Tag Archives: ADS

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel, Rick Jr. & Elizabeth

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H050-REL
Agency —
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2024-09-11
Administrative Law Judge ADS
Outcome —
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Counsel Daniel S. Francom, Esq.
Respondent Rick Goebel Jr. & Elizabeth Goebel Counsel Pro se

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H050-REL Decision – 1222437.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:25:07 (132.2 KB)

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.

Questions

Question

If the HOA approves my architectural application, can they later claim a violation because they 'missed' details in the plan?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA approves the application, the homeowner can justifiably rely on that approval to proceed, even if the committee claims they missed specific details during review.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that once an application is approved, the homeowner has the right to rely on that approval to begin construction. Even if an Architectural Committee member testifies later that they 'missed' a detail (like a wall height) during their review, the approval stands. The HOA cannot penalize the homeowner for the committee's oversight after approval has been granted.

Alj Quote

Ms. Rozzo testified that while she may have “missed it”, the Application was nonetheless approved, and Respondent justifiably relied on the approval and moved ahead with construction.

Legal Basis

Justifiable Reliance

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • committee oversight
  • homeowner reliance

Question

Can an approved application serve as a valid exception to written architectural guidelines?

Short Answer

Yes. An approved application can be considered tantamount to an exception to the community's design guidelines.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA argued the construction violated height guidelines. However, because the specific project plans were submitted and approved by the committee, the ALJ determined that this approval effectively acted as an exception to the general guidelines, making the construction permissible.

Alj Quote

This was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.

Legal Basis

Exception to Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • guidelines
  • exceptions
  • compliance

Question

Is it reasonable for an HOA to issue a stop work notice after I have already completed my project?

Short Answer

No. Waiting until a project is completed to issue a stop construction notice is considered unreasonable.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA failed to act in a timely manner. Issuing a stop construction notice nearly a month after the homeowner had already finished building the structure was deemed unreasonable behavior by the association.

Alj Quote

Moreover, for Petitioner to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.

Legal Basis

Reasonableness / Laches

Topic Tags

  • enforcement timing
  • stop work order
  • construction

Question

Who has to prove that a violation occurred during an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

The HOA (the Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

When an HOA petitions for a hearing regarding a violation, they must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this burden, the homeowner prevails.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • evidence
  • burden of proof

Question

Does it matter if the HOA has allowed other non-compliant projects in the neighborhood?

Short Answer

Yes. Evidence that the HOA has previously approved other projects that did not meet guidelines can support the homeowner's defense.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the evidence showed this was not an isolated incident; the Architectural Committee had previously approved other projects that were not compliant with the Guidelines. This pattern weakens the HOA's position in enforcing the rule against the current homeowner.

Alj Quote

Further, as the evidence provided, this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines.

Legal Basis

Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent

Topic Tags

  • selective enforcement
  • consistency
  • precedent

Question

If I submit an application and answer the committee's questions, do I have to ensure they asked about every single detail?

Short Answer

No. If you follow the submission process and the committee has the opportunity to ask questions but doesn't, the responsibility lies with them.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner followed the CC&R process by submitting the application. The committee had multiple chances to ask for clarification or details (like height) but failed to do so before approving. The judge ruled the homeowner followed the proper process.

Alj Quote

Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC. The ARC had many opportunities thereafter to question Respondent about the project

Legal Basis

Due Process / Procedural Compliance

Topic Tags

  • application process
  • due diligence
  • homeowner obligations

Question

Do I have to pay the HOA's filing fees if they sue me and lose?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA's petition is denied, the homeowner is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ explicitly ordered that because the petition was denied, the respondent (homeowner) was not required to pay back the $500 filing fee that the HOA paid to the Department.

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

  • fees
  • penalties
  • costs

Case

Docket No
24F-H050-REL
Case Title
Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel
Decision Date
2024-09-11
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If the HOA approves my architectural application, can they later claim a violation because they 'missed' details in the plan?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA approves the application, the homeowner can justifiably rely on that approval to proceed, even if the committee claims they missed specific details during review.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that once an application is approved, the homeowner has the right to rely on that approval to begin construction. Even if an Architectural Committee member testifies later that they 'missed' a detail (like a wall height) during their review, the approval stands. The HOA cannot penalize the homeowner for the committee's oversight after approval has been granted.

Alj Quote

Ms. Rozzo testified that while she may have “missed it”, the Application was nonetheless approved, and Respondent justifiably relied on the approval and moved ahead with construction.

Legal Basis

Justifiable Reliance

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • committee oversight
  • homeowner reliance

Question

Can an approved application serve as a valid exception to written architectural guidelines?

Short Answer

Yes. An approved application can be considered tantamount to an exception to the community's design guidelines.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA argued the construction violated height guidelines. However, because the specific project plans were submitted and approved by the committee, the ALJ determined that this approval effectively acted as an exception to the general guidelines, making the construction permissible.

Alj Quote

This was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.

Legal Basis

Exception to Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • guidelines
  • exceptions
  • compliance

Question

Is it reasonable for an HOA to issue a stop work notice after I have already completed my project?

Short Answer

No. Waiting until a project is completed to issue a stop construction notice is considered unreasonable.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA failed to act in a timely manner. Issuing a stop construction notice nearly a month after the homeowner had already finished building the structure was deemed unreasonable behavior by the association.

Alj Quote

Moreover, for Petitioner to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.

Legal Basis

Reasonableness / Laches

Topic Tags

  • enforcement timing
  • stop work order
  • construction

Question

Who has to prove that a violation occurred during an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

The HOA (the Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

When an HOA petitions for a hearing regarding a violation, they must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this burden, the homeowner prevails.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • evidence
  • burden of proof

Question

Does it matter if the HOA has allowed other non-compliant projects in the neighborhood?

Short Answer

Yes. Evidence that the HOA has previously approved other projects that did not meet guidelines can support the homeowner's defense.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the evidence showed this was not an isolated incident; the Architectural Committee had previously approved other projects that were not compliant with the Guidelines. This pattern weakens the HOA's position in enforcing the rule against the current homeowner.

Alj Quote

Further, as the evidence provided, this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines.

Legal Basis

Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent

Topic Tags

  • selective enforcement
  • consistency
  • precedent

Question

If I submit an application and answer the committee's questions, do I have to ensure they asked about every single detail?

Short Answer

No. If you follow the submission process and the committee has the opportunity to ask questions but doesn't, the responsibility lies with them.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner followed the CC&R process by submitting the application. The committee had multiple chances to ask for clarification or details (like height) but failed to do so before approving. The judge ruled the homeowner followed the proper process.

Alj Quote

Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC. The ARC had many opportunities thereafter to question Respondent about the project

Legal Basis

Due Process / Procedural Compliance

Topic Tags

  • application process
  • due diligence
  • homeowner obligations

Question

Do I have to pay the HOA's filing fees if they sue me and lose?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA's petition is denied, the homeowner is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ explicitly ordered that because the petition was denied, the respondent (homeowner) was not required to pay back the $500 filing fee that the HOA paid to the Department.

