitioner's petition denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Records Access, Statutory Violation, Burden of Proof, Special Assessment Dispute
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.A.C. R2-19-119
State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes, 216 Ariz. 525, 527, 169 P.3d 115, 117 (App. 2007)
Marsoner v. Pima County, 166 Ariz. 486, 488, 803 P.2d 897, 899 (1991)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 971256.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:58 (46.4 KB)
22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 983785.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:03 (114.6 KB)
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law during a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, it is up to the homeowner filing the complaint to prove that the Association violated the statute. The HOA does not initially have to prove its innocence; the homeowner must present evidence that carries more weight.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?
Short Answer
A preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must provide evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA. It must show that the alleged violation is 'more probable than not' to have occurred.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is '[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.'
Legal Basis
Black's Law Dictionary (cited in decision)
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standard
Question
Does a homeowner have the right to browse through every single document the HOA possesses?
Short Answer
No, the right to inspect records is not absolute or 'at will'.
Detailed Answer
While statutes require records to be reasonably available, this does not grant homeowners the right to peruse every document at will. The ALJ noted that certain documents may properly be withheld.
Alj Quote
Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
privacy
limitations
Question
If I request records, does the HOA have to mail them to me, or can they require me to view them in person?
Short Answer
The HOA complies by making records available for examination, often by appointment.
Detailed Answer
The HOA meets its statutory obligation if it makes records reasonably available for examination. In this case, offering an appointment for the homeowner to visit the office and review the documents was considered sufficient compliance, even if the homeowner refused to attend.
Alj Quote
Further, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
compliance
in-person review
Question
How quickly must the HOA respond to a request to examine records?
Short Answer
Within ten business days.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, an association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination of records or to provide copies if purchased.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
deadlines
statutory requirements
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee for looking at the records?
Short Answer
No fee is allowed for the review process itself.
Detailed Answer
The association is prohibited from charging a member for making material available for review. However, they may charge a fee specifically for making copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
fees
records access
Question
What is the maximum amount an HOA can charge for copies of records?
Short Answer
Fifteen cents per page.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner requests to purchase copies of the records, the association is limited by statute to charging no more than fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
fees
copies
Question
Can I dispute an HOA violation if I simply refuse to cooperate with their attempts to provide records?
Short Answer
Likely not; failure to utilize offered opportunities undermines the claim.
Detailed Answer
If the HOA offers opportunities to review records (such as setting an appointment) and the homeowner fails to do so, the homeowner may fail to prove that they were denied access.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records. … Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.
Legal Basis
Determined by ALJ Findings
Topic Tags
dispute resolution
homeowner responsibility
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222046-REL
Case Title
Katherine Belinsky vs Del Cerro Condos
Decision Date
2022-07-14
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law during a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, it is up to the homeowner filing the complaint to prove that the Association violated the statute. The HOA does not initially have to prove its innocence; the homeowner must present evidence that carries more weight.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?
Short Answer
A preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must provide evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA. It must show that the alleged violation is 'more probable than not' to have occurred.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is '[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.'
Legal Basis
Black's Law Dictionary (cited in decision)
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standard
Question
Does a homeowner have the right to browse through every single document the HOA possesses?
Short Answer
No, the right to inspect records is not absolute or 'at will'.
Detailed Answer
While statutes require records to be reasonably available, this does not grant homeowners the right to peruse every document at will. The ALJ noted that certain documents may properly be withheld.
Alj Quote
Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
privacy
limitations
Question
If I request records, does the HOA have to mail them to me, or can they require me to view them in person?
Short Answer
The HOA complies by making records available for examination, often by appointment.
Detailed Answer
The HOA meets its statutory obligation if it makes records reasonably available for examination. In this case, offering an appointment for the homeowner to visit the office and review the documents was considered sufficient compliance, even if the homeowner refused to attend.
Alj Quote
Further, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
compliance
in-person review
Question
How quickly must the HOA respond to a request to examine records?
Short Answer
Within ten business days.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, an association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination of records or to provide copies if purchased.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
deadlines
statutory requirements
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee for looking at the records?
Short Answer
No fee is allowed for the review process itself.
Detailed Answer
The association is prohibited from charging a member for making material available for review. However, they may charge a fee specifically for making copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
fees
records access
Question
What is the maximum amount an HOA can charge for copies of records?
