Tag Archives: ADS

Arroyo Mountain Estate HOA vs. Goebel: A Dispute Over Architectural Approval

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive overview of the dispute between the Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association (HOA) and homeowners Rick and Elizabeth Goebel, culminating in an administrative law hearing on August 28, 2024. The central conflict revolves around the construction of a courtyard wall at the Goebels’ property, which the HOA alleged was unapproved and in violation of community guidelines.

The Goebels maintained that they followed all required procedures, submitting multiple revised applications at the HOA’s request, and ultimately received explicit, unconditional approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) before commencing work. They argued that they built a “courtyard wall” in conformance with section 2.9 of the guidelines, which does not specify a height limit, and not a “pony wall,” which is restricted to 42 inches under section 2.24.

The HOA contended that the Goebels’ application was misleading due to a lack of critical details, specifically the wall’s 8-foot 8-inch height and a three-foot overhead hood. Key members of the ARC testified they understood the application to be for landscaping only and would have denied it had the full scope been clear. The HOA argued the constructed wall violates the spirit and letter of the guidelines intended to maintain community aesthetic uniformity.

The case concluded with a definitive ruling by an Administrative Law Judge on September 11, 2024. The judge denied the HOA’s petition, finding that they had not met their burden of proof. The decision highlighted that the Goebels had followed the prescribed process, justifiably relied on the ARC’s formal approval, and that the HOA’s month-long delay in issuing a stop-construction notice was unreasonable. The ruling deemed the ARC’s approval “tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines.”

The Core Dispute: The Courtyard Wall

The conflict centers on improvements made at the Goebels’ property, located at 5408 North Prescott Court (incorrectly listed multiple times in HOA documents as 5408 North Carson Court). The primary structure in question is a wall enclosing a front courtyard area, which the Goebels’ plans identified as a “courtyard wall.”

Alleged Violations by the HOA

The HOA’s petition alleged that the Goebels were in violation of two primary governing documents:

1. CC&Rs Article V, Section 5.22: This section requires homeowners to receive ARC approval before beginning any construction that alters the exterior appearance of a property, demanding that requests “Specify in detail the nature and extent of construction.”

2. Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines, Section 2.24: This section governs “Pony Walls and Courtyards,” stating that pony walls constructed in a front yard to form a courtyard “should be no higher than 42 inches.”

The HOA argued that the wall built by the Goebels, which reaches a height of approximately 8 feet 8 inches, is functionally a pony wall and therefore violates the 42-inch height restriction.

The Homeowner’s (Goebel) Position and Timeline

The Goebels’ defense was anchored in their assertion of procedural compliance, reliance on a formal approval, and a belief that they were being unfairly targeted.

Application and Approval Process

The timeline of the application process was a key element of the Goebels’ case:

Dec 30, 2022

Initial consolidated application for all improvements submitted via email.

Jan 3, 2023

Initial application denied with the instruction to “please resubmit separate applications for the different projects.”

Jan 3, 2023

Revised, separate applications submitted to the community manager, Katie Sand.

Jan 3, 2023

Additional comments received from Katie Sand requesting further changes.

Jan 3, 2023

Final revised applications submitted at 4:14 p.m. and notice of acceptance received at 4:26 p.m.

Jan 5, 2023

The ARC formally approved the applications, within 48 hours of submission, without requesting additional information.

Argument of Good Faith and Procedural Adherence

Mr. Goebel argued that he diligently followed the HOA’s process and could not have done more to ensure compliance.

“I follow the requirement of the architectural community prepared the application submitted the application via the appropriate application approval process and received approval. It’s unclear what I’m being violated for. It is unclear as to how I violated any part of the approval or constructed improvements not identified on the plan.” – Rick Goebel

He emphasized that the ARC, under its own guidelines, had the power to request more information if the application was deemed incomplete but chose not to, instead granting full approval. Elizabeth Goebel further stated, “they approved the application and we move forward with our approval… We still got the approval. We moved forward in good faith and constructed what we had done.”

Construction Timeline and HOA Response

• March 21, 2023: Engineering drawings submitted to Maricopa County.

• March 24, 2023: Technical approvals and permits issued by the county.

• April 7, 2023: Construction commenced.