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

  • fees
  • penalties
  • costs

Case

Docket No
24F-H050-REL
Case Title
Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel
Decision Date
2024-09-11
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Daniel S. Francom (Attorney)
    Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association
  • John Consalvo (Witness)
    Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association
    Board President
  • Judy Oliver (Witness)
    Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association
    Architectural Committee Member

Respondent Side

  • Rick Goebel Jr. (Respondent)
  • Elizabeth Goebel (Respondent)
  • Nancy Rozzo (Witness)
    Architectural Committee Member who approved the application

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Jerome L. Glazer vs Heritage Village III Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H039-REL
Agency —
Tribunal Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2024-08-23
Administrative Law Judge ADS
Outcome complete
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Taylor Kidd Counsel Patrick T. Nackley, Brandon P. Bodea
Respondent Heritage Village III Homeowners Association Counsel Tessa Knueppel, Mark K. Sahl, Charles H. Oldham, Josh Bolen

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H039-REL Decision – 1182719.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:23:10 (62.8 KB)

24F-H039-REL Decision – 1182767.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:23:18 (13.4 KB)

24F-H039-REL Decision – 1182769.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:23:21 (50.0 KB)

24F-H039-REL Decision – 1203525.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:23:25 (49.3 KB)

24F-H039-REL Decision – 1215299.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:23:28 (123.4 KB)

24F-H039-REL Decision – 1226570.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:23:31 (39.7 KB)

Briefing Document: Kidd and Glazer v. Heritage Village III Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document details the legal proceedings and final decision in the consolidated matters of Taylor Kidd and Jerome L. Glazer vs. Heritage Village III Homeowners Association (Case Nos. 24F-H037-REL and 24F-H039-REL). The dispute centered on the Respondent’s approval of a $1.55 million "Landscape Improvement Project" and a subsequent $9,385.24 special assessment per homeowner, conducted without a membership vote.

The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) ultimately ruled in favor of the Petitioners, Taylor Kidd and Jerome L. Glazer. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Association’s governing documents explicitly incorporated the "McCormick Ranch CC&Rs," which require a two-thirds majority vote for capital improvement assessments. Because no such vote was held, the Association was found in violation of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners' filing fees.

Procedural History and Case Background

The following table outlines the timeline and administrative milestones of the case:

Date Event Details
February 27, 2024 Petition Filed (Kidd) Taylor Kidd filed a single-issue petition regarding the landscape project and paid a $500 fee.
February 29, 2024 Petition Filed (Glazer) Jerome L. Glazer filed a similar single-issue petition and paid a $500 fee.
May 28, 2024 Consolidation Order ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer ordered the cases consolidated for administrative efficiency.
May 28, 2024 Cease & Desist Denied The ALJ denied Glazer's request to halt project expenditures, citing a lack of authority to issue such orders.
May 30, 2024 Original Hearing Date Postponed due to a medical emergency involving Petitioner Glazer’s domestic partner.
July 19, 2024 Rescheduled Hearing Continued again due to a widespread computer outage.
August 9, 2024 Evidentiary Hearing Held before ALJ Adam D. Stone.
August 23, 2024 Final Decision ALJ Stone ruled in favor of Petitioners, granting their petitions.
September 23, 2024 Minute Entry ALJ Stone declined to consider a Motion for Rehearing, stating such requests must go to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Incorporation of External Governing Documents

The central legal conflict involved which CC&Rs governed the Association's actions. While the Association’s own CC&Rs were silent on the requirement for a membership vote for capital improvements, Article VII, Section 1 of their documents stated that the McCormick Ranch CC&Rs "are made part hereof and are hereby referenced as to the provisions required for this entire property."

The McCormick Ranch CC&Rs (Article III, Section 4) explicitly require the "assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes cast by Voting Owners" for special assessments related to capital improvements. The ALJ concluded that the Association could not cherry-pick which parts of the McCormick Ranch CC&Rs applied; the incorporation was total.

2. Board Authority vs. Member Consent

The Association, through Board member Jennifer Hutsko, argued that the Board had a fiduciary duty to maintain the property, which was suffering from a 40-year-old failing irrigation system and diseased trees. They contended that since the Association’s specific CC&Rs were silent on voting for maintenance, the Board could act unilaterally.

The Petitioners successfully argued that the "Landscape Improvement Project" constituted a capital improvement rather than routine maintenance. Consequently, the procedural requirement for a membership vote took precedence over the Board's unilateral decision-making authority.

3. Administrative Economy and Efficiency

The Respondent successfully moved to consolidate the Kidd and Glazer cases under ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-109(A). The consolidation was granted to avoid "potentially inconsistent rulings" and to promote administrative efficiency, as both matters involved objections from different homeowners to the same Board action. Despite objections from Taylor Kidd regarding potential delays, the ALJ found that the substantially similar factual and legal issues justified a single hearing.

4. Jurisdictional Limits of the OAH

A significant procedural theme was the ALJ's limited authority. When Petitioner Glazer requested a Cease and Desist Order to stop the Association from spending funds on the project, the ALJ denied the request, stating, "The Administrative Law Judge is without the authority to issue such an order in this matter." This highlights that while the OAH can adjudicate violations of community documents, its power to grant injunctive-style relief is restricted.

Important Quotes with Context

"Respondent violated McCormick Ranch CC&R’s Article III, Section 4, as it did not take the required vote, as well as and the Association CC&R’s Article VII, Section 1, by failing to follow the McCormick Ranch CC&R’s in regards to the same."

— ALJ Adam D. Stone, Final Decision (August 23, 2024). This quote summarizes the legal basis for the ruling, confirming that the Association is bound by the voting requirements of the incorporated documents.

"The letter also informed homeowners that there was a project cost of $1,557,950.00, which would be divided amongst the 166 homeowners, resulting in a special assessment in the amount of $9,385.24 per homeowner."

— Findings of Fact regarding Taylor Kidd's testimony. This provides the financial context of the dispute and the scale of the financial burden placed on the homeowners without their consent.

"While the Administrative Law Judge acknowledges that the decision to consolidate these matters is not required by the applicable rule, it is certainly permitted in this instance as these matters involve substantially similar factual or legal issues."

— ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer, Order Consolidating Matters (May 28, 2024). This clarifies the standard for consolidation in administrative hearings, prioritizing "administrative economy."

"The document, consisting of Motion for Rehearing, will not be considered as no further action can be taken on the matter. All requests for rehearing must be made directly to the Arizona Department of Real Estate."

— ALJ Adam D. Stone, Minute Entry (September 23, 2024). This illustrates the finality of the OAH's role and the transition of the case back to the Department of Real Estate for any further administrative appeals.

Actionable Insights

  • Review Incorporation Clauses: Homeowners' associations must carefully review their governing documents for "incorporation by reference" clauses. If an HOA's documents incorporate the rules of a master association (like McCormick Ranch), those rules are legally binding even if they are more restrictive than the HOA's own specific bylaws.
  • Definition of Capital Improvements: Boards should clearly distinguish between routine maintenance and "capital improvements." While maintenance may fall under Board authority, major projects—especially those requiring significant special assessments—often trigger mandatory voting requirements.
  • Special Assessment Procedures: Before levying a special assessment, Boards must ensure they have met all procedural prerequisites, such as membership votes and quorum requirements, as dictated by the hierarchy of their governing documents.
  • Reimbursement Risks: Under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), if an Association is found in violation, they are legally required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fees. In this case, the Association was ordered to pay $1,000 total ($500 to each Petitioner).
  • Appellate Path: Parties dissatisfied with an ALJ decision must file their request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the order, rather than filing with the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Study Guide: Kidd and Glazer vs. Heritage Village III Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal proceedings between Petitioners Taylor Kidd and Jerome L. Glazer and the Respondent, Heritage Village III Homeowners Association. It covers procedural motions, governing legal standards, the core conflict regarding CC&Rs, and the final administrative decision.