Short Answer
Fifteen cents per page.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner requests to purchase copies of the records, the association is limited by statute to charging no more than fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
fees
copies
Question
Can I dispute an HOA violation if I simply refuse to cooperate with their attempts to provide records?
Short Answer
Likely not; failure to utilize offered opportunities undermines the claim.
Detailed Answer
If the HOA offers opportunities to review records (such as setting an appointment) and the homeowner fails to do so, the homeowner may fail to prove that they were denied access.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records. … Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.
Legal Basis
Determined by ALJ Findings
Topic Tags
dispute resolution
homeowner responsibility
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222046-REL
Case Title
Katherine Belinsky vs Del Cerro Condos
Decision Date
2022-07-14
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Katherine Belinsky(petitioner) Also referred to as Catherine Valinski, Bolinsky, or Katya/Katcha; unit owner.
Respondent Side
Alessandra Wisniewski(VP) Del Cerro Condos Board Also referred to as Alexandra; testified on behalf of Respondent.
Amanda Butcher(President) Del Cerro Condos Board Testified on behalf of Respondent.
Eddie B(property manager) PMI Lake Havasu President of PMI Lake Havasu; also referred to as Eddie Being.
Lisa Modler(property manager assistant) PMI Lake Havasu Also referred to as Lisa Miam; secretary assistance for PMI.
Brady Bowen(property manager) PMI Lake Havasu Business partner of Eddie B.
Fiser(maintenance supervisor) PMI Lake Havasu No first name provided.
Kathy Ein(property manager) Community Financials Manager for new management company.
Moses(board member) Del Cerro Condos Board Former Treasurer/Secretary on the board.
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) OAH Transmitted Decision electronically.
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official documents.
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official documents.
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official documents.
labril(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official documents.
Other Participants
Eric Needles(former property manager) London Dairy Former property management/statutory agent.
Elizabeth(statutory agent) Former statutory agent; last name not provided.
Betty Sergeant(former property manager) Petitioner took her to court.
Todd Sullivan(association manager) Viking New Association New association manager effective June 1st.
c. serrano(unknown) Transmittal initial on Del Cerro Condo contact document.
The petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, as she had not made a proper written request for the documents since 2019, as required by the statute.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to make a request for records in writing as required by A.R.S. § 33-1258.
Key Issues & Findings
Access to Association Financial and Other Records
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by denying her access and copies of various financial records dating back to 2016. The HOA argued they provided financial summaries and offered in-person review, noting Petitioner failed to make a proper written request.
Orders: Petition denied. Respondent is directed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 going forward upon a proper written request from Petitioner.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Financial Records, Written Request Requirement, HOA Governance, Condominium Act
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222033-REL Decision – 967350.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:19 (46.5 KB)
22F-H2222033-REL Decision – 982397.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:21 (99.3 KB)
Questions
Question
Must I submit my request for HOA financial records in writing?
Short Answer
Yes, the statute explicitly requires that requests for examination of records be made in writing.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled against the homeowner partly because she failed to provide evidence of a written request. The decision emphasizes that the governing statute requires requests for examination to be in writing to be valid and enforceable.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1258 requires that association documents, with certain identified exceptions, 'shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…in writing'.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
records request
procedural requirements
Question
Do I have the right to look through all HOA documents whenever I want?
Short Answer
No, homeowners do not have an unlimited right to peruse all association documents at will.
Detailed Answer
While the law requires records to be reasonably available, it does not grant an unfettered right to browse all documents. Specific procedures must be followed, and certain documents may be withheld.
Alj Quote
Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258
Topic Tags
homeowner rights
limitations
Question
What happens if I cannot prove I sent a written request for records?
Short Answer
Your petition may be denied for failing to meet the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the homeowner claimed she was denied access, but the judge found she failed to establish a denial because the preponderance of the evidence showed she had not made the required written request.
Alj Quote
Further, the preponderance of the evidence showed that she has failed to make any such request in writing as the statute requires. … Therefore, at this time, Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
evidence
Question
Can the HOA charge me for copies of records?
