Charles Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association

Posted on December 6, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1817006-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-12-06
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition, finding that the HOA did not violate its CC&Rs by allowing play structures on properties that already contained a detached garage or shed, because play structures are not easily convertible into a second residence, which was the underlying concern of the relevant CC&R section.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Charles Mandela	Counsel	—
Respondent	Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association	Counsel	Brian C. Axt, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.1(a); Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition, finding that the HOA did not violate its CC&Rs by allowing play structures on properties that already contained a detached garage or shed, because play structures are not easily convertible into a second residence, which was the underlying concern of the relevant CC&R section.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R § 3.1. The ALJ determined that the HOA correctly clarified the status of play structures through an amendment to the Architectural Committee's regulations.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D) regarding allowing play structures (swing sets, treehouses) when another detached structure (garage or shed) is present.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D) by permitting members to construct play structures (swingsets, treehouses, etc.) on properties that already contained one detached structure (garage or shed), arguing that the rules allowed only one detached structure of any type.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied because he failed to establish that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances. All play structures that the Architectural Committee has previously approved are allowed to remain, and the Architectural Committee may consider and grant future Play Structure Approval Requests.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA governance, CC&R interpretation, detached structures, play structures, Architectural Committee regulations, burden of proof

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1817006-REL Decision – 604710.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:07:52 (155.4 KB)

Briefing Document: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (No. 18F-H1817006-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision regarding a dispute between a homeowner, Charles Mandela (“Petitioner”), and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was whether the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by permitting homeowners to install play structures (e.g., swing sets, treehouses) on lots that already contained another detached structure, such as a garage or shed.

The Petitioner argued that the HOA had historically enforced a strict “one detached structure” rule and that its recent allowance of play structures constituted a violation of CC&R § 3.1. In contrast, the Respondent contended that the underlying intent of the CC&Rs was to prevent secondary residential dwellings, not to prohibit recreational structures consistent with a family-oriented community. The HOA asserted it had properly amended its Architectural Committee regulations, not the CC&Rs, to clarify this distinction.

The ALJ ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent HOA. The central finding was that the intent of the restrictive covenant was to maintain the single-family residential character of the community. Because play structures cannot be easily converted into secondary residences, they are not inconsistent with this intent. The ALJ concluded that the HOA was not required to amend the CC&Rs (which requires a 75% member vote) but acted within its authority to amend its rules and regulations via a simple board vote. The Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 18F-H1817006-REL

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Charles Mandela

◦ Respondent: Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association

• Hearing Date: November 28, 2017

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D) by allowing members to build play structures, swing sets, or treehouses on properties that already had another detached structure like a garage or shed.

Central Arguments and Presented Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Charles Mandela)

The Petitioner’s case was built on the premise of a long-standing, strict interpretation of the “one detached structure” rule.

• Core Argument: For 18 years, the Respondent interpreted CC&R § 3.1 to permit only one detached structure on any given lot, regardless of its type.

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Historical Enforcement: Testified that between 2002 and 2016, the HOA enforced this rule by removing nine non-compliant structures, including a gazebo, a playhouse, an observation deck, and a zipline structure.

◦ 2006 Legal Opinion: Submitted a February 7, 2006, letter from the law firm Carpenter Hazlewood, PLC, which opined on the ambiguity of CC&R § 3.1. The letter stated, “It still appears that only one structure (garage or shed) is permitted,” and supported the HOA’s ability to “enforce the ‘one detached structure’ requirement.” The letter did not specifically mention play structures.

◦ Invalid Approval Form: Presented a “Play Structure Approval Request” form he had drafted while on the board. This form incorrectly stated that the Board of Directors had voted on June 25, 2016, “to adopt changes to the CCR’s [sic], which will allow play structures.” Petitioner argued this was invalid because changing the CC&Rs requires a 75% vote of the membership, which was not obtained.

◦ Ancillary Documents: Submitted documents related to a housing discrimination claim filed by the HOA’s current president, Joseph Hancock, and a letter concerning another member. Petitioner testified these matters involved play structures, though the documents themselves did not mention CC&R § 3.1.

Respondent’s Position (Blue Ridge Estates HOA)

The Respondent’s defense centered on the purpose of the CC&Rs and its authority as a board to clarify and amend its own rules and regulations.

• Core Argument: The HOA did not violate the CC&Rs because the intent of the relevant articles is to prohibit secondary residential dwellings, not recreational structures suitable for a community intended to be a “uniquely planned recreation property.”

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Community Status: There are currently 16 swingsets or play structures within the 193-lot development. The HOA president, Joseph Hancock, testified he has a swingset used by his children, grandchildren, and neighbors.

◦ Legal Counsel: The HOA retained the firm of Poli & Ball, PLC, which opined that because the community is for recreation and family use, “[p]lay structures are perfectly consistent with recreation and family use.” The firm advised that the Architectural Committee’s regulations could be changed to reflect this without amending the CC&Rs. Another law firm, Carpenter Hazlewood, generally agreed with this opinion.

◦ Correction of Clerical Error: Mr. Hancock testified that the form submitted by the Petitioner contained a typographical error. The board’s intent in its June 25, 2016, vote was to amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations, not the CC&Rs.

◦ Board Meeting Minutes: The HOA submitted minutes from board meetings in December 2016 and October 2017. These minutes document the board’s discovery of the error on the website form and subsequent votes to formally clarify that the change was to the rules and regulations, not the CC&Rs, thereby ratifying its decision.

◦ Amended Approval Form: Respondent submitted the corrected “Play Structure Approval Request” form, which states, “Per the modified Rules and Regulations dated April 6, 2016, this form must be submitted to Architectural Committee for approval of any Play Structure.”

Governing Rules and Covenants

The dispute hinged on the interpretation and interplay of several key provisions in the community’s governing documents.

Document / Section

Key Provision

CC&R § 3.1

“No building or structure shall be erected or maintained separate from the Single Family Residence located on any Lot, other than a garage… No garage or shed shall be built prior to the issuance of a Coconino County building permit for the construction of a Single Family Residence.”