1. Case Overview and Background

The dispute centered on a proposed Landscape Improvement Project initiated by the Heritage Village III Homeowners Association Board of Directors.

  • The Project: A $1,557,950.00 landscaping initiative intended to address dead/dying vegetation and a failing 40-year-old irrigation system.
  • The Assessment: The project cost was to be divided among 166 homeowners, resulting in a special assessment of $9,385.24 per homeowner.
  • The Dispute: Petitioners Kidd and Glazer alleged the Board approved this capital improvement and special assessment without the 75% or two-thirds homeowner vote required by governing documents.
  • The Venue: The Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), acting on behalf of the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).

2. Key Legal Concepts and Standards

Administrative Procedures
  • Consolidation (ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-109(A)): An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) may consolidate pending matters if there are "substantially similar factual or legal issues" or if "all parties are the same." In this case, the matters were consolidated for administrative economy because they involved the same Board action, despite the petitioners being different individuals.
  • Continuance: A delay in proceedings. This occurred twice: once due to Petitioner Glazer’s domestic partner's surgery and once due to a widespread computer outage on July 19, 2024.
  • Jurisdiction: Under ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199, the ADRE and OAH have the authority to hear disputes between homeowners and planned community associations regarding violations of community documents.
  • Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bears the burden of proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence.
Governing Documents
  • CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The primary rules governing the homeowners' association.
  • Incorporation by Reference: A legal mechanism where one document makes another document part of itself. Here, the Heritage Village III CC&Rs (Article VII, Section 1) incorporated the McCormick Ranch CC&Rs.

3. Chronology of Proceedings (2024)

Date Event Details
Feb 27–29 Petitions Filed Kidd and Glazer filed separate petitions with the ADRE ($500 fee each).
May 28 Consolidation Order ALJ Eigenheer consolidated cases 24F-H037-REL and 24F-H039-REL.
May 28 Cease & Desist Denied ALJ Eigenheer ruled the OAH lacked authority to stop HOA spending before a decision.
July 19 Original Hearing Date Postponed due to a computer outage.
Aug 9 Evidentiary Hearing Held before ALJ Adam D. Stone; testimony provided by Kidd, Glazer, and Board member Hutsko.
Aug 23 Final Decision ALJ Stone ruled in favor of Petitioners, finding the HOA violated CC&Rs.
Sept 23 Minute Entry OAH declined to hear a Motion for Rehearing, as such motions must be filed with the ADRE.

4. Short-Answer Practice Quiz

  1. What was the specific financial assessment proposed for each homeowner for the landscaping project?
  2. **According to ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-109(A), what are the two conditions under which an ALJ may consolidate cases?**
  3. Why did the Administrative Law Judge deny Petitioner Glazer’s request for a Cease and Desist Order?
  4. What was the primary reason the Association argued they did not need a homeowner vote for the project?
  5. Which specific section of the McCormick Ranch CC&Rs requires a two-thirds vote for special assessments related to capital improvements?
  6. What was the final ruling regarding the filing fees paid by the Petitioners?
  7. What reason was given for the hearing continuance from July 19 to August 9, 2024?
  8. To which entity must a party submit a Motion for Rehearing after a final OAH decision has been issued?

5. Essay Questions for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Interplay of Governing Documents: Analyze how the "incorporation by reference" in Article VII, Section 1 of the Heritage Village III CC&Rs determined the outcome of the case. Why did the ALJ reject the Association's argument that they were only bound by "part" of the McCormick Ranch CC&Rs?
  2. Administrative Efficiency vs. Individual Rights: Discuss the arguments made for and against the consolidation of the Kidd and Glazer matters. How does ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-109(A) balance the need for "administrative economy" with the rights of individual petitioners to have their specific grievances heard without delay?
  3. The Scope of ALJ Authority: Examine the ALJ’s decision to deny the Cease and Desist Order. What does this reveal about the limitations of the Office of Administrative Hearings compared to other judicial venues?

6. Glossary of Important Terms

  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A judge who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies.
  • Capital Improvement: Substantial permanent changes or additions to a property (e.g., the $1.5M landscaping and irrigation overhaul).
  • Cease and Desist Order: An order to stop a specific activity.
  • Consolidation: The joining of two or more separate legal cases into one because they involve similar issues.
  • Continuance: A postponement of a legal proceeding or hearing to a later date.
  • Minute Entry: A brief record of the court's actions or rulings on a specific motion or procedural matter.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning a fact is "more probably true than not."
  • Special Assessment: A one-time fee charged to HOA members for a specific project or expense outside the regular annual dues.
  • Tribunal: A person or institution (like the OAH) with the authority to judge or determine claims or disputes.

The $1.5 Million Landscape Lesson: How Two Homeowners Successfully Challenged Their HOA Board

1. Introduction: The High Cost of Silence

On December 19, 2023, the 166 homeowners of Heritage Village III in Hereford, Arizona, received a holiday "gift" they never requested: a formal notice announcing a massive landscaping overhaul and a mandatory special assessment of $9,385.24 per household. There had been no community vote, no formal presentation of costs, and no opportunity for homeowners to weigh in on a project totaling over $1.5 million.

While many might have simply grumbled at the mailbox, two residents decided to hold their Board accountable. Taylor Kidd, represented by counsel Patrick T. Nackley, and Jerome L. Glazer, appearing pro se (representing himself), filed petitions with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. Their challenge against the Heritage Village III Homeowners Association was more than a dispute over grass and trees; it was a fight for procedural transparency and the supremacy of governing documents. Their victory provides a masterclass in how homeowners can successfully check Board overreach.

2. The Project That Sparked the Protest

The "Landscape Improvement Project" approved by the Board in 2023 was not a minor facelift. It was a seven-figure overhaul funded entirely by a surprise levy on the residents. The project specifics included:

  • Total Estimated Cost: $1,557,950.00.
  • Individual Impact: A $9,385.24 special assessment for every homeowner.
  • The Board’s Justification: Directors argued the community was suffering from a 40-year-old irrigation system requiring constant patchwork repairs, alongside dozens of dead or diseased trees. They framed the project as a necessary move toward water conservation.

However, the human cost was significant. During her testimony, Ms. Kidd—who purchased her home in 2014 specifically for its lush green grass—noted the Board offered no concrete evidence of water savings to justify the loss of the community's aesthetic character. The Board had prioritized a massive capital replacement under the guise of simple maintenance.

3. Procedural Hurdles: Consolidation and Outages

The path to justice was marked by administrative delays and technical failures. The cases (24F-H037-REL and 24F-H039-REL) were eventually consolidated for "administrative economy" because they shared substantially similar legal questions.

The timeline was stretched by two major events:

  • A Motion to Continue: Granted on May 28, 2024, after Petitioner Glazer’s domestic partner required major back surgery.
  • A Technical Outage: A scheduled hearing on July 19, 2024, was derailed by a widespread computer outage, pushing the final showdown to August 9, 2024, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone.
4. The Legal Battle: Maintenance Duty vs. Membership Votes

The Board’s defense relied on a common but fatal trap: the belief that their general fiduciary duty to maintain the property gave them a "blank check" to bypass membership approval. They argued that because their specific local CC&Rs were silent on voting for such projects, they could proceed based on a community survey showing 72% support.

