Petitioner's petition was granted in part, finding Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A) by failing to afford Petitioner an opportunity to speak before the vote ratification during the special meeting. The tribunal found no violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(E)(1), 33-1248(E)(4), or Art. 23, sec. 23.9. Petitioner was awarded a civil penalty of $167.00, but reimbursement of the filing fee was denied.
Why this result: Petitioner lost claims regarding the lack of meeting agenda (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(E)(1)) because the statute applies to board meetings, not special member meetings; regarding the unnoticed Town Hall (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(E)(4)) because the gathering was not considered an informal meeting to discuss Association business; and the claim regarding Art. 23, sec. 23.9 was abandoned/plead in error.
Key Issues & Findings
Member right to speak during noticed meeting
Petitioner alleged violation by refusing to permit him to speak during a noticed meeting. The Tribunal found Respondent in violation because Petitioner unequivocally indicated he wished to be heard ('waiting for the public comment') prior to vote ratification, but was not afforded a clear opportunity to do so.
Orders: Respondent shall tender $167.00 to the Department, in certified funds, as a civil penalty for its violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A) within thirty (30) days of this Order. Respondent shall not violate this statutory provision henceforth.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $167.00
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, Condominium, Open Meeting Law, Right to Speak, Civil Penalty
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(E)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(E)(4)
Art. 23, sec. 23.9
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
25F-H056-REL Decision – 1335493.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:21 (847.7 KB)
25F-H056-REL Decision – 1335502.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:26 (74.4 KB)
25F-H056-REL Decision – 1335656.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:31 (10.6 KB)
25F-H056-REL Decision – 1352057.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:35 (53.9 KB)
25F-H056-REL Decision – 1352067.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:39 (7.8 KB)
25F-H056-REL Decision – 1353232.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:43 (52.9 KB)
25F-H056-REL Decision – 1357681.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:47 (82.0 KB)
25F-H056-REL Decision – 1360270.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:51 (52.2 KB)
25F-H056-REL Decision – 1369834.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:56 (190.0 KB)
Briefing Doc – 25F-H056-REL
Briefing Document: Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowner R.L. Whitmer (Petitioner) and the Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners (Respondent), culminating in a decision by an Arizona Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The case, docket number 25F-H056-REL, centered on allegations that the Homeowners Association (HOA) violated Arizona’s open meeting laws during and after a special meeting of the members on April 7, 2025.
The Petitioner alleged three primary statutory violations of A.R.S. § 33-1248: (1) failure to provide a meeting agenda, (2) denial of the opportunity to speak, and (3) holding an unnoticed informal meeting with a quorum of the board present. The Respondent countered that the meeting was a special meeting of the members, not a board meeting, that the petitioner never explicitly requested to speak, and that the post-meeting gathering was an informal discussion among neighbors, not an official meeting.
The ALJ’s final decision, issued on November 19, 2025, resulted in a partial victory for the Petitioner. The judge found the HOA in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248(A) for failing to provide an opportunity for the Petitioner to speak, deeming the HOA’s argument that he did not make an explicit request “disingenuous.” The other two allegations were dismissed. Consequently, a civil penalty of $167.00 was imposed on the Respondent, but the Petitioner’s request for reimbursement of his $500.00 filing fee was denied.
I. Case Overview
Case Name
In the Matter of R.L. Whitmer, Petitioner, v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners, Respondent
On April 9, 2025, R.L. Whitmer filed a Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the ADRE, alleging violations stemming from a “special meeting” presided over by HOA President Bob Westbrook on April 7, 2025.
Core Allegations:
• Failure to Provide an Agenda (A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)(1)): The Petitioner alleged that the HOA failed to provide an agenda for the meeting. The petition states, “When asked for the agenda…Mr. Westbrook stated there was no agenda.”
• Denial of Opportunity to Speak (A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)): The Petitioner claimed he was denied the opportunity to speak during the noticed session. The petition reads, “When asked for the opportunity to speak during the noticed session, Mr. Westbrook stated there would not be such an opportunity.”
• Unnoticed Meeting (A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)(4)): The Petitioner alleged that after the special meeting was adjourned, the board “unlawfully proceeded to hold an unnoticed meeting with a quorum of the board present.”
• Violation of Association Declaration: The petition initially cited a violation of “Article 23 § 23.9 of the Declaration of Horizontal Property Regime for Hilton Casitas.” During the hearing, the Petitioner acknowledged this was included in error and abandoned the claim.
Requested Relief:
1. An order directing the Respondent to abide by the Arizona statutes specified in the complaint.
2. The imposition of a civil penalty against the Respondent for the alleged violations.
III. Respondent’s Position and Defense
The Hilton Casitas HOA, represented by counsel, denied all allegations and argued for the petition’s complete dismissal.
Core Defense Arguments:
• Agenda Not Required for Member Meeting: The Respondent contended that the April 7, 2025 meeting was a “special meeting of the members” for the sole purpose of ratifying a revised budget, not a “meeting of the board of directors.” Therefore, the specific agenda requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)(1) did not apply.
• Ballot Packet Served as Agenda: Even if an agenda were required, the absentee ballot packet—which included a letter explaining the budget, the revised budget itself, and the ballot—sufficiently notified the membership of the meeting’s sole purpose.