• April 19, 2023: The wall reached its full height.

• May 12, 2023: Nearly one month after the wall was completed, the Goebels received a stop-construction notice from the HOA.

Claims of Targeted Harassment

Mr. Goebel testified that he felt his family and home were being targeted by board members, leading to significant distress and financial cost.

“Over the past 12 months, I’ve had to deal with continued harassment from our board… People drive past my home, take pictures of my home. John Conalo has driven past my home multiple times taking pictures of my home… I have people to drive by my home, take photos and post these photos online and generally disrupt the reasonable enjoyment of my property. I am of the opinion that me and my home are being targeted for these improvements by members of the board who are utilizing funds to support the basic attack.” – Rick Goebel

The Homeowners Association’s (HOA) Position

The HOA’s case, presented by attorney Daniel Francom, focused on the argument that the Goebels’ application was deficient and that any approval granted was therefore invalid for the wall as constructed.

Insufficient Detail and Misleading Application

The HOA argued the Goebels “failed to provide sufficient details” in their application.

• Wall Height: The plans did not specify the wall would be 8 feet 8 inches high.

• Overhead Hood: The plans did not clearly indicate a three-foot deep overhead structure above the gate.

• County Plans: The detailed plans submitted to Maricopa County, which included engineering reports and the exact wall height, were never provided to the HOA.

Board President John Consalvo testified that the application “showed nothing about a construction wall showing landscape application turned in.”

Architectural Committee’s Interpretation

ARC member Judy Oliver provided crucial testimony for the HOA, stating that the committee was misled by the application’s presentation.

• She testified that since the application was titled “revamping of landscaping,” she and other members “assumed that this was regarding landscaping only.”

• Regarding the wall itself, she stated, “I felt that that wall wasn’t even up for discussion at the time.”

• Crucially, she asserted that had the Goebels provided specifics for an 8-foot wall, the committee would have denied the project as it “counters the architectural guidelines.”

Violation of Guideline 2.24 (“Pony Walls”)

The HOA’s legal argument rested on classifying the Goebels’ structure under section 2.24. They argued that because the wall creates a courtyard, it should be considered a “pony wall” and is therefore subject to the 42-inch height limit, regardless of what the Goebels labeled it in their plans. They argued the wall “sticks out like a sore thumb” and that there are no other similar walls in the community.

Key Witness Testimony

Ms. Rozzo’s testimony significantly undermined the HOA’s position.

• Admission of Error: When asked if she noted the courtyard wall, she stated, “No, I absolutely missed it. I am completely honest about that. I have missed it just like we’ve missed other ones and nothing’s done about it.”

• Precedent of Inaction: She testified that the ARC had mistakenly approved “at least 15 to 20 homes” with non-compliant improvements and that “the HOA has never pursued them.” She cited unapproved walls, pavers, and concrete pads at other properties.

• Challenge to HOA’s Pursuit: She expressed surprise that the HOA was pursuing this case, stating that when she told John Consalvo that pursuing the Goebels meant they should pursue all other erroneous approvals, he “chuckled and said, ‘Mike, my neighbor,'” implying a neighbor of the board president also had unapproved improvements.

• Board Vote: Ms. Rozzo, who was also a board member for a short time, revealed that the decision to take action against the Goebels was not unanimous, with two of the five board members voting “no.”

Mr. Consalvo testified that the board’s function is to maintain the community and enforce HOA rules. He stated that the Goebels’ application did not provide the required detail for the courtyard wall, its height, or the overhead gate structure. He confirmed he took photos of the property and that, in his view, the wall as built did not conform to any approved application and should have been limited to 42 inches.

Ms. Oliver testified she had been on the ARC since 2017. She stated that the application was understood to be for landscaping and that the wall was not considered for approval due to the lack of detail. She testified that had the 8-foot height been specified, the application would have been denied.

The Final Decision: Administrative Law Judge Ruling

On September 11, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone issued a final, binding decision in the case (No. 24F-H050-REL).