The Petitioners countered that the Board was ignoring the community's "Master" documents. The following table highlights the clash:

The Board's Defense The Petitioners' Argument
Claim: The Board has a fiduciary duty to maintain property; the 40-year-old irrigation system was failing. Rebuttal: A $1.5M replacement of an entire system is a "capital improvement," not routine maintenance.
Claim: Local CC&Rs are silent on voting requirements for improvements. Rebuttal: McCormick Ranch CC&Rs (Article III, Section 4) require a 2/3 vote for capital improvement assessments.
Claim: A survey showed 72% of the community supported the project. Rebuttal: A survey is not a legal vote. The McCormick Ranch rules are incorporated by reference and take supremacy.

The "Hidden Link": The Petitioners correctly identified that Article VII, Section 1 of the Heritage Village III CC&Rs explicitly incorporated the McCormick Ranch CC&Rs, stating they were "made part hereof and are hereby referenced."

5. The Verdict: Why the "Fine Print" Mattered

On August 23, 2024, ALJ Adam D. Stone issued a definitive ruling in favor of the homeowners. The decision turned on the legal interpretation of the phrase "including but not limited to."

The Association argued this phrase limited the incorporation of McCormick Ranch rules to matters of dues and collections. Judge Stone disagreed, ruling that "including but not limited to" is an inclusive phrase that expands rather than restricts. By referencing the McCormick Ranch documents, the Association effectively imported the entire suite of homeowner protections, including the requirement for a two-thirds (2/3) membership vote for any Special Assessment for Capital Improvements.

The ALJ concluded that the Board committed a clear violation of its governing documents. They could not rebrand a massive construction project as "maintenance" to circumvent the democratic rights of the membership.

6. The Cease and Desist Side-Note

Earlier in the dispute, on May 28, 2024, Petitioner Glazer had sought a Cease and Desist order to stop the Board from spending any funds on the project until the hearing concluded. While the Judge eventually ruled that the Board's actions were unauthorized, the request for a Cease and Desist was denied at that time. The ALJ clarified that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacks the statutory authority to issue injunctive orders, noting that such relief must be sought in Superior Court or another appropriate venue.

7. Final Takeaways and Community Impact

This ruling is a significant win for homeowner rights in Arizona. Key lessons include:

  • Know Your Governing Documents: Always investigate if your local CC&Rs incorporate a master association’s rules. These "hidden links" often provide the strongest protections against Board overreach.
  • Surveys are Not Votes: A Board cannot use a "72% approval" survey to bypass a legally required formal vote. Procedural shortcuts are a breach of fiduciary duty.
  • The Cost of Non-Compliance: The HOA was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fees to both Ms. Kidd and Mr. Glazer.
  • Project Status: Because the homeowners acted swiftly, the project had not yet commenced and the assessment had not been officially levied at the time of the ruling.
8. Important Notice for Readers

Following the ALJ’s decision, a Minute Entry was issued on September 23, 2024, regarding a Motion for Rehearing. Homeowners and Boards must take note: The OAH loses jurisdiction the moment a decision is rendered. Any motions for rehearing must be filed directly with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) Commissioner, not the OAH. Attempting to file with the OAH after a decision is a procedural dead end.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jerome L. Glazer (Petitioner)
    Filed petition pro se.
  • Taylor Kidd (Petitioner)
  • Brandon P. Bodea (Attorney)
    MEDALIST LEGAL PLC
  • Patrick T. Nackley (Attorney)
    MEDALIST LEGAL PLC
    Appeared at hearing as representation for Taylor Kidd.

Respondent Side

  • Charles H. Oldham (Attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
  • Josh Bolen (Attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
  • Tessa Knueppel (Attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
    Appeared at hearing as representation for Heritage Village III Homeowners Association.
  • Mark K. Sahl (Attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
    Appeared at hearing as representation for Heritage Village III Homeowners Association.
  • Jennifer Hutsko (Witness)
    Heritage Village III Homeowners Association
    Board of Directors member and Community Planning Committee member; testified for the respondent.

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Issued initial procedural orders.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Adam D. Stone (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presided over the hearing and issued the decision.

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge, following a rehearing, affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article X regarding the denial of an architectural modification request for a patio shade. The Respondent was found to have acted in compliance with the community documents, and the appeal was dismissed.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charles P Mandela Counsel —
Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article X; CC&R Section 10.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge, following a rehearing, affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article X regarding the denial of an architectural modification request for a patio shade. The Respondent was found to have acted in compliance with the community documents, and the appeal was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&R's and failed to follow the procedural requirements necessary to appeal a deemed disapproval under CC&R Section 10.3.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request for patio shade structure and alleged violation of response timeline

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of his application for a patio shade, arguing the denial was improper because the shade would be attached (not a separate structure) and that the HOA missed the 30-day response deadline. The ALJ determined that the HOA's denial based on the 'only one structure other than the residence' rule (since a shed already existed) complied with the non-exhaustive Architectural Committee Standards (Article X, 10.2). Regarding the delayed response, the ALJ noted that Section 10.3 mandated that a late response results in the request being 'deemed disapproved,' and the Petitioner failed to subsequently request the required appeal meeting.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent violated Article X of the CC&R’s. The Respondent was declared the prevailing party, and the Petitioner's appeal (rehearing) was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • CC&R Article X
  • CC&R Section 10.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Review, Denial, Rehearing, Burden of Proof, Deemed Disapproved
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – 876009.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:30 (118.9 KB)

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020042-REL/850032.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:33 (113.4 KB)

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.

Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association, as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decisions from January 29, 2021, and April 27, 2021. The case centers on the denial of an architectural request and the interpretation of the association’s governing documents (CC&Rs).

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Key Facts and Arguments

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided legal decisions.

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

2. What specific structure did Charles P. Mandela request approval to build on August 28, 2019?

3. What was the initial reason given by the Blue Ridge Estates HOA for denying Mr. Mandela’s request on October 25, 2019?

4. What was Mr. Mandela’s central argument during the first hearing on January 13, 2021?

5. According to the decision from the first hearing, why did the Administrative Law Judge rule that the HOA’s denial was in compliance with Section 10.2 of the CC&Rs?

6. On what grounds did Mr. Mandela file his Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Dispute Rehearing Request on February 5, 2021?

7. During the rehearing, what new argument did Mr. Mandela raise concerning the timeline of the HOA’s denial of his August 28, 2019 request?

8. How did the HOA’s legal counsel counter Mr. Mandela’s argument regarding the 30-day response time outlined in Section 10.3?

9. What procedural step, outlined in Section 10.3, did Mr. Mandela admit he failed to take after his request was deemed denied?

10. What was the final outcome of the rehearing on April 16, 2021, and what was the judge’s conclusion regarding the HOA’s actions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner, and Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association of Coconino County. Mr. Mandela filed the petition against the HOA after it denied his request to build a patio shade.

2. On August 28, 2019, Mr. Mandela requested approval to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet.” The structure was a four-post shade that he intended to attach to the east side wall of his residence.

3. The HOA denied the request based on Architectural Committee Standards Article X. The denial stated that only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property, and Mr. Mandela already had a residence and a shed.

4. Mr. Mandela’s central argument was that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was not a separate stand-alone structure. He planned to attach it to his house, and he presented photographs of other properties with similar structures.

5. The judge ruled the denial complied with Section 10.2 because the list of standards the Architectural Committee could enforce was “not an exhaustive one.” This meant the committee could properly deny the request based on the one-structure limit, even if it wasn’t explicitly enumerated.

6. Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing on the grounds that the findings of fact were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. He also claimed the decision was not supported by the evidence or was contrary to law.

7. During the rehearing, Mr. Mandela argued that the Board violated Section 10.3 of the CC&Rs. He contended that since he made his request on August 28, 2019, and the Board did not respond until October 25, 2019, it had failed to provide a written response within the required 30-day period.

8. The HOA’s counsel argued that while Section 10.3 may be “confusingly drafted,” it specifies that if the committee fails to approve or disapprove within the 30-day period, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the Board was within its authority.

9. Mr. Mandela admitted that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for the disapproval. This is the procedural step required by Section 10.3 after a request is deemed denied.

10. The final outcome was that the petition was dismissed, and the Respondent (HOA) was declared the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the HOA had not violated the CC&Rs and had acted in compliance with its governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Further Study

The following questions are designed to promote a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, citing specific details from the legal decisions.

1. Analyze the interpretation of CC&R Section 10.3, specifically the “deemed disapproved” clause. Discuss how this clause functioned as a key legal defense for the HOA and ultimately shaped the outcome of the rehearing.

2. The legal standard in this case was “a preponderance of the evidence.” Define this standard as described in the legal text and evaluate the evidence Mr. Mandela presented in both hearings. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that Mr. Mandela failed to meet his burden of proof?

3. Compare and contrast the arguments presented by the Petitioner and Respondent in the initial hearing (January 13, 2021) versus the rehearing (April 16, 2021). How did the focus of the legal arguments shift between the two proceedings?

4. Examine the authority and jurisdiction of the Architectural Committee as outlined in CC&R Section 10.2. Discuss the significance of the phrase “Such standards and procedures may include, without limitation, provisions regarding…” in the judge’s initial decision.

5. Trace the procedural history of this case, from Mr. Mandela’s initial request in August 2019 to the final order in April 2021. Identify at least four key procedural milestones and explain their significance to the case’s progression and ultimate resolution.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge, in this case Adam D. Stone, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes decisions on petitions concerning disputes regulated by state agencies.

Architectural Committee

A body within the Blue Ridge Estates HOA established by Article X of the CC&Rs, with jurisdiction over all original construction and any modifications, additions, or alterations to the exterior of homes or properties.

Arizona Department of Real Estate

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and the associations themselves in Arizona.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to produce evidence that proves the facts it claims are true. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Mandela) bore the burden of proof.

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community like Blue Ridge Estates. This case centered on the interpretation of Article X of the Blue Ridge CC&Rs.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The governing organization for a planned community. In this case, the Respondent was the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County.

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request filed by a party asking for a lawsuit or petition to be dismissed. The Blue Ridge HOA filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied on October 7, 2020, allowing the case to proceed.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona where petitions related to disputes with HOAs are sent for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Charles P. Mandela was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” representing the greater weight of evidence.

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to review a legal decision. Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing after the initial decision, based on his claim that the findings were arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association was the Respondent.

Tribunal

A term used in the documents to refer to the judicial body hearing the case, specifically the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

He Fought the HOA Over a Patio and Lost. Here Are 5 Shocking Lessons Every Homeowner Needs to Learn.

Introduction: The Perils of a Simple Home Improvement Project

For any homeowner, the excitement of a new project—a deck, a fence, or a simple patio shade—can quickly turn to frustration when it collides with the dense rulebook of a Homeowners’ Association (HOA). What seems like a straightforward improvement can become a complex battle of bylaws and procedures.

This was the reality for Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner in the Blue Ridge Estates community. His plan to build a simple patio shade was denied by his HOA, sparking a legal challenge that went before an Administrative Law Judge. While Mr. Mandela ultimately lost his case on its legal merits, the details of his fight offer a masterclass in the surprising and often counter-intuitive world of HOA governance. This article distills the most shocking lessons from his case, providing critical insights for any homeowner living under an HOA.

——————————————————————————–

1. The “Deemed Disapproved” Clause: How an HOA’s Silence Becomes a Legal “No”

Mr. Mandela submitted his request to build a patio shade on August 28, 2019. He argued that the HOA, Blue Ridge Estates, violated its own rules, which required a response within 30 days. The HOA didn’t send its formal denial until October 25, 2019, well past the deadline. On the surface, it seemed like a clear procedural violation by the HOA.

However, a bizarre and “unartfully drafted” clause hidden in the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs) turned this logic on its head. The rule stated:

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…

Contrary to common sense, the rule meant that the HOA’s failure to respond on time resulted in an automatic denial, not a pending approval. The Administrative Law Judge was bound by this text, concluding that because the 30-day period had passed without a formal approval, the request was “properly deemed denied.”

2. The “My Neighbor Has One” Argument Is Weaker Than You Think

To support his case, Mr. Mandela presented photographs showing that “similar shades exist on other properties with additional structures.” He argued that the HOA was engaging in selective enforcement by denying his project while having approved others like it. This is one of the most frequent arguments homeowners make when they feel singled out by their HOA board.

The judge’s conclusion was a stunning reality check. The legal decision stated:

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.

The legal reasoning here is crucial for homeowners to understand. Architectural committees are not static; members change, and so can their interpretation of aesthetic standards. Each application is legally considered a distinct request, evaluated under the rules in place at that moment. A previous committee’s approval—which may have even been a mistake or a variance granted under different circumstances—does not create a binding legal precedent that forces the current committee to repeat it.

3. Procedure is Everything: A Missed Step Can Cost You the Case

The HOA’s rules contained a specific process for appealing a denial. After a project is “deemed disapproved” because the 30-day clock ran out, the homeowner must then formally request a meeting with the committee to discuss the denial.

The judge found that Mr. Mandela had failed to take this critical next step. This procedural misstep, however small it might seem, became a key factor in the case against him. The decision hinged on this procedural failure, stating:

Further, Petitioner admitted that in his several email responses that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee, thus he failed to follow the procedures in Section 10.3.

This highlights a crucial lesson: meticulously follow every single procedural step outlined in your HOA’s documents. Failure to do so, such as not using the correct language to request a meeting, can be used to dismiss your claim, regardless of its other merits.

4. “Unartfully Drafted” Rules Can Still Be Legally Binding

Even the Administrative Law Judge acknowledged the poor quality of the HOA’s rulebook. In the decision, the judge offered a candid assessment of the rule regarding the 30-day response time, stating, “Admittedly this section is unartfully drafted…”

Despite this observation, the rule was enforced exactly as written. The judge was bound by the text, however confusing, and concluded that “from the evidence presented, the request was properly deemed denied.”

This is perhaps the most sobering lesson. Homeowners often assume that a rule that is confusing or seems illogical won’t hold up under scrutiny. This case proves that the literal text of the governing documents possesses immense power. What a rule literally says is far more important than what one might assume it should mean.

5. The Final Twist: He Lost the Case But Got His Patio Anyway

After the initial decision was made against him, Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing. During this second hearing, a surprising fact emerged. Mr. Mandela testified that “since the decision on January 29, 2021, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Board.”

This outcome highlights a crucial dynamic: while Mr. Mandela lost the legal argument based on procedural history, his persistent engagement in the process—including filing a formal appeal—likely created enough administrative and community pressure to compel the Board to find a practical, non-legal solution. It’s a powerful reminder that a legal loss on a technicality does not always foreclose a real-world victory.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Do You Really Know Your HOA’s Rules?