Short Answer
Yes, the HOA is allowed to charge a fee for copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute permits the association to charge a fee per page for making copies of requested records, provided the request is for the purchase of copies.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
fees
copies
Question
Is the HOA allowed to withhold certain records from me?
Short Answer
Yes, specific categories of records, such as personal or privileged information, may be withheld.
Detailed Answer
The decision outlines statutory exceptions where books and records can be withheld, including privileged attorney communications, pending litigation, and personal financial or health records of individual members or employees.
Alj Quote
Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: … Personal, health or financial records of an individual member of the association…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)
Topic Tags
privacy
exemptions
Question
How long does the HOA have to fulfill my request for records?
Short Answer
The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute mandates a ten-business-day timeframe for the association to comply with a written request for either examining records or purchasing copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies … the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
timelines
deadlines
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, it is the petitioner's responsibility to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the specific statute.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222033-REL
Case Title
Roberta J Stevenson-McDermott vs. Four Palms Homeowners
Decision Date
2022-07-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Must I submit my request for HOA financial records in writing?
Short Answer
Yes, the statute explicitly requires that requests for examination of records be made in writing.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled against the homeowner partly because she failed to provide evidence of a written request. The decision emphasizes that the governing statute requires requests for examination to be in writing to be valid and enforceable.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1258 requires that association documents, with certain identified exceptions, 'shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…in writing'.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
records request
procedural requirements
Question
Do I have the right to look through all HOA documents whenever I want?
Short Answer
No, homeowners do not have an unlimited right to peruse all association documents at will.
Detailed Answer
While the law requires records to be reasonably available, it does not grant an unfettered right to browse all documents. Specific procedures must be followed, and certain documents may be withheld.
Alj Quote
Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258
Topic Tags
homeowner rights
limitations
Question
What happens if I cannot prove I sent a written request for records?
Short Answer
Your petition may be denied for failing to meet the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the homeowner claimed she was denied access, but the judge found she failed to establish a denial because the preponderance of the evidence showed she had not made the required written request.
Alj Quote
Further, the preponderance of the evidence showed that she has failed to make any such request in writing as the statute requires. … Therefore, at this time, Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
evidence
Question
Can the HOA charge me for copies of records?
Short Answer
Yes, the HOA is allowed to charge a fee for copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute permits the association to charge a fee per page for making copies of requested records, provided the request is for the purchase of copies.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
fees
copies
Question
Is the HOA allowed to withhold certain records from me?
Short Answer
Yes, specific categories of records, such as personal or privileged information, may be withheld.
Detailed Answer
The decision outlines statutory exceptions where books and records can be withheld, including privileged attorney communications, pending litigation, and personal financial or health records of individual members or employees.
Alj Quote
Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: … Personal, health or financial records of an individual member of the association…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)
Topic Tags
privacy
exemptions
Question
How long does the HOA have to fulfill my request for records?
Short Answer
The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute mandates a ten-business-day timeframe for the association to comply with a written request for either examining records or purchasing copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies … the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
timelines
deadlines
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, it is the petitioner's responsibility to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the specific statute.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222033-REL
Case Title
Roberta J Stevenson-McDermott vs. Four Palms Homeowners
Decision Date
2022-07-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Roberta J Stevenson-McDermott(petitioner)
Sean Embry(owner/witness) Provided letter of support (not admitted as evidence)
Lenor Embry(owner/witness) Provided letter of support (not admitted as evidence)
Philip Smith(owner/witness) Provided letter of support (not admitted as evidence)
c. serrano(clerical staff) Transmitted document for Petitioner
Respondent Side
Araceli Rodriguez(HOA attorney) Yuma Law Firm (inferred) Represented Four Palms Homeowners Association
Faye Burson(board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Vice President and witness (also listed as FA Buren)
Mario Salinas(board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Treasurer and witness (also listed as Mario Selenus)
Gilbert Sto(board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA President
Lesie Blessing(board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Vice President (2016 board) and Secretary (current board)
Gail Hall(board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Fifth member
Linia Ohn(former board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Received payments in 2018 (also listed as Lenia own)
Scott Hoser(former board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Fifth member (2016 board)
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(ADRE Commissioner) ADRE
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) ADRE Transmitted decision
Other Participants
Lisa Bon(former board member/owner) Secretary (2016 board); provided letter of support to Petitioner