Ruling

The Petitioner’s (HOA’s) petition was denied. The judge found that the HOA failed to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Reasoning for the Decision

The judge provided a clear, multi-point rationale for siding with the Goebels:

1. Procedural Compliance: “Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC.”

2. Justifiable Reliance on Approval: The ARC had multiple opportunities to question the plans and did so on other matters. The judge concluded that Ms. Rozzo’s approval, even if she “missed it,” was a formal action on which the “Respondent justifiably relied… and moved ahead with construction.”

3. Approval as an Exception: The judge stated the formal approval “was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.”

4. Unreasonable Delay by HOA: The judge found that for the HOA “to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.”

5. Inconsistent Enforcement: The judge noted that “this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines,” referencing the testimony about other unpursued violations in the community.

Final Order

• The HOA’s petition was formally denied.

• The Respondent (Goebels) was not required to reimburse the HOA’s $500 filing fee.

Briefing on Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association (“Blue Ridge”). The core issue was Blue Ridge’s denial of Mr. Mandela’s request to build a patio shade structure.

In the initial hearing on January 13, 2021, Mr. Mandela argued the denial was erroneous because the shade would be attached to his house, not a separate structure, and that similar structures existed in the community. Blue Ridge defended its decision based on Article X of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which limits properties to one structure besides the main residence. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, finding that Blue Ridge acted within the authority granted by its CC&Rs, as its architectural standards were not exhaustive and it provided a reasonably detailed written reason for the denial.

Following this decision, Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing, which took place on April 16, 2021. During this second hearing, he introduced a new argument that Blue Ridge had violated Article 10.3 of the CC&Rs by failing to respond to his request within the stipulated 30-day timeframe. However, the ALJ found that the same article specifies that a failure to respond results in the request being “deemed disapproved.” The ALJ concluded that Mr. Mandela had failed to follow the subsequent appeal procedures outlined in the CC&Rs and again failed to meet his burden of proof. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Blue Ridge was declared the prevailing party. Notably, during the rehearing, Mr. Mandela testified that his request for the patio shade had since been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

Initial Hearing and Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL)

The first evidentiary hearing was held on January 13, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone to address Mr. Mandela’s petition alleging Blue Ridge violated its CC&Rs.

The Core Dispute

• Petitioner’s Request: On August 28, 2019, Charles P. Mandela submitted a request to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet,” described as a four-post structure he intended to attach to the east wall of his residence.

• Respondent’s Denial: On October 25, 2019, Blue Ridge denied the request, stating: “Only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property. The site plan that was given for review shows the residence and also a shed on property already existing, this would be the allowable limit per the Architectural Standards.”

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Argued passionately that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was to be attached to the house, not a separate, stand-alone structure.

◦ Presented photographs of other properties within Blue Ridge Estates that had multiple structures and stand-alone patio shades similar to his proposal.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Contended it properly followed Article X of the CC&Rs in its denial.

◦ At the hearing, Blue Ridge pointed to Article III of the CC&Rs as justification, classifying the proposed shade as an additional structure on the property.

Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, concluding he had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Blue Ridge violated Article X of the CC&Rs.

• Interpretation of CC&R Section 10.2: The judge found that the architectural standards listed in this section were explicitly not exhaustive. The text states standards “may include, without limitation, provisions regarding” aspects like size, design, and placement. This allowed the architectural committee to deny the request based on the “one additional structure” rule, even if not explicitly listed.

• Compliance with CC&R Section 10.3: This section requires the committee to provide “reasonably detailed written reasons for such disapproval.” The judge found that the denial email of October 25, 2019, fulfilled this requirement. The email did not need to cite a specific CC&R section, only to provide an explanation.

• On Precedent and Fairness: The ALJ acknowledged Mr. Mandela’s evidence of similar structures on other properties. However, the decision noted: “While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.”

• Final Ruling: The petition was denied in a decision dated January 29, 2021.

Rehearing and Final Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG)

Mr. Mandela filed for a rehearing on February 5, 2021, on the grounds that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence. The Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner granted the request, and a new hearing was held on April 16, 2021.

New Testimony and Arguments

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Subsequent Approval: Testified that since the January 29, 2021 decision, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

◦ Procedural Violation: Argued that Blue Ridge violated CC&R Section 10.3 by failing to respond to his August 28, 2019, request within the required 30-day period, as the denial was not issued until October 25, 2019.