• Petitioner Never Explicitly Requested to Speak: The Respondent argued that the Petitioner never made a formal request to speak. Citing the hearing transcript, they noted that in response to being asked if he cared to vote, the Petitioner stated, “I’m waiting for the public comment.” The defense argued this statement was not a direct request to speak.
• “Town Hall” Was Not a Board Meeting: The HOA characterized the gathering after the formal meeting as an “informal town hall discussion” where President Westbrook invited neighbors to stay at his home for a “neighborly conversation.” They asserted that no association business was conducted and that the mere presence of a quorum of board members did not transform the gathering into a formal, unnoticed board meeting, which would lead to the “absurd result” of directors being prohibited from attending member events.
IV. Procedural History and Hearing Chronology
• April 9, 2025: Petition filed by R.L. Whitmer.
• April 30, 2025: Petitioner pays the $500.00 single-issue filing fee.
• June 6, 2025: Respondent files its answer, denying all complaint items.
• June 24, 2025: ADRE issues a Notice of Hearing, scheduling it for August 1, 2025.
• August 1, 2025: Petitioner moves to continue the hearing to amend his petition.
• August 11, 2025: Petitioner submits an Amended HOA Dispute Petition.
• September-October 2025: A series of motions are filed, including a Motion for Summary Judgment by the Petitioner and a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by the Respondent.
• October 8, 2025: The OAH issues an order denying the Petitioner’s motion and dismissing his Amended Petition with prejudice, but allowing the original petition to proceed.
• November 3, 2025: The continued hearing is held remotely before ALJ Jenna Clark. R.L. Whitmer testifies on his own behalf, and Robert Westbrook testifies for the Respondent.
• November 19, 2025: ALJ Clark issues the final Administrative Law Judge Decision.
V. Administrative Law Judge’s Final Decision and Rationale
The ALJ granted the petition in part and denied it in part, finding the Respondent in violation of one of the three alleged statutory provisions.
The ALJ found that the Respondent violated the Petitioner’s right to speak. The decision concluded that although the Petitioner did not make an explicit request, his statement, “I’m waiting for the public comment,” was a clear and unequivocal indication of his desire to be heard.
• Rationale: The judge found the Respondent’s counterargument to be “disingenuous,” stating, “It cannot be faithfully argued that the HOA President was unaware Petitioner was desirous of speaking. Animosity notwithstanding, Petitioner should have been afforded a reasonable amount of time to be heard prior to adjournment.”
The ALJ ruled that the Respondent did not violate the statute regarding meeting agendas.
• Rationale: The decision affirms the Respondent’s position, stating, “the record clearly reflects that the April 07, 2025, special meeting was not a meeting of the board of directors, and did have an agenda issued to members in advance – as evidenced by the ballot and memorandum which provided objectively reasonable detail regarding the purpose and scope of the meeting.”
The ALJ determined that the post-meeting gathering did not constitute an illegal unnoticed meeting.
• Rationale: The judge concluded that “the existence of a quorum, intentional or otherwise, absent open discussion of Association business does not a meeting make.” The decision further supported the Respondent’s argument that holding otherwise “would unintentionally result in absurdity.”
VI. Final Order and Sanctions
Based on the findings, the final order established the following:
1. Petition Status: The petition was granted in part (for the A.R.S. § 33-1248(A) violation) and denied and dismissed for all other allegations.
2. Civil Penalty: The Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $167.00 to the ADRE within thirty days for the violation.
3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Petitioner’s request to be reimbursed for the $500.00 filing fee was denied.
4. Future Compliance: The Respondent was ordered to not violate A.R.S. § 33-1248(A) henceforth.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812, 33-1803(B-E), 33-1804, 33-1817, and CC&Rs Article VII
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association was legally permitted to amend its CC&Rs via written, notarized consent of the members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1), and that the actions taken did not violate the cited statutes or the governing documents.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; statutory requirements regarding voting (33-1812) and violation notices (33-1803) were inapplicable, and the process of using written consent and closed sessions for legal advice adhered to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1817 and 33-1804.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged unlawful procedures in replacing CC&Rs
Petitioner alleged the Association violated multiple Arizona Revised Statutes and CC&Rs Article VII by using unlawful procedures to replace the existing CC&Rs. Specific complaints included the Board directing members to sign a notarized agreement without permitting open discussion or dissent on specific proposed changes, arguing that a full vote was required. Respondent argued compliance with ARS § 33-1817 and CC&Rs Article VII, which permits amendment via written consent.
Briefing Document: Segal vs. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Anne F. Segal, Petitioner, vs. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent (No. 25F-H032-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute centered on the petitioner’s allegation that the respondent HOA utilized unlawful procedures to replace the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The petitioner argued that the HOA violated state statutes and the original governing documents by failing to hold sufficient open meetings for discussion, by not providing a proper ballot for a vote, and by circumventing a one-year discussion period intended by the original developer. Key evidence presented by the petitioner included testimony from the community’s original developer, who affirmed his intent for a lengthy, homeowner-driven amendment process, and testimony detailing significant, substantive changes to the CC&Rs that were allegedly not transparently communicated.
The respondent HOA defended its actions by asserting full compliance with Arizona law, particularly A.R.S. § 33-1817, which permits amendments via written consent of a majority of homeowners—a process legally distinct from a formal vote. The HOA maintained that state law superseded any conflicting provisions in the original CC&Rs. The board justified its decision to forgo a large, open-forum meeting by citing perceived “aggressive and threatening” communications from the petitioner, opting instead for a process of email-based “straw polls,” a formal Q&A period with its attorney, and a notarization event for collecting written consent.
Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition. The final decision concluded that the petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof. The ALJ found that the HOA acted lawfully by using executive sessions to obtain legal advice, by amending the CC&Rs through the statutory process of written consent, and that other statutes cited by the petitioner were inapplicable to the case.
Case Overview
The matter involves a formal petition filed on December 22, 2024, by homeowner Anne F. Segal with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged that the Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc. violated multiple Arizona Revised Statutes (§§ 33-1812, 33-1803(B-E), 33-1804, 33-1817) and its own governing documents (initially cited as Article V, later amended to Article VII) during the process of replacing the community’s CC&Rs.
The case was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, with evidentiary hearings held on March 27, 2025, and May 2, 2025, before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark. A final decision denying the petition was issued on May 22, 2025.
Key Parties and Witnesses
Name / Entity
Key Contributions
Anne F. Segal
Petitioner, Homeowner
Argued the HOA’s process was unlawful, lacked transparency, and violated open meeting laws and voting rights. Provided testimony and evidence regarding communications and the substance of the CC&R changes.
Prince Court Homeowners Association
Respondent
Defended its amendment process as compliant with state statutes for written consent and justified its communication methods based on legal advice and the petitioner’s conduct.
Mary Beth Snyder
President, HOA Board
Testified on behalf of the HOA (also called as an adverse witness by Petitioner). Detailed the board’s decision-making process, reliance on legal counsel, and rationale for avoiding an open-forum meeting.
Susan Matheson
Vice President, HOA Board
Corroborated Snyder’s testimony. Testified to managing the HOA’s email communications, including the accidental removal of David Zinfeld from the distribution list. Detailed complaints received from other homeowners about the petitioner’s communications.
David Zinfeld
Witness for Petitioner; Original Developer of Prince Court
Testified that he wrote the original CC&Rs with the intent for a year-long, homeowner-led discussion before any amendments. Stated he stopped receiving HOA communications and was not involved in or properly notified of the replacement process.
Dr. Robert Segal
Witness for Petitioner; Husband of Petitioner and Property Manager
Testified to the lack of open meetings and poor communication. Described the proposed CC&R changes as a “heart transplant” and highlighted discrepancies between the board’s “summary of changes” and the actual legal text.
Wendy Ehrlich, Esq.
Counsel for Respondent
Provided legal advice to the HOA board, which formed the basis for their procedural decisions. Argued the case for the Respondent during the hearings.
Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Presided over the hearings and issued the final decision, concluding the HOA acted lawfully and denying the petition.
——————————————————————————–
Central Arguments and Evidence
Petitioner’s Core Allegations
The petitioner’s case was built on the premise that the HOA’s procedure for replacing the CC&Rs was fundamentally flawed and unlawful.
• Violation of Governing Documents (Article VII): The petitioner argued the HOA ignored the original CC&Rs, which, according to the original developer David Zinfeld, intended a one-year period of open discussion prior to any amendment. Zinfeld testified, “I wanted it to be done at least a year beforehand…with discussion and meetings before any amendments should take place.”
• Improper Amendment Process: The petitioner contended that the “notarized agreement” process was not a valid “vote” and violated A.R.S. § 33-1812. This process did not provide a formal ballot or an opportunity for homeowners to vote “for or against” the action, effectively silencing dissent.
• Violation of Open Meeting Laws (A.R.S. § 33-1804): The petitioner alleged a lack of genuine open meetings where the substance of the new CC&Rs could be debated. Testimony indicated that discussions about the CC&Rs primarily occurred in closed executive sessions, justified by the board as necessary for receiving legal advice.
• Inadequate and Misleading Communication: Dr. Robert Segal described the summary of changes provided by the board as misleading and incomplete. He gave specific examples, such as a new rule allowing the board to remove any “objectionable” vehicle, which was not mentioned in the summary provided to homeowners. The petitioner also argued that relying solely on an incomplete and unverified email list was an unreasonable means of notice.
• Substantive Overhaul Without Consent: Dr. Segal characterized the changes as a “heart transplant,” not a minor revision. He noted the new CC&Rs gave the board “much more power and authority,” including the ability to raise fees by 20% per year.
Respondent’s Defense
The respondent HOA maintained that its actions were deliberate, based on legal counsel, and fully compliant with Arizona law.
• Adherence to Statutory Process (A.R.S. § 33-1817): The HOA’s central defense was that A.R.S. § 33-1817 allows for CC&R amendments through either an “affirmative vote or written consent.” They argued they lawfully chose the written consent path, which does not require a formal ballot under A.R.S. § 33-1812. Their counsel stated, “Article 7 dictated written consent. There was no vote conducted.”
• State Law Supersedes Governing Documents: The HOA argued, and noted in its October 14, 2024 email to members, that “The time limitations for CC&R amendments set forth in our current CC&Rs, Article VII… have been superseded by Arizona law which allows CC&Rs to be amended at any time; see A.R.S. § 33-1817.”
• Justification for Avoiding an Open Forum: Both Mary Beth Snyder and Susan Matheson testified that the decision not to hold a large, in-person informational meeting was based on legal advice and the board’s concern that the petitioner would “hijack the meeting” due to her perceived “aggressive and threatening” emails and communications. Matheson read excerpts from petitioner’s emails, including phrases like “This unilateral decision of the board is buying a lawsuit” and “I’m willing to legally challenge this effort.”