The case of Charles Mandela serves as a powerful cautionary tale. It reveals that HOA disputes are rarely won on appeals to fairness or common sense. Instead, they are won or lost in the fine print of the governing documents—documents that can contain counter-intuitive clauses, procedural traps, and “unartfully drafted” rules that are nonetheless legally binding.

A homeowner’s best defense is not passion or conviction, but a deep and thorough understanding of the specific rules and procedures they agreed to live by. This case forces every homeowner to ask: Are you prepared to navigate the literal text of your community’s rules, where silence can mean “no” and a neighbor’s precedent is no precedent at all?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charles P Mandela (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP

Neutral Parties

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

Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust v. Haciendas Del Conde

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020045-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-11-18
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust Counsel —
Respondent Haciendas Del Conde Association Counsel Sharon Briggs, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CCRs Section 21(m)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petition on all issues, concluding that the CCRs contained legally enforceable setback language (Section 21(m)) properly passed in 2017 under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A). The ALJ rejected Petitioner's arguments regarding improper voting procedures, statute of limitations, and selective enforcement.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. The CCRs were deemed valid, and the enforcement action was deemed reasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Challenge to the validity and enforcement of the 10-foot setback requirement regarding the Petitioner's carport and claims of selective enforcement.

Petitioner asserted that the HOA violated CCR 21(m) by improperly adopting the 2017 CCRs and sought resolution on whether the setback language was enforceable, whether forcing Petitioner to move the carport was reasonable, whether selective enforcement was applied, and whether an easement existed. The ALJ concluded the CCRs were valid and enforceable under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A), rejected the selective enforcement claim, and denied the petition.

Orders: The Petition was denied on all issues. Respondent was deemed the prevailing party. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3708
  • CCRs Section 21(m)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CCR_enforceability, setback_violation, voting_validity, selective_enforcement, carport
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 10-3708
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020045-REL Decision – 892670.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:25:29 (47.7 KB)

20F-H2020045-REL Decision – 837850.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:25:33 (132.2 KB)

20F-H2020045-REL Decision – 837850.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:47 (132.2 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Trezza Irrevocable Trust vs. Haciendas Del Conde Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in case number 20F-H2020045-REL, a dispute between the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust (Petitioner) and the Haciendas Del Conde Association (HDCA/Respondent). The ALJ denied the Petitioner’s petition on all issues, finding in favor of the HDCA and deeming it the prevailing party.

The core of the dispute was a carport constructed by the Petitioner in August 2019 without prior approval from the HDCA and in violation of a 10-foot property line setback requirement detailed in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Petitioner challenged the validity of the CC&Rs, alleged selective enforcement by the HDCA, and argued the setback rule was unreasonable.

The ALJ’s decision rested on several key conclusions:

• The HDCA’s 2017 CC&Rs, including the 10-foot setback rule in Section 21(m), were properly adopted and are legally enforceable. The Petitioner’s challenge to the voting procedure was unfounded, as it incorrectly cited corporate voting law instead of the statute governing planned communities.

• The HOA has the right to enforce rules that are more restrictive than municipal codes, rendering the Pima County code’s zero-foot setback irrelevant.

• There was no evidence of selective enforcement. The HDCA’s denial was based on the substantive setback violation, not the procedural failure to obtain prior approval, and the Petitioner was given an opportunity to cure the issue.

• The Petitioner is solely responsible for any financial burden associated with bringing the carport into compliance, as the situation was created by the failure to seek prior approval before construction.

I. Case Overview

• Case Name: Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust v. Haciendas Del Conde Association

• Case Number: 20F-H2020045-REL

• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Presiding Judge: Adam D. Stone

• Date of Decision: November 18, 2020

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust, represented by Trustee Steven Trezza, Esq.

◦ Respondent: Haciendas Del Conde Association (HDCA), represented by Sharon Briggs, Esq.

• Central Issue: The legal enforceability of the HDCA’s CC&Rs, specifically Section 21(m), which prohibits the construction of structures within ten feet of any side or back property line for specified lots. The Petitioner sought relief after the HDCA denied approval for a carport built in violation of this rule.

II. Factual Background

Steven Trezza, trustee for the Petitioner, testified that he has resided at the property for approximately 14 years. In August 2019, he designed and built a carport on the property. Crucially, he admitted to the following:

• He had not read the community’s CC&Rs prior to the HDCA’s denial of his application.

• He failed to obtain prior approval from the HDCA Board for the carport’s construction.

• He failed to obtain a required permit from Pima County.

The HDCA Board President, Brad Johns, testified that he first noticed the carport construction in late August 2019 and placed architectural approval forms on the Petitioner’s door. Johns clarified that the eventual denial was not based on the failure to obtain prior approval but on the substantive violation of the 10-foot setback rule.

On November 14, 2019, the HDCA’s Secretary/Treasurer, Philip Worcester, sent formal correspondence informing the Petitioner of the failure to submit a proposal and providing an additional thirty days to do so before facing penalties.

III. Petitioner’s Core Arguments

The Petitioner, represented by Mr. Trezza, presented several arguments to invalidate the HDCA’s enforcement action:

• Invalidity of the 2017 CC&Rs Vote: Mr. Trezza claimed the 2017 vote that adopted the current CC&Rs was improper.

◦ He argued the ballot was defective under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 10-3708 because it did not provide a place to vote “no.”

◦ He contended that Section 21(m), the setback rule, was not “redlined” in the proposed document sent to homeowners, implying it was not a change and therefore not properly adopted.

• Invalidity of the 1993 Amendment: The language of Section 21(m) originated in a 1993 Amendment. Mr. Trezza argued this amendment was also passed via an invalid vote. He claimed the statute of limitations had not expired on challenging it, as he only became aware of the 1993 Amendment during the course of the present dispute.

• Conflict with Pima County Code: Mr. Trezza testified that the 10-foot setback is incorrect under Pima County code, which he stated requires a zero-foot setback. He argued the HDCA Board had misinterpreted zoning requirements in 1993.

• Selective Enforcement: Mr. Trezza asserted that he was not treated fairly, claiming other HDCA members who had failed to obtain prior approval for projects were later granted it.

• Unreasonable Withholding of Approval: The Petitioner argued that the HDCA’s approval was unreasonably withheld because the carport was not unattractive, did not devalue community property, and did not violate county code.

IV. Respondent’s (HDCA) Position and Testimony

The HDCA countered each of the Petitioner’s claims through legal arguments and witness testimony:

• Validity of the CC&Rs: Ms. Briggs, counsel for the HDCA, argued that the 2017 vote was valid pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1817, the statute governing planned communities. This statute requires only an “affirmative vote or written consent,” which was obtained. She asserted that the “redlining” argument was irrelevant because the entire CC&Rs document was presented to homeowners for a vote, and they could have rejected it if they disagreed with any provision, changed or not. This rendered the challenge to the 1993 amendment moot.

• Absence of Discrimination:

◦ HDCA President Brad Johns testified that the denial was based solely on the 10-foot setback violation, not the failure to obtain prior approval.

◦ He stated that the Board had successfully worked with other homeowners who failed to seek prior approval, but Mr. Trezza’s case was different because it involved a stand-alone structure rather than an addition.

◦ Both Mr. Johns and Secretary/Treasurer Philip Worcester testified that they had not known or interacted with Mr. Trezza prior to this issue, negating any claim of personal bias.

• Fair Process and Opportunity to Cure: Mr. Worcester testified that he complied with multiple document requests from Mr. Trezza and offered on at least two occasions for Mr. Trezza to accompany him to the association’s storage facility, an offer that was not accepted. The Board provided a 30-day window for the Petitioner to submit a formal proposal to resolve the issue.

V. Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions of Law and Rationale

The ALJ methodically rejected each of the Petitioner’s arguments and found the HDCA’s position to be supported by law and evidence.

1. The CC&Rs Contain Legally Enforceable Setback Language:

◦ The Judge concluded that the 2017 CC&Rs vote was proper. The Petitioner’s reliance on A.R.S. § 10-3708 (corporate voting) was “unfounded.” The correct and controlling statute is A.R.S. § 33-1817(A) (planned community voting), which only requires an “affirmative vote or written consent.”

◦ The argument that Section 21(m) was not “redlined” was deemed “not persuasive,” as the entire proposed document was provided to members, who voted to accept the CC&Rs as written.

◦ An HOA may require different, and more restrictive, setback requirements than a municipality. Therefore, the Pima County code does not override the CC&Rs.

2. The Petitioner is Bound by the CC&Rs:

◦ The Judge found the argument regarding the 1993 Amendment and the statute of limitations “unpersuasive.” Upon purchasing the property, the Petitioner became bound by the CC&Rs in existence at that time, “whether he read them or not.”

3. No Selective Enforcement Occurred:

◦ Evidence showed that the Board “routinely allowed homeowners to provide a chance to cure their failure to obtain prior approval.”

◦ Testimony from Mr. Johns and Mr. Worcester clearly established that the denial was not due to the lack of prior approval but the substantive setback violation. The Petitioner was offered the same opportunity to cure the problem as others but chose not to.

4. The Cost of Compliance is Reasonable:

◦ The Judge concluded that it is reasonable to compel the Petitioner to comply with the setback requirement, regardless of the cost. The decision states: “it brought the additional expenses upon itself for failure to obtain prior approval.” By not seeking approval beforehand, the Petitioner, not the HDCA, created the financial burden of a remedy.

VI. Final Order and Implications

Based on the foregoing conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following order on November 18, 2020:

• The Petition filed by the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust is denied on all issues.

• The Respondent, Haciendas Del Conde Association, is deemed the prevailing party.

• No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.

The order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.

Study Guide: Trezza Irrevocable Trust v. Haciendas Del Conde Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 20F-H2020045-REL, concerning a dispute between the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust and the Haciendas Del Conde Association. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test factual recall, essay questions to encourage deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal decision.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided case document.

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

2. What specific provision of the community’s governing documents was at the center of the dispute?

3. What structure did the Petitioner build, and what two key approvals were initially neglected?

4. What was the Petitioner’s primary argument for why the 2017 vote on the CCRs was improper?

5. How did the Petitioner challenge the validity of the original 1993 Amendment concerning the setback?

6. What was the Respondent’s reasoning for denying the carport application, separate from the failure to get prior approval?

7. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) distinguish between the two Arizona statutes cited regarding voting procedures?

8. What was the ALJ’s conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s claim of selective enforcement?

9. Why did the ALJ rule that it was reasonable to force the Petitioner to bear the cost of moving the carport?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this matter?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust, represented by Trustee Steven Trezza, Esq. The Respondent was the Haciendas Del Conde Association (HDCA), a Homeowners Association represented by Sharon Briggs, Esq.

2. The dispute centered on the Haciendas Del Conde Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs), specifically Section 21(m). This section mandates a ten-foot setback from any side or back property line for structures on specific lots.

3. The Petitioner, Mr. Trezza, designed and built a carport in August 2019. He failed to obtain prior approval from the HOA’s Board and also failed to obtain a required permit from Pima County.

4. The Petitioner argued that the ballot used for the 2017 vote was defective under A.R.S. § 10-3708 because it did not provide an option to vote “no.” He contended this made the entire vote improper and the resulting CCRs invalid.

5. The Petitioner argued that the 1993 Amendment, which first introduced the 10-foot setback, was itself based on an invalid vote. He also argued that because this language was not “redlined” as a change in the 2017 CCRs, homeowners were not properly notified of its adoption.

6. Brad Johns, President of the HDCA, testified that the denial was not due to the lack of prior approval but specifically because the carport violated the 10-foot setback requirement outlined in Section 21(m) of the CCRs.

7. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner’s reliance on A.R.S. § 10-3708 was unfounded because it applies to corporation voting. The judge determined that A.R.S. § 33-1817(A), which governs planned community voting and only requires an “affirmative vote or written consent,” was the controlling statute.

8. The ALJ concluded there was no selective enforcement. Evidence showed that the Board routinely worked with other homeowners who failed to get prior approval, and that Mr. Trezza was not discriminated against but was given an opportunity to cure the problem.

9. The ALJ reasoned that by failing to seek prior approval before construction, the Petitioner, not the HDCA, created the expenses required to remedy the situation. Therefore, it was reasonable to make the Petitioner comply with the CCRs, regardless of the cost.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petition be denied on all issues. The judge further ordered that the Respondent (Haciendas Del Conde Association) be deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Formulate an argument using only the evidence and legal reasoning presented in the case document.

1. Analyze the Petitioner’s arguments regarding the invalidity of the 1993 Amendment and the 2017 CCRs. Why did the Administrative Law Judge find these arguments, including the “redlining” and statute of limitations claims, to be unpersuasive?

2. Discuss the concept of “selective enforcement” as an affirmative defense in this case. What evidence did the Petitioner and Respondent present on this issue, and how did the judge ultimately rule?

3. Examine the legal distinction made between A.R.S. § 10-3708 and A.R.S. § 33-1817(A). Explain how this distinction was critical to the judge’s conclusion about the validity of the 2017 CCRs and the enforceability of Section 21(m).

4. Evaluate the significance of the Petitioner’s failure to obtain prior Board and Pima County approval for the carport. How did this action impact the judge’s ruling, particularly concerning the reasonableness of the enforcement costs and the allegation of unfair treatment?

5. Compare and contrast the testimony presented by the Petitioner’s side (Steven Trezza, Phil Rosenberg) with the testimony from the Respondent’s side (Brad Johns, Philip Worcester). How did their differing accounts shape the central issues of the hearing?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions, in this case, for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Affirmative Defense

A set of facts or legal arguments presented by the respondent that, if proven, can defeat or mitigate the legal consequences of the petitioner’s claim. In this case, “selective enforcement” was an affirmative defense.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are legally binding rules and regulations that govern a planned community or subdivision, which property owners agree to abide by upon purchasing property.

Easement

A legal right to use another person’s land for a specific purpose. The Petitioner unsuccessfully argued for an easement for the carport under Section 33 of the CCRs.

HOA (Homeowners Association)

An organization in a planned community that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Haciendas Del Conde Association is the HOA in this case.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, it was the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in civil cases, meaning the evidence shows that a contention is more likely true than not. The Petitioner bore this burden to prove their claims.

Redlined

A method of marking a document to show additions, deletions, or changes, typically by underlining new text and striking through deleted text. The Petitioner argued a lack of redlining was misleading.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, it was the Haciendas Del Conde Association.

Setback

The minimum required distance that a building or other structure must be located from a property line, street, or other feature. The dispute centered on a 10-foot setback requirement.

Statute of Limitations

A law that sets the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. The Petitioner argued the statute of limitations had not run for challenging the 1993 Amendment.

Trustee

An individual or entity that holds and administers property or assets for the benefit of a third party. Steven Trezza, Esq. appeared as Trustee for the Petitioner.