Architectural Regulation 3(D)

“One detached structure may, with Architectural Committee approval, be constructed on a property. The residence must be constructed and completed before the detached structure is built.”

CC&R § 4.2

“By a majority vote of the Board, the Association may, from time to time… adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules and Regulations.’”

CC&R § 12.2

Amending the Declaration of CC&Rs requires “the affirmative vote… or written consent of Members owning at least seventy-five percent (75%) of all Lots.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Legal Rationale

The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and that the Respondent acted properly within its authority.

• Intent of the Covenant: The Judge determined that CC&R Article III is fundamentally “concerned with keeping Respondent single-family residential by prohibiting structures and vehicles that could be used as a second residential dwelling on a lot.” This interpretation is supported by other rules in the article prohibiting mobile homes and clarifying that “If you can live/sleep in it, you cannot park it” in the development.

• Status of Play Structures: The decision concludes that a play structure “cannot be easily converted into a second residence.” Therefore, permitting a play structure in addition to a garage or shed is not inconsistent with the primary purpose of CC&R § 3.1.

• Board Authority vs. Member Vote: Because allowing play structures was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs, the Respondent was not required to amend the CC&Rs through a 75% member vote. Instead, the Board was empowered by CC&R § 4.2 to “amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations to provide clarification on the status of play structures” through a majority vote of the Board.

• History of Enforcement: The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to establish a uniform history of enforcement against play structures. Rather, “it appears that the status of play structures, swingsets, and tree houses has been unsettled and the subject of some contention,” partly due to the Petitioner’s own advocacy.

• Conclusion: The Respondent properly resolved the ambiguity by amending its regulations.

Final Order and Implications

• Decision: The petition was denied because the Petitioner did not establish that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances.

• Outcome for the Community:

1. The HOA’s amendment of its rules to explicitly permit play structures was deemed valid.

2. All play structures previously approved by the Architectural Committee are allowed to remain on members’ properties.

3. The Architectural Committee is authorized to consider and approve future Play Structure Approval Requests that are submitted in accordance with the established regulations.

Study Guide for Administrative Law Judge Decision No. 18F-H1817006-REL

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based on the provided source document.

1. Who were the primary parties in case No. 18F-H1817006-REL, and what was their relationship?

2. What specific violation did the Petitioner, Charles Mandela, allege against the Respondent?

3. What is the legal standard of proof required in this case, and which party bears the initial burden?

4. According to the CC&Rs, what is the procedural difference between amending the CC&Rs and amending the “Rules and Regulations”?

5. What was the Petitioner’s primary evidence to support his claim that the HOA historically enforced a “one detached structure” rule?

6. How did the Respondent, Blue Ridge Estates HOA, legally justify its decision to permit play structures even on lots that already had a detached garage or shed?

7. How did the Respondent explain the document from its website which stated that the Board had voted to “adopt changes to the CCR’s”?

8. What did the law firm Poli & Ball conclude regarding the permissibility of play structures within the community?

9. What did Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky determine was the primary intent of Article III of the CC&Rs?

10. What was the final Recommended Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Charles Mandela, and the Respondent, Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association. Mr. Mandela is a homeowner within the Blue Ridge Estates development and a member of the homeowners’ association.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated CC&Rs § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D). He claimed the HOA wrongly allowed members to build play structures, swing sets, or treehouses on their properties when another detached structure, such as a garage or shed, already existed.

3. The legal standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the evidence must convince the judge that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner, Charles Mandela, bears the initial burden of proof to establish that a violation occurred.

4. To amend the CC&Rs (the Declaration), an affirmative vote or written consent from members owning at least 75% of all lots is required. In contrast, the Board of Directors can adopt, amend, or repeal “Rules and Regulations” by a simple majority vote of the Board.

5. The Petitioner testified that between 2002 and 2016, the HOA removed nine non-compliant structures, including a gazebo and a playhouse. He also submitted a 2006 letter from the law firm Carpenter Hazlewood, which opined that the HOA could enforce a “one detached structure” requirement.

6. The Respondent argued that the intent of the CC&Rs was to prevent second residential dwellings on a lot, not to prohibit recreational items consistent with a family community. Therefore, the Board acted within its authority under CC&R § 4.2 to amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations to clarify that play structures are permitted.

7. The Respondent’s president, Joseph Hancock, testified that the wording was a typographical error made by the previous Chair of the Architectural Committee (the Petitioner). Board meeting minutes from December 2016 and October 2017 were submitted as evidence to show the Board’s actual intent was to modify the rules and regulations, not the CC&Rs.

8. The Poli & Ball law firm opined that play structures are “perfectly consistent with recreation and family use” in a community intended to be a planned recreation property. The firm concluded that the HOA could change the Architectural Committee’s regulations to allow them as long as the change was consistent with the CC&Rs.

9. The Judge concluded that the purpose of Article III is to keep the community single-family residential by prohibiting structures and vehicles that could be used as a second dwelling. Since a play structure cannot be easily converted into a second residence, allowing one did not violate the intent of the CC&Rs.

10. The Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The Judge found that the Petitioner had not established that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances, and that the HOA had properly resolved the issue by amending its regulations.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each, drawing upon specific facts, arguments, and legal principles from the source document.

1. Discuss the critical distinction between amending the community’s CC&Rs and amending the Architectural Committee’s regulations. Explain how this distinction became the central pivot upon which the entire case turned.

2. Analyze the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s exhibits and testimony, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Respondent’s evidence more persuasive.

3. The “Conclusions of Law” section discusses the legal principle of interpreting restrictive covenants based on the “intent of the parties.” How did Judge Mihalsky apply this principle to CC&R § 3.1, and how did the community’s stated purpose as a “uniquely planned recreation property” influence this interpretation?

4. Charles Mandela, the Petitioner, was a former board member and president of the Architectural Committee who drafted one of the key documents in question. Discuss how his past involvement in HOA governance may have shaped his legal position and the evidence he presented.