• Reasonable Communication Efforts: The board defended its use of email as a reasonable means of notice. They testified to sending eight separate email communications regarding the CC&Rs, including “straw polls” to gauge opinion, drafts of the new CC&Rs, and a formal Q&A where the board’s attorney answered submitted questions.
——————————————————————————–
Final Adjudication: Administrative Law Judge Decision
On May 22, 2025, Judge Jenna Clark issued a decision denying the petition in its entirety, finding that the petitioner had not sustained her burden of proof.
Findings of Fact
The decision outlined a timeline of events from the initial announcement in March 2024 to the notarization event in December 2024. Key findings included:
• The board hired counsel in April 2024 to assist with updating the CC&Rs.
• The association conducted “straw poll” emails in July and August 2024.
• The board held closed executive sessions to discuss legal advice from its attorney regarding the CC&R revisions.
• A draft of the proposed CC&Rs was distributed to members via email on October 14, 2024.
• A Q&A process was conducted, with attorney-provided answers distributed on November 25, 2025.
• The association intentionally did not hold a large open meeting due to concerns over the petitioner’s perceived behavior.
• A majority of homeowners (at least 20 of 39) provided signed and notarized consent agreements.
Conclusions of Law
The ALJ made the following legal conclusions, which formed the basis of the denial:
1. Written Consent is a Lawful Process: The Tribunal found that A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) explicitly allows an association to amend its declaration by “an affirmative vote or written consent.” The HOA lawfully chose the written consent method.
2. State Law Supersedes CC&Rs: The provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1817 supersede the edicts outlined in Article VII of the original CC&Rs regarding the amendment timeline.
3. Executive Sessions Were Permissible: The board was permitted under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) to go into executive session to receive legal advice from its attorney, even if the advice was unrelated to pending litigation.
4. Inapplicability of Other Statutes: The statutes regarding voting procedures (A.R.S. § 33-1812) and violation notices (A.R.S. § 33-1803) were deemed inapplicable and irrelevant to the matter at hand, as no formal vote was conducted and no violation notice was issued to the petitioner.
5. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The decision concluded that the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent had violated any of the cited statutes or its governing documents. The petition was therefore denied.
Study Guide – 25F-H032-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H032-REL”, “case_title”: “Anne F. Segal v. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-05-22”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can an HOA amend its CC&Rs by obtaining written consent from homeowners rather than holding a vote?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, an HOA is permitted to amend CC&Rs by written consent under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), and voting statutes do not apply to this process.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the association was permitted to modify its CC&Rs by written consent of its members. Because this process falls under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), the statutes governing voting (A.R.S. § 33-1812) are considered unrelated and irrelevant to the proceedings.”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association … was also permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1)… Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “Written Consent”, “Voting Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Does state law override CC&R provisions that restrict when amendments can be made (e.g., only every 10 years)?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) supersedes original CC&R restrictions regarding periodic renewal or specific timelines for amendments.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that state statute supersedes ‘edicts’ in original CC&Rs regarding timing for amendments. Even if the original documents specify a renewal period, the association can amend the documents via the statutory written consent process.”, “alj_quote”: “…permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1); which supersedes any edicts outlined in Article VII of the original CC&Rs.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “State Statute Supremacy”, “Governing Documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA Board hold a closed executive session to get legal advice if there is no pending lawsuit?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Board may meet in executive session to receive legal advice from their attorney, even if it is unrelated to pending litigation.”, “detailed_answer”: “Homeowners often believe legal advice must relate to a lawsuit for a meeting to be closed. However, the ALJ ruled that the Board is permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association was not only permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation from its attorney under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Executive Session”, “Legal Advice” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to hold an open discussion or town hall meeting before amending the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, the tribunal found that there is no requirement to permit members to openly deliberate proposed changes for a specific period if the statutory process is followed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner argued that the HOA was required to permit open deliberation for at least one year. The ALJ disagreed, ruling that the petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof for this contention, implying statutory compliance for written consent is sufficient.”, “alj_quote”: “Specifically, Petitioner contends that Respondent was required to permit Members to openly deliberate proposed changes to the CC&Rs for at least 1 year… the Tribunal is not in agreement with either of Petitioner’s contentions, and holds that she has not sustained her burden of proof in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural Requirements”, “Open Discussion”, “CC&R Amendments” ] }, { “question”: “Do statutes regarding monetary penalties apply to the process of amending CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, statutes regarding fines and penalties are irrelevant to the amendment process if no actual violation notice was issued or penalty imposed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ dismissed allegations regarding A.R.S. § 33-1803 (which governs monetary penalties) because they were inapplicable to a dispute centered on the procedural validity of amending CC&Rs where no fines were levied.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant. No violations of these statutes have been established by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Statutory Application”, “Relevance” ] }, { “question”: “Who bears the burden of proof in a hearing regarding HOA procedural violations?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “In administrative hearings regarding HOA disputes, it is up to the homeowner filing the petition to prove that their allegations are more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory and/or governing document violation(s).”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Procedure”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Procedure” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 25F-H032-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H032-REL”, “case_title”: “Anne F. Segal v. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-05-22”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can an HOA amend its CC&Rs by obtaining written consent from homeowners rather than holding a vote?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, an HOA is permitted to amend CC&Rs by written consent under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), and voting statutes do not apply to this process.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the association was permitted to modify its CC&Rs by written consent of its members. Because this process falls under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), the statutes governing voting (A.R.S. § 33-1812) are considered unrelated and irrelevant to the proceedings.”