◦ History of Denials: Stated he had made several previous requests in 2018 and 2019 that were either denied or ignored.

◦ Discrimination: Claimed he had been discriminated against due to the previous denials.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Interpretation of Section 10.3: Argued that while the section may be “confusingly drafted,” it stipulates that if the committee fails to respond within 30 days, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the board acted within its authority.

◦ Failure to Appeal: Contended that Mr. Mandela failed to follow the proper appeal procedure outlined in the CC&Rs, as he never specifically requested a meeting to discuss the denial.

Judge’s Final Findings and Conclusions

The ALJ affirmed the original decision, finding for the Respondent as the prevailing party and dismissing Mr. Mandela’s appeal.

• Scope of Rehearing: The judge determined that the rehearing was limited to the August 28, 2019, request and its subsequent denial, as that was the sole focus of the original petition. Mr. Mandela’s arguments about prior denials were not considered new evidence relevant to the specific violation alleged.

• Interpretation of the 30-Day Rule: The ALJ sided with the HOA’s interpretation of Section 10.3. While acknowledging that Blue Ridge took more than thirty days to issue a written denial, the judge ruled that the CC&R’s provision for a “deemed disapproved” status meant the request was properly denied under the rules.

• Petitioner’s Failure to Follow Procedure: The judge noted that Mr. Mandela admitted he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee after the denial, which was the required next step in the appeal process under Section 10.3.

• Final Ruling: The final decision, dated April 27, 2021, concluded that Mr. Mandela failed to sustain his burden of proof. The HOA was found to have acted in compliance with the CC&Rs, and the appeal was dismissed. This order was declared binding on the parties.

Timeline of Key Events

August 28, 2019

Charles Mandela submits his request to build a patio shade.

October 25, 2019

Blue Ridge HOA denies the request via email, citing the one-additional-structure limit.

January 13, 2020

Mandela files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

January 13, 2021

The first evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

January 29, 2021

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision denying Mandela’s petition.

February 5, 2021

Mandela files a request for a rehearing.

March 15, 2021

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.

April 16, 2021

The rehearing is conducted.

April 27, 2021

The ALJ issues a final decision, finding for the HOA and dismissing Mandela’s appeal.

Central CC&R Provision: Article X, Section 10.3

The most heavily debated provision was Section 10.3 of the Blue Ridge Estates CC&Rs, which outlines the procedure for architectural requests. Its language was central to the outcome of the rehearing.

Key text from Section 10.3:

“The Architectural Committee shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of such plans, specifications, and elevations to approve or disapprove of the proposed construction… In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved and the Owner can then request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for such disapproval…”

This clause was interpreted by the ALJ to mean that the HOA’s failure to provide a written response within 30 days automatically constituted a denial, shifting the burden to the homeowner to request a follow-up meeting, a step Mr. Mandela did not take.

Briefing Document: Abbass vs. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and final order from the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in case number 20F-H2020057-REL-RHG, a dispute between homeowner Susan E. Abbass (Petitioner) and the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s request for the HOA to compel an inspection of a neighboring property, believed to be the source of a recurring water leak into her home.

The ALJ ultimately dismissed the Petitioner’s case, ruling in favor of the Respondent. The decision hinged on a critical distinction within the community’s governing documents (CCR’s): while the HOA possesses the right to enter a property under certain conditions, it does not have an explicit obligation to do so. The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the HOA had violated the CCR’s. The ALJ concluded that the HOA acted reasonably by contacting the neighbor and reviewing the provided information, and that forcing access without more definitive proof could expose the HOA to legal risk. The decision suggests the Petitioner may be pursuing relief in an incorrect venue or against the incorrect party.

Case Overview

Case Name

Susan E Abbass vs. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association

Case Number

20F-H2020057-REL-RHG

Jurisdiction

In the Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona)

Administrative Law Judge

Adam D. Stone

Petitioner

Susan E. Abbass

Respondent

10000 North Central Homeowners Association (represented by Blake Johnson, Esq.)

Hearing Date

November 24, 2020 (Rehearing)

Decision Date

December 1, 2020

Core Dispute and Allegations

Petitioner’s Central Claim

The Petitioner, Susan E. Abbass, alleged that the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR’s) by failing to authorize an inspection on a neighboring property. The Petitioner’s home was experiencing water intrusion every time it rained, and she believed the leak originated from the adjacent lot.