5. Trace the timeline of the “play structure” controversy as detailed in the hearing evidence, from the 2015 discrimination claim to the “clarification vote” in October 2017. How does this sequence of events illustrate the challenges of community governance and rule interpretation within a homeowners’ association?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent, impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings at government agencies. In this case, the ALJ from the Office of Administrative Hearings heard the dispute between the homeowner and the HOA.

Architectural Committee

A committee within the homeowners’ association responsible for approving any construction, alteration, or improvement to the exterior of any property to ensure it complies with community standards.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this hearing, the Petitioner had the burden to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

A legally binding document that governs a planned community or subdivision. It outlines the rights and obligations of the homeowners and the homeowners’ association.

Declaration

The formal legal document that creates the homeowners’ association and its CC&Rs. In this case, amending the Declaration required a 75% vote of the members.

Detached Structure

A building on a property that is separate from the main residence. The dispute centered on whether play structures counted as the “one detached structure” permitted by the CC&Rs.

Improvements

A broad term defined in the CC&Rs (§ 1.17) to include buildings, garages, fences, walls, landscaping, and all other structures of every type and kind on a property.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The judge noted that if Title 33 did not apply, the Office of Administrative Hearings would lack jurisdiction to hear the case.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, homeowner Charles Mandela.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It requires the trier of fact (the judge) to be convinced that a claim is more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision in a deed or CC&Rs that limits the use of the property. The “one detached structure” rule is an example of a restrictive covenant.

Single Family Residential Use

The designated purpose of the properties in Blue Ridge Estates, meaning they are to be used exclusively as private homes for single families, not for commercial or multi-family dwelling purposes.

Briefing Document: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (No. 18F-H1817006-REL)

Executive Summary

Case Overview

• Case Number: 18F-H1817006-REL

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Charles Mandela

◦ Respondent: Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association

• Hearing Date: November 28, 2017

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky

Central Arguments and Presented Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Charles Mandela)

The Petitioner’s case was built on the premise of a long-standing, strict interpretation of the “one detached structure” rule.

• Core Argument: For 18 years, the Respondent interpreted CC&R § 3.1 to permit only one detached structure on any given lot, regardless of its type.

• Evidence and Testimony:

Respondent’s Position (Blue Ridge Estates HOA)

The Respondent’s defense centered on the purpose of the CC&Rs and its authority as a board to clarify and amend its own rules and regulations.

• Evidence and Testimony:

Governing Rules and Covenants

The dispute hinged on the interpretation and interplay of several key provisions in the community’s governing documents.

Document / Section

Key Provision

CC&R § 3.1

Architectural Regulation 3(D)

“One detached structure may, with Architectural Committee approval, be constructed on a property. The residence must be constructed and completed before the detached structure is built.”

CC&R § 4.2

“By a majority vote of the Board, the Association may, from time to time… adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules and Regulations.’”

CC&R § 12.2

Amending the Declaration of CC&Rs requires “the affirmative vote… or written consent of Members owning at least seventy-five percent (75%) of all Lots.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Legal Rationale

The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and that the Respondent acted properly within its authority.

• Conclusion: The Respondent properly resolved the ambiguity by amending its regulations.

Final Order and Implications

• Decision: The petition was denied because the Petitioner did not establish that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances.

• Outcome for the Community:

1. The HOA’s amendment of its rules to explicitly permit play structures was deemed valid.

2. All play structures previously approved by the Architectural Committee are allowed to remain on members’ properties.

3. The Architectural Committee is authorized to consider and approve future Play Structure Approval Requests that are submitted in accordance with the established regulations.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Charles Mandela (petitioner)
Appeared and testified on his own behalf; previously served as president of the Architectural Committee.

Respondent Side

Brian C. Axt (attorney)
Resnick & Louis, P.C.
Represented Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association.
Joseph Hancock (board member)
Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association
Board's president; presented testimony/witness for Respondent.
Jason Miller (counsel)
Carpenter Hazlewood
Provided an email opinion supporting the Respondent's position.

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Richard Long vs. Pebble Creek Resort Community

Posted on September 6, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717037-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-09-06
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof demonstrating the HOA violated community documents by refusing the requested block wall. The wall was prohibited by CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines because it was planned for just inside the property line and excluded the adjacent owner from use, potentially leading to prohibited parallel walls.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Richard Long	Counsel	—
Respondent	Pebble Creek Resort Community	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01; CC&Rs § 1(Hh), 2(P)(i); ALC Guideline SS(4)(a)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof demonstrating the HOA violated community documents by refusing the requested block wall. The wall was prohibited by CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines because it was planned for just inside the property line and excluded the adjacent owner from use, potentially leading to prohibited parallel walls.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to approve construction of a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy

Petitioner sought approval for a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy, built a foot or so inside his property line, designed to prevent adjacent neighbors (the Rohlmans) from using it. Respondent denied the wall based on community documents restricting such constructions to avoid parallel walls and requiring party walls to be on or immediately adjacent to the property line, granting contiguous owners the right to use them.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
CC&R § 1(Hh)
CC&R § 2(P)(i)
ALC Guideline SS(4)(a)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Block Wall, Privacy Wall, CC&Rs, ALC Guidelines, Party Wall

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
CC&R § 1(Hh)
CC&R § 2(P)(i)
ALC Guideline SS(4)(a)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717037-REL Decision – 586501.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:05:32 (117.9 KB)

17F-H1717037-REL Decision – 588547.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:05:36 (1013.5 KB)

Briefing: Case No. 17F-H1717037-REL, Long v. Pebble Creek Resort Community

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision concerning a dispute between homeowner Richard Long (“Petitioner”) and the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association (“Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s request to build a 10-foot long, 6-foot high block privacy wall approximately one foot inside his property line, which the Respondent’s Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC) denied.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The central finding was that the Respondent’s governing documents—specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and ALC Guidelines—unequivocally prohibit the proposed wall. The ALJ concluded that a wall built so close to a property line is defined as a “Party Wall,” which must be constructed “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary and be usable by both property owners. The Petitioner’s proposal violated these foundational rules by being set back from the property line with the explicit intent of preventing neighbor access and use.