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association … was also permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1)… Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “Written Consent”, “Voting Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Does state law override CC&R provisions that restrict when amendments can be made (e.g., only every 10 years)?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) supersedes original CC&R restrictions regarding periodic renewal or specific timelines for amendments.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that state statute supersedes ‘edicts’ in original CC&Rs regarding timing for amendments. Even if the original documents specify a renewal period, the association can amend the documents via the statutory written consent process.”, “alj_quote”: “…permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1); which supersedes any edicts outlined in Article VII of the original CC&Rs.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “State Statute Supremacy”, “Governing Documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA Board hold a closed executive session to get legal advice if there is no pending lawsuit?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Board may meet in executive session to receive legal advice from their attorney, even if it is unrelated to pending litigation.”, “detailed_answer”: “Homeowners often believe legal advice must relate to a lawsuit for a meeting to be closed. However, the ALJ ruled that the Board is permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association was not only permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation from its attorney under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Executive Session”, “Legal Advice” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to hold an open discussion or town hall meeting before amending the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, the tribunal found that there is no requirement to permit members to openly deliberate proposed changes for a specific period if the statutory process is followed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner argued that the HOA was required to permit open deliberation for at least one year. The ALJ disagreed, ruling that the petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof for this contention, implying statutory compliance for written consent is sufficient.”, “alj_quote”: “Specifically, Petitioner contends that Respondent was required to permit Members to openly deliberate proposed changes to the CC&Rs for at least 1 year… the Tribunal is not in agreement with either of Petitioner’s contentions, and holds that she has not sustained her burden of proof in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural Requirements”, “Open Discussion”, “CC&R Amendments” ] }, { “question”: “Do statutes regarding monetary penalties apply to the process of amending CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, statutes regarding fines and penalties are irrelevant to the amendment process if no actual violation notice was issued or penalty imposed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ dismissed allegations regarding A.R.S. § 33-1803 (which governs monetary penalties) because they were inapplicable to a dispute centered on the procedural validity of amending CC&Rs where no fines were levied.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant. No violations of these statutes have been established by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Statutory Application”, “Relevance” ] }, { “question”: “Who bears the burden of proof in a hearing regarding HOA procedural violations?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “In administrative hearings regarding HOA disputes, it is up to the homeowner filing the petition to prove that their allegations are more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory and/or governing document violation(s).”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Procedure”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Procedure” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Anne F. Segal(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf.
David Zeinfeld(witness) Original developer and declarant of the subdivision.
Robert J. Seagull(witness) Petitioner's husband and property manager.
Respondent Side
Wendy Ehrlich(HOA attorney) Counsel for Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
Mary Beth Snyder(board member) Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc. President of the Association and witness.
Susan Matheson(board member) Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc. Vice President of the Association and witness.
The Administrative Law Judge Decision granted the remanded petition based on the parties' stipulation that the Respondent Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide the membership roster. The ALJ ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and assessed a civil penalty of $25.00 against Respondent. All other respects of the previous ALJ Decision issued February 21, 2023, remain unchanged.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to timely provide full membership roster
The remanded issue concerned whether Respondent failed to timely fulfill records requests, specifically a full roster of Association Member names and corresponding property addresses, in violation of ARS § 33-1805. The parties stipulated that a violation of ARS § 33-1805 occurred.
Orders: Petitioner's remanded petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and pay a $25.00 civil penalty.
Topics: HOA Records Request, Membership Roster, Records Disclosure, Statutory Violation, Stipulation, Remand
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09(A)(1)
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1280942.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:21 (50.9 KB)
25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1285833.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:25 (107.0 KB)
25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1286292.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:30 (21.7 KB)
25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1288559.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:36 (149.2 KB)
Briefing Doc – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Briefing Document: The Matter of Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the key events, legal arguments, and ultimate resolution of the administrative case Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (No. 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD). The dispute, which progressed through the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the Maricopa County Superior Court, centered on a homeowner’s right to access association records, specifically the membership roster.
The case concluded on March 31, 2025, when the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA) stipulated to a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805. The HOA admitted it failed to timely fulfill a records request for the membership roster, which was submitted on October 21, 2021, and not fulfilled until May 2023—a delay of approximately 19 months.
The resolution required the HOA to pay petitioner Tom Barrs a total of $975.00, which included the reimbursement of a $500.00 filing fee. Citing the respondent’s “unconscionable conduct,” the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) also levied a nominal civil penalty of $25.00 against the association.
A critical turning point in the case was a landmark ruling by the Maricopa County Superior Court on April 4, 2024. The Court reversed an earlier OAH decision, establishing that HOA membership lists containing names and property addresses do not qualify as exempt personal records. The Court reasoned that access to such information is “essential to having a homeowners association” and necessary for members “to actively participate in HOA affairs.” This ruling, however, specified that more private data, such as email addresses and phone numbers, are not subject to mandatory disclosure. The matter was subsequently remanded to the OAH on this single issue, leading to the final stipulated resolution.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview and Parties Involved
This administrative action details a prolonged dispute between a homeowner and his planned community association regarding access to records.