• Alleged Violations: The petition cited violations of the CCR’s Article XII, Section 6 and Article XIII, Sections 1(d) and 4.

• Argument: The Petitioner contended that the recurring water leak constituted an “emergency” situation, obligating the HOA to act.

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence

• Financial Responsibility: The Petitioner stated she was “ready, willing and able to be financially responsible for the cost of any inspections/surveys which needed to be performed on the neighboring property.”

• Due Diligence: Inspections and surveys conducted on her own property determined that the leak was not originating from there.

• Frustration: The Petitioner noted that over a year had passed since the leaking first occurred with no resolution from the HOA or the neighbor.

• Key Concession: During the rehearing, the Petitioner “agreed that Respondent does not have an obligation to enter the property, only the right.”

Respondent’s Defense and Actions

Respondent’s Position

The HOA argued that it did not have sufficient evidence to justify compelling access to the neighboring property. The property manager, Robert Kersten, testified for the Respondent.

• Lack of Proof: The HOA determined that the information provided by the Petitioner did not meet the criteria for forcing entry onto the neighbor’s property.

• Legal Risk: The Respondent expressed concern that if it “overstepped its authority, it could open itself up to other causes of action.”

Actions Taken by the HOA

Despite denying the Petitioner’s request to force an inspection, the HOA took the following steps:

• It reached out to the neighboring property owner to request access.

• It sent a warning letter to the neighbor regarding “improper vegetation” on the property.

• It contacted the neighbor, who, upon information and belief, had her insurance company inspect the water flow. The insurance company reportedly determined the neighbor was not at fault.

• At the rehearing, the Respondent submitted photographic evidence (Exhibits K, L, and M) purportedly showing a fixed pipe and drainage moving away from the Petitioner’s property.

Procedural History and Rehearing

1. Petition Filed (May 5, 2020): Petitioner filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

2. Initial Hearing (July 28, 2020): The first hearing was conducted.

3. Initial Decision (August 17, 2020): The ALJ issued a decision concluding the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof, as the HOA only had the right to enter the property, not an obligation.

4. Rehearing Request (August 31, 2020): Petitioner requested a rehearing, claiming the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion” and “not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.”

5. Rehearing Granted (October 14, 2020): The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing request.

6. Rehearing Conducted (November 24, 2020): The ALJ conducted a new hearing to reconsider the evidence.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

Burden of Proof

The ALJ reiterated that the Petitioner bears the burden to prove the alleged violations by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

• Conclusion on Evidence: The ALJ found that on rehearing, the “Petitioner failed to provide new evidence or witness testimony demonstrating that Respondent violated Article XII and Article XIII of the CCR’s.”

Key Judicial Determinations

• Right vs. Obligation: The central legal conclusion is that the HOA’s authority is discretionary. The CCR’s grant a right to enter property but do not impose an obligation to do so upon a homeowner’s request.

• HOA’s Conduct: The judge determined that the HOA had acted appropriately and in compliance with the CCR’s. The decision notes, “Respondent was receptive to the information provided by Petitioner and requested the neighboring property owners cooperation. While the neighboring owner may not have fully cooperated to the liking of Petitioner, Respondent still followed the CCR’s to the best of its ability at this point.”

• Statutory Limitations on ALJ: The ALJ is bound by Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), which limits the judge’s authority to ordering a party to “abide by the statutes, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue.” The ALJ concluded, “it too cannot force the neighbor or the Respondent to grant access to the property.”

• Incorrect Venue: The decision strongly suggests the Petitioner is pursuing the wrong legal remedy: “While the possibility of future leaking is certainly frustrating, it appears that Petitioner has or the incorrect venue and possibly party to grant the relief for which it seeks.”

Final Order and Implications

• Ruling: The ALJ ordered that “the Respondent is the prevailing party with regard to the rehearing, and Petitioner’s appeal is dismissed.”

• Binding Nature: As a result of a rehearing, the administrative law judge order is binding on the parties.

• Appeal Process: Any party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review by filing with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.