The Respondent had offered a conditional variance for a wall to be built directly on the property line, but this required a mutual “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” with the adjacent neighbor, who refused to sign, citing concerns over property value and the legal complexity of a perpetual easement. The final ruling affirmed the Respondent’s authority to enforce its governing documents as written.

Case Overview

The matter was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed by the Petitioner with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA had violated its own governing documents by refusing to approve his proposed wall.

Case Detail

Information

Case Name

Richard Long, Petitioner, v. Pebble Creek Resort Community, Respondent

Case Number

No. 17F-H1717037-REL / HO 17-17/037

Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)

Petitioner

Richard Long (Appeared on his own behalf)

Respondent

Pebble Creek Resort Community (Represented by Jack Sarsam, SVP for Robson Communities)

Administrative Law Judge

Diane Mihalsky

Real Estate Commissioner

Judy Lowe

Hearing Date

August 30, 2017

ALJ Decision Date

September 6, 2017

Final Order Date

September 14, 2017

Core Dispute and Party Positions

Petitioner’s Proposal and Argument (Richard Long)

• Project: A 10-foot long, 6-foot high block wall intended to provide privacy between his patio and the patio of his adjacent neighbors, the Rohlmans.

• Proposed Location: “A foot or so inside his side of the property line.”

• Stated Intent: To construct a wall to which his neighbors could not attach or otherwise use. The Petitioner testified that if the Rohlmans later wanted their own wall (e.g., for a pool or pet), they could build a separate, parallel wall on their property.

• Rejection of Alternatives: The Petitioner acknowledged that the ALC would approve a “privacy panel wall” made of alumawood or lattice, but he rejected this option, deeming it “unsightly and flimsy.”

• Core Claim: The Petitioner argued that the Respondent’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines did not explicitly prohibit the construction of his proposed block wall at its intended location inside his property line.

Respondent’s Position and Actions (Pebble Creek HOA)

• Initial Action: The ALC denied the Petitioner’s request.

• Rationale for Denial: The Respondent explained that walls near lot lines can become problematic, particularly if they result in “two parallel walls.” This situation can create a narrow, inaccessible space between the walls that is difficult to maintain and “becomes filled with refuse, leaves, insects, nests and rodents.”

• Conditional Variance: On May 1, 2017, the Respondent offered to approve a variance with several key conditions:

1. The wall must be constructed directly on the property line.

2. Both the Petitioner and the Rohlmans must sign a written “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” (Form ALC 48).

3. This agreement must grant current and future owners permission to “extend/complete the wall” and must be disclosed upon the sale of either home.

4. The signed agreement would be kept in the ALC files for both properties.

Neighbor’s Position (The Rohlmans)

• The Rohlmans declined to sign the Party Wall/Fence Agreement proposed by the Respondent.

• In an email submitted as evidence, they outlined their reasons for refusal:

◦ Property Value: They believed a wall on the property line would negatively affect the “current and future value” of both properties.

◦ Legal Complexity: The agreement would require granting a perpetual easement, which they identified as a legal document entailing legal expenses.

◦ Disclosure upon Sale: The easement would have to be disclosed to future buyers, which they argued “lowers the value of the property.”

◦ Future Construction: A wall on the property line could be extended by either party or future owners “without the agreement of the other party.”

◦ They concluded that “All of these requirements are onerous.”

Analysis of Governing Documents

The ALJ’s decision rested on a direct interpretation of four key sections of the community’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.

• CC&R § 1(Hh) – Definition of “Party Walls”

◦ This section defines a party wall as: “a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of Lots, Parcels, Common Areas or other areas in PebbleCreek Golf Resort.”

◦ The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s proposal for a wall “a foot or so inside” the property line did not meet this definition.

• CC&R § 2(P)(i) – Use of Party Walls

◦ This rule states: “Each Owner shall have the right to use the Party Wall, provided that such use does not interfere with the other Owner’s use and enjoyment thereof.”

◦ This directly contradicted the Petitioner’s goal of building a wall that his neighbors would be prohibited from using.

• ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) – Parallel Walls

◦ This guideline explicitly states: “An existing party wall along a joint property line precludes any adjacent parallel party wall, i.e. Two walls cannot be built side by side.”

◦ The Petitioner’s own testimony acknowledged the possibility of his neighbor building a parallel wall in the future, a scenario the guidelines are designed to prevent.

• ALC Guideline JJ – “Privacy Panel Wall”

◦ This section details the pre-approved alternative for privacy screening. Such a wall must be:

▪ Free-standing alumawood.

▪ Six feet in height and no more than sixteen feet in length.

▪ Located “at least three (3) feet from the property line.”

◦ This demonstrates a clear distinction in the rules between a shared “Party Wall” near the boundary and a private “Privacy Panel” set significantly back from it.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ, Diane Mihalsky, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that the Respondent had violated its governing documents.

• Key Findings of Law:

1. A block wall built “a foot inside the property line” does not conform to CC&R § 1(Hh), which requires a party wall to be “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary.

2. The Petitioner’s intent to deny his neighbor the use of the wall violates CC&R § 2(P)(i), which grants both owners rights to use a party wall.

3. The Petitioner’s proposal creates the potential for prohibited parallel walls, violating ALC Guideline SS(4)(a).

• Conclusion: The ALJ stated that the community’s documents “unequivocally prohibit Respondent from building a 6’ high, 10’ long block wall a foot from his property line that the Rohlmans are not permitted to use.”

• Recommended Order: On September 6, 2017, the ALJ issued a recommended order that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

Final Order and Subsequent Actions

• Adoption of Decision: On September 14, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision in its entirety.

• Effect of Order: The denial of the petition became final, binding, and effective immediately.

• Conditions for Rehearing: The Final Order stipulated that a rehearing could be granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04, but only for one of the following reasons:

1. Irregularity in proceedings or abuse of discretion by the ALJ.

2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or prevailing party.