• Case Name: In the Matter of: Tom Barrs, Petitioner, vs. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Respondent.
• Docket Number: 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark
• Petitioner: Tom Barrs (Appeared pro per initially, later represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.)
• Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Represented by HOA President Michel Olley)
II. Procedural History: From Initial Petitions to Superior Court
The case originated from four separate petitions filed by Mr. Barrs with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, each incurring a $500 filing fee.
Petition Filing Date
Alleged Violation
Subject Matter
April 18, 2022
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Document requests from Apr 2021, Nov 2021, and Feb 2022.
April 18, 2022
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
Alleged preclusion of audio recording at a meeting.
April 18, 2022
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Membership roster request from October 2021.
May 12, 2022
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Multiple document requests from Oct 2021 to Mar 2022.
• May 25, 2022: The Department of Real Estate consolidated the matters and referred them to the OAH for an evidentiary hearing.
• January 9-10, 2023: The consolidated hearing takes place before the OAH.
• February 21, 2023: The OAH issues an Administrative Law Judge Decision. It granted portions of the general document request petitions but denied the petitions regarding the audio recording and the membership roster in their entirety. The petitioner’s request for civil penalties was also denied.
• March 26, 2023: As the aggrieved party, Mr. Barrs files a timely Dispute Rehearing Petition with the Department of Real Estate.
• April 18, 2023: The Department of Real Estate issues an order denying the rehearing request.
• June 6, 2023: The Department is notified that Mr. Barrs has appealed its decision to the Maricopa County Superior Court.
III. The Superior Court Ruling: A Key Decision on HOA Record Transparency
On April 4, 2024, the Superior Court issued a pivotal order that reversed the Department of Real Estate’s decision in part, focusing squarely on the issue of membership lists.
The Court concluded that the ALJ had erred in treating the membership roster as exempt personal records. It ruled that such lists, containing names and property addresses, must be made available to all members unless they qualify for a specific statutory exception.
“In this case, Desert Ridge has kept membership lists as a part of their records undoubtedly for a variety of reasons. Unless those records qualify for an exception, they must be made available to all members… Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records.”
The Court’s rationale was grounded in the principle of homeowner participation in association governance:
“In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.”
The ruling drew a clear line between public-facing information and private contact details. It affirmed that while names and addresses are necessary for HOA functions, more personal data is not.
“The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association… Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature… While disclosure of names and property addresses… may be essential to having a homeowners association, the disclosure of email addresses and phone numbers is not.”
On August 2, 2024, the Court reaffirmed its ruling and remanded “only the reversed portion of the Department’s Decision” back to the OAH for “proceedings consistent” with its order. The petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees for his pro per work was denied.
IV. The Remand Process and Clarification of Scope
Following the remand, the OAH scheduled a new hearing for March 31, 2025. A prehearing conference on March 18, 2025, revealed a significant disagreement between the parties on the scope of this new hearing.
• Petitioner’s Position: Mr. Barrs argued that the remand reopened all four of his original petitions for reconsideration.
• Respondent’s Position: Mr. Olley contended that the remand was narrowly focused on the single issue of the membership roster, as specified by the Superior Court.
ALJ Clark noted that the Department of Real Estate’s hearing notice was “deficient” because it failed to specify the issue for adjudication. To resolve the conflict, she issued a clarifying Minute Entry on March 24, 2025.
The Order explicitly narrowed the scope of the hearing:
“IT IS ORDERED that the issue to be addressed at the hearing… is whether Respondent failed to timely fulfill records requests submitted by Petitioner… by providing Petitioner with a full roster of Association Member names and corresponding property addresses per his request(s) in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”
The order further stated that in all other respects, the original ALJ Decision from February 21, 2023, “remains unchanged and in full force and effect,” thereby validating the respondent’s interpretation.
V. Final Hearing and Resolution
The remanded hearing convened on March 31, 2025. Before testimony could begin, the case moved swiftly to a resolution.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Olley, on behalf of the HOA, made a “motion for summary judgment,” conceding a violation of the statute regarding the withholding of the membership roster and offering to reimburse the petitioner’s $500 filing fee. The ALJ treated this as a settlement offer and allowed the parties to confer off the record.
The parties returned having reached a full agreement, which was entered into the record. The key stipulated facts were:
Stipulation
Details
Violation Admitted
The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the membership roster.
Specific Request
The violation pertains to the request made by Mr. Barrs on October 21, 2021.
Untimeliness
The roster was not provided until May 2023, approximately 19 months after the request.
Monetary Settlement
The Association agreed to pay Mr. Barrs a total of $975.00.
Based on the parties’ stipulations, ALJ Clark issued a final decision on April 1, 2025, formalizing the outcome:
1. Petition Granted: The petitioner’s remanded petition was granted.
2. Civil Penalty: A civil penalty of $25.00 was assessed against the Respondent. In his closing argument, petitioner’s counsel argued this was warranted due to the HOA’s “unconscionable conduct” in delaying compliance for 19 months.
3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: Respondent was ordered to reimburse the petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, as per the stipulation and statute.
4. Finality: The decision reaffirmed that all other elements of the original February 21, 2023, OAH decision remain in effect.