Variance

An officially granted exception to zoning ordinances or CCRs. The Petitioner unsuccessfully sought a variance for the carport.

📔

20F-H2020045-REL

1 source

The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings concerning a dispute between the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust (Petitioner) and the Haciendas Del Conde Association (Respondent). This Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute arose because the Petitioner constructed a carport without prior approval, violating the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR’s), specifically a ten-foot setback requirement in Section 21(m). The Petitioner argued that the setback language was unenforceable due to flawed voting procedures in both 1993 and 2017 when the CCR’s were adopted, and also claimed selective enforcement. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that the CCR’s were legally enforceable and properly adopted, concluding that the Petitioner must comply with the setback rule, and denied all issues raised in the petition.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Stephen Trezza (Trustee)
    Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust
    Appeared for Petitioner; Testified on behalf of Petitioner
  • Philip Rosenberg (witness)
    Testified for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Sharon Briggs (HOA attorney)
    Haciendas Del Conde Association
  • Brad Johns (board member)
    Haciendas Del Conde Association
    President of HDCA; Testified for Respondent
  • Philip Worcester (board member)
    Haciendas Del Conde Association
    Secretary/Treasurer of HDCA; Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Order transmitted electronically to

Susan E Abbass v. 10000 North Central Homeowners Assocciation

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020057-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-08-17
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Susan E Abbass Counsel —
Respondent 10000 North Central Homeowners Association Counsel Blake Johnson, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R's Article XII, Section 6 & Article XIII, Section 1(d) & 4

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's single-issue petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish that the Respondent HOA violated the governing CC&R provisions.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the alleged CC&R violations; specifically, the HOA was found to have the right to enter property for certain conditions (including emergencies or maintenance) but was under no obligation to do so, and the situation was not determined to be a true emergency by the ALJ.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether 10000 North Central Homeowners Association violated the CC&R's Article XII, Section 6 & Article XIII, Section 1(d) & 4.

Petitioner claimed the Association violated specified CC&R sections by refusing to grant access to the neighboring property to determine and resolve the source of a water leak. Petitioner requested an ORDER requiring the Association to allow access. The ALJ found that the CC&Rs grant the HOA the right to enter, but not the obligation, and Petitioner failed to prove an emergency situation or a violation of the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petitioner's petition in this matter was denied.

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
  • CC&R Article XII Section 6
  • CC&R Article XIII Section 1(d)
  • CC&R Article XIII Section 4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Easement, Maintenance, Drainage, Property Access, Burden of Proof
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. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
  • CC&R Article XII Section 6
  • CC&R Article XIII Section 1(d)
  • CC&R Article XIII Section 4

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020057-REL Decision – 839845.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:59 (108.6 KB)

20F-H2020057-REL Decision – ../20F-H2020057-REL/815490.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:33:02 (135.6 KB)

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.

Study Guide: Abbass v. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 20F-H2020057-REL-RHG, involving Petitioner Susan E. Abbass and Respondent 10000 North Central Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and procedural history.

——————————————————————————–

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case document.

1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what was the central dispute?

2. What specific articles of the community documents did the Petitioner allege the Respondent had violated?

3. What was the outcome of the initial administrative hearing held on July 28, 2020?

4. On what legal grounds did the Petitioner successfully request a rehearing of the case?

5. What was the Respondent’s main argument for not forcing an inspection of the neighboring property?

6. What key point regarding the Respondent’s authority did the Petitioner concede during the rehearing?

7. According to the decision, who bears the burden of proof, and what is the evidentiary standard required to meet it?

8. What evidence did the Respondent introduce during the rehearing on November 24, 2020?

9. What was the final ruling of the Administrative Law Judge, and what did the order state?

10. What specific limitation on the Administrative Law Judge’s power is cited in the Conclusions of Law?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Susan E. Abbass, and the Respondent, 10000 North Central Homeowners Association. The central dispute was the Petitioner’s claim that the Respondent failed to fulfill its duty by not allowing an inspection on a neighboring property to find the source of a water leak affecting the Petitioner’s home.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated Article XII, Section 6 and Article XIII, Sections 1(d) and 4 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR’s).

3. Following the July 28, 2020 hearing, the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision on August 17, 2020, concluding that the Petitioner had failed to meet her burden of proof. The judge found that the Respondent only had the right to enter the neighboring property, not an obligation to do so.

4. The Petitioner’s request for rehearing was granted based on her claims that the initial findings of fact were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion” and that the decision was “not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.”

5. The Respondent argued that the Petitioner had not provided sufficient proof of the neighbor’s fault to justify forcing access. The Respondent was also concerned that overstepping its authority could expose the association to other legal actions.

6. During the rehearing, the Petitioner agreed with the Respondent’s position that the association does not have an obligation to enter the neighboring property, only the right to do so.

7. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof. The evidentiary standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” which is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

8. At the rehearing, the Respondent introduced Exhibits K, L, and M. These were photographs that purportedly showed where a pipe was fixed and how drainage moves away from the Petitioner’s property.

9. The final ruling concluded that the Respondent had not violated the CCR’s and was the prevailing party. The order dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal.

10. The decision cites A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), which states that an Administrative Law Judge may only order a party to abide by the statutes, community documents, or contract provisions at issue. The judge cannot force the Respondent or the neighbor to grant access to the property.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-format response. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the legal distinction between a “right” and an “obligation” as it pertains to the Homeowners Association’s authority under the CCR’s in this case. How was this distinction central to the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision?

2. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the legal decision. Detail the evidence and arguments presented by both the Petitioner and Respondent, and explain why the judge ultimately concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this standard.

3. Trace the complete procedural history of this case, from the filing of the initial petition to the final order. Identify the key dates, actions taken by each party, and the rulings made at each stage of the administrative process.

4. Evaluate the actions taken by the Respondent (10000 North Central Homeowners Association) in response to the Petitioner’s complaint. Based on the Findings of Fact, did the association act reasonably and in compliance with the CCR’s?

5. Explain the jurisdiction and statutory limitations of the Office of Administrative Hearings in resolving disputes between homeowners and their associations, as outlined in the decision. What remedies were available to the Petitioner through this venue, and why was the specific relief she sought beyond the judge’s power to grant?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over administrative hearings, considers evidence, and issues a legal decision. In this case, the ALJ was Adam D. Stone.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.

Arizona Department of Real Estate

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

Burden of Proof

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

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community or subdivision.

Office of Administrative Hearings

The government office where administrative law judges hear disputes concerning state agencies.

Order Granting Rehearing

A formal order issued by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate that approved the Petitioner’s request for a second hearing.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this case, the Petitioner was Susan E. Abbass.

Planned Community

A real estate development that includes common property and is governed by a homeowners’ association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It is met when the evidence presented is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Prevailing Party

The party who wins a legal case or dispute. In the final decision, the Respondent was named the prevailing party.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association.

Tribunal

A body established to settle certain types of disputes. In this context, it refers to the Office of Administrative Hearings where the case was heard.

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.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Susan E Abbass (petitioner)
  • Ronald Pick (witness)
    Witness for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Blake Johnson (attorney)
    Brown Olcott, PLLC
    Represented Respondent
  • Robert Kersten (property manager)
    Property manager, appeared as a witness for Respondent
  • Kelly Oetinger (attorney)
    Brown Olcott, PLLC

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • c. serrano (staff)
    Electronic transmission sender