3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented.

4. Newly discovered material evidence.

5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.

6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence.

7. The decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

8. The findings of fact are not supported by the evidence or are contrary to law.

• Judicial Review: The order is subject to judicial review through the filing of a complaint pursuant to state law.

Study Guide: Long v. Pebble Creek Resort Community (Case No. 17F-H1717037-REL)

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision concerning a dispute between homeowner Richard Long and the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association. It covers the facts of the case, the arguments presented, the relevant community rules, and the final legal outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.

1. What was the specific structure that the Petitioner, Richard Long, proposed to build, and what was its intended purpose?

2. On what grounds did the Respondent, Pebble Creek Resort Community, justify its restrictions against the type of wall the Petitioner proposed?

3. What conditional variance did the Respondent offer to the Petitioner on May 1, 2017?

4. What were the primary concerns expressed by the Petitioner’s neighbors, the Rohlmans, which led them to decline the proposed wall agreement?

5. According to ALC Guideline JJ, what alternative structure could the Petitioner have built for privacy, and what were its key requirements?

6. How do the CC&Rs define a “Party Wall,” and what right does CC&R § 2(P)(i) grant to contiguous property owners regarding such a wall?

7. What rule from the ALC Guidelines prohibits the construction of two parallel walls side-by-side, and why is this rule in place?

8. What is the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the hearing decision?

9. Who held the burden of proof to establish that the homeowners’ association violated its governing documents?

10. What was the final, binding outcome of the case after the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was reviewed?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner proposed to build a 10-foot long, 6-foot high block wall for privacy between his patio and his neighbor’s patio. The wall was to be located a foot or so inside his side of the property line, so his neighbors could not attach to it.

2. The Respondent explained that walls built near, but not on, the property line can lead to problems. This can result in two parallel walls being built, creating an unmaintainable space between them that collects refuse, leaves, insects, nests, and rodents.

3. The Respondent approved a variance on the condition that the wall be built on the property line. Both the Petitioner and his neighbors (the Rohlmans) had to agree in writing that current or future owners could extend the wall, with this agreement being disclosed upon sale of either house.

4. The Rohlmans declined because they believed a wall on the property line would negatively affect their property’s value. They were also concerned about the legal expense and perpetual nature of an easement, and the possibility that future owners could lengthen the wall without consent.

5. ALC Guideline JJ permits a “privacy panel wall,” which is a free-standing alumawood wall. This wall must be 6 feet high, no longer than 16 feet, and located at least 3 feet from the property line. The Petitioner rejected this option, feeling it was “unsightly and flimsy.”

6. CC&R § 1(Hh) defines a “Party Wall” as a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of lots. CC&R § 2(P)(i) states that each owner of a contiguous property has the right to use the Party Wall, provided it does not interfere with the other owner’s use.

7. ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) states that an existing party wall along a joint property line “precludes any adjacent parallel party wall.” This rule is in place to prevent the negative situation described by the Respondent where a difficult-to-maintain space is created between two walls.

8. A “preponderance of the evidence” is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. It is also described as “the greater weight of the evidence” that is sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side of an issue over the other.

9. The Petitioner, Richard Long, bore the burden of proof. He had to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.

10. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Petitioner’s petition, and this decision was adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, becoming a Final Order. The Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-style response. Use the case documents to formulate a comprehensive answer supported by specific facts and citations to the community’s governing documents.

1. Analyze the conflict between the Petitioner’s desire for a specific type of privacy structure and the Respondent’s interpretation of the community’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines. How did the governing documents prioritize community standards and potential future problems over an individual homeowner’s preference?

2. Discuss the role and reasoning of the Petitioner’s neighbors, the Rohlmans. Evaluate their concerns regarding property value, easements, and future modifications as presented in their email, and explain how their refusal to sign the agreement was a critical factor in the dispute.

3. Explain the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky to reach her decision. Detail which specific sections of the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines were most influential and how she applied them to unequivocally deny the Petitioner’s request.

4. Compare and contrast the two types of structures discussed for ensuring privacy: the block wall proposed by the Petitioner and the “privacy panel wall” permitted by ALC Guideline JJ. What are the key differences in their material, specifications, placement, and the implications of those differences within the community’s rules?

5. Trace the procedural path of this dispute, from the initial petition to the Final Order. Describe the distinct roles and authority of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC), the Office of Administrative Hearings, the Administrative Law Judge, and the Commissioner.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over hearings at an administrative agency (in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings) and makes decisions on disputes. In this case, the ALJ was Diane Mihalsky.

Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC)

The committee within the homeowners’ association responsible for reviewing and approving or denying proposed changes to properties, such as walls and fences, based on the community’s guidelines.

Burden of Proof

The obligation to prove one’s assertion. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the community documents.

Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set out the guidelines for a planned community or homeowners’ association.

The Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, which is authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The organization that creates and enforces rules for the properties within its jurisdiction. In this case, the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association was the Respondent.

Party Wall

As defined in CC&R § 1(Hh), “a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of Lots, Parcels, Common Areas or other areas in PebbleCreek Golf Resort.” CC&R § 2(P)(i) grants each owner the right to use the Party Wall.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the homeowner Richard Long.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this civil case, defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and “[t]he greater weight of the evidence.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association.

Why Your HOA Can Control a Wall Built Entirely on Your Property

Introduction: The Privacy Paradox

Imagine you want a bit more privacy from your next-door neighbor. The solution seems simple: build a wall. To avoid any disputes, you decide to build it entirely on your land, a good foot inside your property line. It’s your property, your wall, your right. But what if your Homeowners’ Association (HOA) tells you that you can’t? This is not a hypothetical scenario; it’s precisely what happened to homeowner Richard Long when he tried to build a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall.

Mr. Long proposed building the wall just one foot inside his property line, believing this would make it a private structure, free from the shared-property rules that often complicate neighborly relations. The HOA denied his request, sparking a legal dispute. The outcome of this case provides surprising and counter-intuitive lessons that every homeowner in a planned community should understand about property rights, community rules, and the hidden logic that governs them.