Study Guide – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H2222050-REL-RMD”, “case_title”: “Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-04-01”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA refuse to give me a list of other homeowners’ names and addresses?”, “short_answer”: “No. Unless an exception applies, membership lists with names and addresses must be made available so members can participate in HOA affairs.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that membership lists containing names and addresses are not considered ‘personal records’ that can be withheld. Access to this information is deemed necessary for members to actively participate in the association, such as knowing who belongs to the association and which properties they own.”, “alj_quote”: “Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records. … In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Records Request”, “Membership List”, “Homeowner Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Am I entitled to receive the email addresses and phone numbers of other homeowners?”, “short_answer”: “No. Email addresses and phone numbers are considered personal and private, unlike physical addresses.”, “detailed_answer”: “While names and physical addresses are necessary for HOA participation, the decision states that email addresses and phone numbers are more personal. Disclosure of this contact information is not essential for association business and could lead to harassment or marketing issues.”, “alj_quote”: “The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association. … Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Privacy”, “Records Request”, “Personal Records” ] }, { “question”: “How quickly must the HOA respond to my request to inspect records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law grants the association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Timelines”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee for simply looking at the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making material available for review. Charges are only permitted for copies.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Fees”, “Records Request” ] }, { “question”: “How much can the HOA charge me for copies of records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA can charge a maximum of 15 cents per page.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a member requests copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, but it is capped at fifteen cents per page.”, “alj_quote”: “An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Fees”, “Records Request” ] }, { “question”: “What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA can withhold privileged legal communications, pending litigation, closed meeting minutes, and specific personal or employee records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision outlines specific statutory exceptions where records can be withheld, including attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, and personal/health/financial records of members or employees.”, “alj_quote”: “Books and records… may be withheld… to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation. 3. Meeting minutes… of a session… not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Exceptions”, “Records Request”, “Privacy” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be penalized if they delay providing records for a long time?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Significant delays can result in a violation and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA failed to provide a membership roster for approximately 19 months (from October 2021 to May 2023). This was deemed untimely and resulted in a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s October 21, 2021, records request was untimely, as it was not fulfilled until May 2023. … Petitioner’s request to assess civil penalties totaling $25.00 against Respondent is granted.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Enforcement”, “Timelines” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my hearing, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fee?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision orders the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee as required by statute when the Petitioner prevails.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “Costs”, “Remedies” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute. This means showing that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Standards”, “Procedure” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H2222050-REL-RMD”, “case_title”: “Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-04-01”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA refuse to give me a list of other homeowners’ names and addresses?”, “short_answer”: “No. Unless an exception applies, membership lists with names and addresses must be made available so members can participate in HOA affairs.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that membership lists containing names and addresses are not considered ‘personal records’ that can be withheld. Access to this information is deemed necessary for members to actively participate in the association, such as knowing who belongs to the association and which properties they own.”, “alj_quote”: “Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records. … In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Records Request”, “Membership List”, “Homeowner Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Am I entitled to receive the email addresses and phone numbers of other homeowners?”, “short_answer”: “No. Email addresses and phone numbers are considered personal and private, unlike physical addresses.”, “detailed_answer”: “While names and physical addresses are necessary for HOA participation, the decision states that email addresses and phone numbers are more personal. Disclosure of this contact information is not essential for association business and could lead to harassment or marketing issues.”, “alj_quote”: “The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association. … Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Privacy”, “Records Request”, “Personal Records” ] }, { “question”: “How quickly must the HOA respond to my request to inspect records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law grants the association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Timelines”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee for simply looking at the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making material available for review. Charges are only permitted for copies.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Fees”, “Records Request” ] }, { “question”: “How much can the HOA charge me for copies of records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA can charge a maximum of 15 cents per page.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a member requests copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, but it is capped at fifteen cents per page.”, “alj_quote”: “An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Fees”, “Records Request” ] }, { “question”: “What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA can withhold privileged legal communications, pending litigation, closed meeting minutes, and specific personal or employee records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision outlines specific statutory exceptions where records can be withheld, including attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, and personal/health/financial records of members or employees.”, “alj_quote”: “Books and records… may be withheld… to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation. 3. Meeting minutes… of a session… not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Exceptions”, “Records Request”, “Privacy” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be penalized if they delay providing records for a long time?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Significant delays can result in a violation and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA failed to provide a membership roster for approximately 19 months (from October 2021 to May 2023). This was deemed untimely and resulted in a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s October 21, 2021, records request was untimely, as it was not fulfilled until May 2023. … Petitioner’s request to assess civil penalties totaling $25.00 against Respondent is granted.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Enforcement”, “Timelines” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my hearing, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fee?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision orders the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee as required by statute when the Petitioner prevails.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “Costs”, “Remedies” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute. This means showing that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Standards”, “Procedure” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Tom Barrs(petitioner)
Jonathan A. Dessaules(petitioner attorney) Dessaules Law Group
Respondent Side
Michael Olley(HOA President) Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Appeared on behalf of Respondent. Also referred to as Michael Ali and Michel Olley.
B. Austin Baillio(respondent attorney) Maxwell & Morgan P.C. Counsel for Respondent in official correspondence.
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Judge Mikitish(Superior Court Judge) Superior Court of Arizona – Maricopa County Issued minute entries in related Superior Court proceedings.
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence.
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence.
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence.
mneat(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence.
lrecchia(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence.
gosborn(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence.
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence.
Other Participants
Brian Schoeffler(observer) Observed the hearing.