——————————————————————————–

1. The Hidden Logic: Preventing the “Rodent Run”

At first glance, the HOA’s rule might seem like arbitrary overreach. Why should they care if a wall is on the property line or one foot away from it? The answer reveals a practical, long-term logic designed to prevent a specific, unpleasant problem: two parallel walls built side-by-side.

The HOA’s governing documents were written to avoid a scenario where a small, unmaintainable gap is created between two separate walls on adjacent properties. If Mr. Long built his wall a foot inside his line, and his neighbor later decided to do the same, a narrow dead space would be created between the homes. In its official written answer, the HOA vividly described the issue this creates:

This is not a good situation in that there often isn’t room between the walls to properly maintain either wall, and the area in between the two walls becomes filled with refuse, leaves, insects, nests and rodents.

This reveals a core principle of planned community management: rules are often designed not to restrict current owners, but to mitigate future risks and liabilities for the entire community. This preventative governance aims to protect the community from future blight, sanitation issues, and pest infestations.

——————————————————————————–

2. The “Immediately Adjacent” Rule: Your Property Isn’t an Island

The homeowner’s central argument was that by building the wall a foot inside his property, it was his private wall, not a shared “party wall” subject to joint rules. It was a clever attempt to circumvent the regulations, but it failed because of the precise wording in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Here, the dispute hinged on two seemingly innocuous words. The community’s CC&Rs define a “Party Wall” as a wall constructed “on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary.” The Administrative Law Judge interpreted a wall built only a foot away as falling under the definition of “immediately adjacent.” This single phrase effectively negated the homeowner’s entire strategy.

The judge’s determination that the wall qualified as “immediately adjacent” was critical. By legally defining it as a Party Wall, another rule from the CC&Rs automatically kicked in: the adjoining neighbor’s explicit right to use it. This completely undermined the homeowner’s central goal of creating a purely private structure.

As if that weren’t definitive enough, another, even more explicit rule served as the final nail in the coffin. ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) states: “An existing party wall along a joint property line precludes any adjacent parallel party wall, i.e. Two walls cannot be built side by side.” This rule directly forbids the exact “rodent run” scenario, showing that the governing documents had multiple, overlapping prohibitions against his plan.

——————————————————————————–

3. The Neighbor’s Veto: It’s a Three-Party Problem

In an attempt to find a middle ground, the HOA offered a potential compromise. They would approve the wall, but only if it were built directly on the property line and if both Mr. Long and his neighbors, the Rohlmans, signed a formal “Party Wall/Fence Agreement.” This solution, however, revealed another layer of complexity. The neighbors refused to sign.

The Rohlmans explained their reasoning in an email, highlighting concerns that went beyond simple aesthetics. They worried about the financial and legal implications of a shared wall on the property line.

[We] declined to have a wall built on the property line between our homes because it affects the current and future value of our property – and yours. Furthermore, each of us would have to grant the other an easement in perpetuity, which is a legal document… Upon the sale of our home, we would have to inform the purchaser of the easement, which lowers the value of the property.

This demonstrates a common blind spot for homeowners: disputes are rarely bilateral. The rights and financial interests of adjacent property owners create a complex, multi-party dynamic. More often than not, an HOA dispute is a three-party negotiation, and a neighbor’s consent—or lack thereof—can be the deciding factor.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: The Rules You Don’t Know Can Hurt You

The final outcome was decisive. The Administrative Law Judge upheld the HOA’s decision, and the homeowner’s petition was denied. The judge concluded that the community’s governing documents “unequivocally prohibit” the proposed wall. However, this was not a total denial of privacy. Mr. Long did have an approved option: a free-standing “alumawood” privacy panel, provided it was located three feet from the property line. He rejected this alternative because he felt it was “unsightly and flimsy.”

This case serves as a powerful reminder that an HOA’s governing documents are not mere suggestions; they are legally binding contracts. The conflict was ultimately not between a homeowner’s right to privacy and the HOA, but between the homeowner’s specific aesthetic preference and the community’s established architectural standards. What you can do on your own land is deeply intertwined with the collective rules you agreed to when you purchased your home.

Before your next home improvement project, does your plan align not just with your vision, but also with the shared vision encoded in your community’s rules?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Richard Long (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf
Petitioner's wife (interested party)
Required, along with Petitioner, to agree in writing to the wall conditions for variance approval (Unit 39 Lot 12)

Respondent Side

Jack Sarsam (executive/witness)
Robson Communities
Senior Vice President for Robson Communities, overseeing Respondent's operations; testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Administrative Law Judge who issued the decision
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Commissioner who adopted the ALJ decision in the Final Order
Dan Gardner (HOA Coordinator)
Contact for rehearing requests; listed as HOA Coordinator

Other Participants

The Rohlmans (neighbor/interested party)
Adjacent neighbors (Unit 39 lot 11) whose refusal to sign the party wall agreement was central to the dispute

Jason West vs. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

Posted on June 27, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1716031-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-06-28
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner’s petition alleging the HOA failed to fill board vacancies (Bylaw § 3.6 violation), finding that the HOA had made reasonable efforts, but vacancies could not be filled because no eligible members were willing to serve, partly due to the Petitioner's actions.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jason West	Counsel	—
Respondent	Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association	Counsel	Stewart F. Salwin, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaw § 3.6

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner’s petition alleging the HOA failed to fill board vacancies (Bylaw § 3.6 violation), finding that the HOA had made reasonable efforts, but vacancies could not be filled because no eligible members were willing to serve, partly due to the Petitioner's actions.

Why this result: Respondent established that the Board performed all reasonable actions to fill vacancies, but no eligible members were willing to serve, in part due to Petitioner's obstructionist tactics, rendering enforcement of the Bylaw impossible as it would lead to an absurdity.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusing to fill vacancies on Respondent’s Board of Directors

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on the Board of Directors. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Board had done all it could to fill vacancies, but no eligible members were willing to serve, and Bylaw § 3.6 does not empower the Board to conscript unwilling members.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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)(1)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Mail Boxes v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona, 181 Ariz. 119, 122, 888 P.2d 777, 780 (1995)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Board Vacancies, Bylaw 3.6, Obstructionist Tactics, Refusal to Serve

Additional Citations:

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)(1)
Vazanno v. Superior Court
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
Mail Boxes v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716031-REL Decision – 572314.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:04:00 (137.9 KB)

17F-H1716031-REL Decision – 576049.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:04:04 (1160.4 KB)

Briefing Document: West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (Case No. 17F-H1716031-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative hearing and final order concerning a petition filed by homeowner Jason West (“Petitioner”) against the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA’s Board of Directors violated its own Bylaw § 3.6 by failing to fill vacant board positions.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The central finding was that the Respondent had made repeated and reasonable efforts to fill the vacancies but was unsuccessful due to a lack of willing and eligible candidates. The ALJ concluded that the governing bylaw mandates the appointment of willing members but does not grant the power to conscript individuals to serve against their will. Furthermore, the decision determined that the shortage of volunteers was attributable, in part, to the Petitioner’s own “obstructionist tactics,” which created a hostile and dysfunctional environment, leading to a series of board member resignations and deterring potential candidates.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 17F-H1716031-REL

• Petitioner: Jason West, a homeowner and member of the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association.

• Respondent: Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, representing a small community of approximately 40 homes.

• Core Allegation: On April 10, 2017, the Petitioner filed a single-issue petition alleging the Respondent violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on its Board of Directors.

• Hearing Date: June 21, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.

• Final Disposition: The Petitioner’s petition was denied in a decision dated June 28, 2017. This decision was adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 12, 2017, making it binding on the parties.

Governing Bylaw in Dispute

The central issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 3.6 of the HOA’s Bylaws, which states:

Vacancies. Vacancies on the Board caused by any reason other than the removal of a director in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.3 of these Bylaws shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining directors at the first regular or special meeting of the Board held after the occurrence of such vacancy, even though the directors present at such meeting may constitute less than a quorum. Each person so elected shall serve the unexpired portion of the prior director’s term.

Key Parties and Witnesses

Role / Affiliation

Key Testimony / Actions

Jason West

Petitioner, Homeowner, Former Board President

Filed the petition alleging bylaw violation. Previously filed recall petitions against other board members, resigned from the board himself, and proposed a bylaw amendment that disqualified newly elected members.

Eugenia (“Gina”) Murray

Respondent’s Board President

Testified that the board made repeated efforts to find volunteers, but no one was willing to serve, citing the Petitioner’s behavior as a major cause for resignations and lack of interest.

Edward (“Eddie”) Padilla

Community Manager, National Property Service (NPS)

Testified about sending multiple email requests for board candidates on behalf of the board, which yielded no interested parties other than those who would later be disqualified.

Christina Van Soest

Former Board Member

Resigned on Feb. 8, 2017, stating, “I have found the direction of some of the board does not appear to be in the best interest of the community as a whole.” Testified she was uncomfortable with the Petitioner.

Elizabeth Mayhew

Former Board Member

Resigned on Apr. 4, 2017, citing stress directly related to the Petitioner: “I have enough stress daily with my job and cannot handle this or him. It is making me physically ill and he is not worth that.”

Myron (“Ray”) Elmer

Former Board Member

Resigned on Apr. 5, 2017, with the stated reason: “[d]ue to continued problems Jason etc.”

Korey Hjelmeir & Debra Epstein

Former Board Members

Testified for the Petitioner’s rebuttal. Both had previously resigned in June 2016 in response to the Petitioner’s recall petitions and were later disqualified from serving by a bylaw amendment he proposed.

Chronology of Board Destabilization and Resignations

The hearing evidence established a pattern of significant board turnover and dysfunction between June 2016 and June 2017.

• June 23, 2016: Board members Adrian Justiniano, Debra Epstein, and Korey Hjelmeir resigned after the Petitioner filed recall petitions against them.

• August 3, 2016: The Petitioner, June Thompson, and Christina Van Soest were elected to the Board. The Petitioner served as president.

• August 18, 2016: The Board expanded from 3 to 5 members, appointing Gina Murray and Ray Elmer.

• August 29, 2016: June Thompson resigned.

• February 8, 2017: Christina Van Soest resigned, citing the board’s direction and her discomfort with the Petitioner’s “research into members’ backgrounds and history, and the way he was making Board decisions.”

• February 18, 2017: The Petitioner resigned from the Board because he had “more important things to worry about than the management of this dysfunctional community.”

• April 4, 2017: Elizabeth Mayhew resigned, stating she could not handle the stress caused by the Petitioner and his “verbal assaults, constant lashing out, and personal attacks.”

• April 5, 2017: Ray Elmer resigned, attributing his departure to “continued problems Jason etc.” This left Gina Murray as the sole remaining board member.

Respondent’s Efforts to Fill Vacancies

The Respondent provided evidence of multiple, documented attempts to recruit new board members.

• February 23, 2017: Following the resignations of Ms. Van Soest and the Petitioner, Community Manager Eddie Padilla sent an email requesting “motivated and dedicated individuals” to serve on the Board. No one responded.

• March 31, 2017: At an open Board Meeting with “Board appointments” on the agenda, Gina Murray asked for volunteers and nominations from the floor. No one responded.

• April 4 & 18, 2017: Mr. Padilla sent two further emails requesting members interested in serving on the board to submit biographies for an upcoming annual meeting. The only individuals to respond and submit biographies were Mr. Justiniano and Ms. Hjelmeir.

• May 15, 2017: At the annual meeting, Ms. Murray again accepted nominations from the floor. Debra Epstein was nominated.

• June 5, 2017: After the newly elected board was disqualified, Mr. Padilla sent another email asking for volunteers.

Petitioner’s Actions and Their Consequences

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision identified the Petitioner’s own actions as a primary cause for the board’s inability to fill vacancies.

• Instigation of Resignations: The Petitioner’s recall petitions in June 2016 and behavior cited in the 2017 resignation letters from Van Soest, Mayhew, and Elmer directly contributed to the board vacancies.

• Contradictory Claims: The Petitioner testified that four individuals (Linda Siedler, Teresa Price, Bret Morse, and Bryan Brunatti) were interested in serving. However, the sign-in sheet for the March 31, 2017 meeting, where appointments were to be made, showed none of these individuals were present.

• Disqualifying Bylaw Amendment: The Petitioner proposed a new bylaw, § 3.12, which was passed at the May 15, 2017 meeting. It stated:

• Attempted Removal of Remaining Director: On June 12, 2017, the Petitioner submitted a petition to remove Gina Murray, the last remaining original board member, which would have left the board entirely vacant.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Decision

The ALJ’s conclusions of law were decisive in denying the petition.

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated its bylaws.

2. Interpretation of Bylaw § 3.6: The Judge ruled that while the bylaw requires the Board to appoint members to fill vacancies, “it does not empower the Board to conscript members who are not willing to serve on the Board.”

3. Principle of Absurdity: Citing legal precedent, the decision stated that bylaws must be construed to avoid an absurd result. Forcing an HOA to operate without a board because no eligible members are willing to serve, especially when the situation is exacerbated by the Petitioner, would be such an absurdity.

4. Respondent’s Due Diligence: The Judge found that “Respondent established that the Board has done all it could to fill vacancies.”

5. Petitioner’s Culpability: The final conclusion explicitly states that “at this time, no eligible members are willing to serve, in part due to Petitioner’s obstructionist tactics, including Petitioner and his claimed supporters.”

Based on these findings, the ALJ ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The order became final and binding upon adoption by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 12, 2017.

Study Guide: West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing case No. 17F-H1716031-REL, Jason West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms based on the provided legal documents.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information in the case documents.

1. What was the specific allegation made by the Petitioner, Jason West, in his April 10, 2017 petition?

2. According to the text of Bylaw § 3.6, how are vacancies on the Board of Directors supposed to be filled?

3. Who was the sole remaining member of the Board of Directors at the time of the mass resignations in April 2017, and what was her stated reason for not resigning?

4. Describe the circumstances that led to the resignations of board members Christina Van Soest and Jason West in February 2017.

5. What was the immediate and paradoxical outcome of the May 15, 2017 annual meeting election?

6. Explain the purpose and effect of the proposed Bylaw § 3.12, which was sponsored by the Petitioner.

7. What efforts did the Respondent’s management company, National Property Service (NPS), make to recruit new board members?

8. On what grounds did Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky deny the Petitioner’s petition?

9. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, why were certain individuals he named hesitant to volunteer for the Board?

10. What action did the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate take regarding the Administrative Law Judge’s decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Jason West’s single-issue petition alleged that the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (the Respondent) had violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on its Board of Directors.

2. Bylaw § 3.6 states that vacancies on the Board (for reasons other than removal) shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining directors at the next meeting. The person elected serves the unexpired portion of the prior director’s term.

3. Eugenia (“Gina”) Murray was the sole remaining board member. She stated she had no intention of resigning because it was important for someone to serve the community’s interests, such as negotiating the insurance contract and handling other community affairs.

4. Christina Van Soest resigned on February 8, 2017, stating the board’s direction was not in the community’s best interest and she was uncomfortable with the Petitioner’s methods. On February 18, 2017, Jason West resigned, citing his belief that he had “more important things to worry about than the management of this dysfunctional community.”

5. At the May 15, 2017 meeting, Eugenia Murray, Debra Epstein, Adrian Justiniano, and Korey Hjelmeir were elected to the Board. However, a bylaw amendment proposed by the Petitioner also passed at the same meeting, which made Epstein, Justiniano, and Hjelmeir ineligible to serve because they had resigned within the previous year.

6. The proposed Bylaw § 3.12 was designed to ban any director who resigns or is removed from serving on the board again for one year. Its passage at the May 15, 2017 meeting had the immediate effect of disqualifying three of the four newly elected board members.

7. NPS, through Community Manager Edward Padilla, sent out multiple emails requesting that interested individuals submit biographies to be considered for board positions. These requests were sent on February 23, April 4, April 18, and June 5, 2017.

8. Judge Mihalsky denied the petition because the Respondent had established that the Board did all it could to fill the vacancies. The judge concluded that the Bylaws cannot be construed to empower the Board to conscript unwilling members and that the lack of volunteers was due in part to the Petitioner’s own “obstructionist tactics.”

9. The Petitioner testified that Linda Siedler, Teresa Price, Bret Morse, and Bryan Brunatti were interested but had two conditions. They were concerned about serving with certain other members (Murray, Hjelmeir, Justiniano, or the Epsteins) and wanted assurance that the directors’ insurance policy would be renewed, which was questionable due to petitions filed by West himself.

10. On July 12, 2017, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, issued a Final Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. This order made the denial of the Petitioner’s petition binding on the parties.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Entity

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Diane Mihalsky, who presides over an administrative hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (“the Department”)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.

Bylaw § 3.12 (Proposed)

An amendment proposed by the Petitioner that would ban any director who resigns or is removed from the board from serving again for a period of one year. This amendment was passed at the May 15, 2017 annual meeting.

Bylaw § 3.6

The section of the Respondent’s bylaws that was the central issue of the petition. It requires the remaining directors to fill board vacancies by a majority vote at the next regular or special meeting.

Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

The Respondent in the case; a small homeowners’ association for a development of approximately 40 condominium homes.

Final Order

The binding decision issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, which formally adopts the ALJ’s decision. This order makes the ruling effective and outlines the process for requesting a rehearing.

Jason West

The Petitioner in the case. He is a homeowner and member of the Respondent association who filed a petition alleging the Board violated Bylaw § 3.6.

National Property Service (NPS)

The management company employed by the Respondent, represented in the hearing by Community Manager Edward (“Eddie”) Padilla.

Office of Administrative Hearings

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

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Jason West.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has the greater weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association.