Stephen Barrs(observer) Observed the hearing. Also referred to as Steven Bar and Steven Bars.
Bylaws Article II, Section 8, as amended October 18, 2000
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show the Association violated the purported Bylaws amendment, and therefore, the petition was denied.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the validity or implementation of the purported Bylaws amendment, and the language of the amendment itself was found not to be compulsory in requiring a subsequent meeting.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged failure to hold a second and subsequent meeting of the membership with a diminished quorum.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated its Bylaws by failing to hold a second meeting with a diminished 15% quorum after failing to meet the initial 25% quorum at the Annual Meeting on January 16, 2024, despite a motion and second being made to adjourn and reset the meeting.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Bylaws, Quorum, Annual Meeting, Burden of Proof, Invalid Document, Continuance
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163387.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:04 (48.4 KB)
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163395.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:08 (7.2 KB)
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165696.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:11 (49.1 KB)
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165699.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:13 (7.3 KB)
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179128.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:15 (53.7 KB)
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179136.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:19 (7.6 KB)
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1209016.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:23 (146.3 KB)
Questions
Question
If a document appears on the HOA's website, is it automatically considered a valid governing document?
Short Answer
No. The presence of a document on a website does not prove it was voted on or adopted.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that simply finding a document on the association's website is insufficient to prove it is a valid, adopted amendment. There must be evidence that members participated in a vote or that the association officially adopted it.
Alj Quote
The document’s presence on the Association’s website does not establish or tend to suggest that members participated in a vote on or about October 18, 2000, or that the Association adopted an amendment to Bylaw Article II Section 8 thereafter.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
governing documents
website
validity
Question
What specific features does a bylaw amendment need to be considered valid and enforceable?
Short Answer
It generally requires signatures, stamps, seals, or filing receipts to prove it isn't just a draft.
Detailed Answer
To be considered a valid governing document rather than a failed proposal or draft, the document should ideally have an embossed stamp, seal, or at least one signature indicating it was finalized and adopted.
Alj Quote
Moreover, the document itself does not have an embossed stamp or seal, or reflect at least one (1) signature that would reasonably suggest it was indeed a valid governing document, rather than a failed proposal or draft, which is supported by the fact that a filing receipt was not affixed.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
governing documents
signatures
enforceability
Question
If the bylaws mention a reduced quorum for a 'second meeting', is the HOA required to hold that second meeting?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If the language doesn't explicitly say the HOA 'must' hold the meeting, it may be optional.
Detailed Answer
Even if a bylaw provision states that a second meeting 'shall require' a lower quorum, this does not automatically compel the HOA to hold that meeting. Unless words like 'shall' or 'must' apply specifically to the act of holding the meeting itself, the HOA may not be required to schedule it.
Alj Quote
There are no accompanying words that are inherently binding such as shall or must that would require Respondent to hold a second meeting based on the aforementioned verbiage used.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 8
Topic Tags
meetings
quorum
bylaw interpretation
Question
Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the rules?
Short Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA committed the alleged violation.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law No. 3
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
procedure
Question
Does it matter if the HOA hasn't followed a specific rule for many years?
Short Answer
Yes. Long-term non-enforcement or lack of awareness by the board can be evidence that the rule was never validly adopted.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ considered the fact that the petitioner and board members were unaware of the amendment for years, and had failed to use it during previous quorum failures, as evidence weighing against the document's validity.
Alj Quote
Petitioner conceded that during his tenure on the Board and thereafter he was unaware of the purported amendment’s existence, notwithstanding several instances over a number of years where voting members failed to meet quorum requirements and did not utilize the provisions of the alleged amendment.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
past practice
board conduct
validity
Question
What standard of proof is used in these HOA hearings?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that a contention is more probably true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law No. 4
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
Case
Docket No
24F-H035-REL
Case Title
Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2024-08-09
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If a document appears on the HOA's website, is it automatically considered a valid governing document?
Short Answer
No. The presence of a document on a website does not prove it was voted on or adopted.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that simply finding a document on the association's website is insufficient to prove it is a valid, adopted amendment. There must be evidence that members participated in a vote or that the association officially adopted it.
Alj Quote
The document’s presence on the Association’s website does not establish or tend to suggest that members participated in a vote on or about October 18, 2000, or that the Association adopted an amendment to Bylaw Article II Section 8 thereafter.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
governing documents
website
validity
Question
What specific features does a bylaw amendment need to be considered valid and enforceable?
Short Answer
It generally requires signatures, stamps, seals, or filing receipts to prove it isn't just a draft.
Detailed Answer
To be considered a valid governing document rather than a failed proposal or draft, the document should ideally have an embossed stamp, seal, or at least one signature indicating it was finalized and adopted.
Alj Quote
Moreover, the document itself does not have an embossed stamp or seal, or reflect at least one (1) signature that would reasonably suggest it was indeed a valid governing document, rather than a failed proposal or draft, which is supported by the fact that a filing receipt was not affixed.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
governing documents
signatures
enforceability
Question
If the bylaws mention a reduced quorum for a 'second meeting', is the HOA required to hold that second meeting?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If the language doesn't explicitly say the HOA 'must' hold the meeting, it may be optional.
Detailed Answer
Even if a bylaw provision states that a second meeting 'shall require' a lower quorum, this does not automatically compel the HOA to hold that meeting. Unless words like 'shall' or 'must' apply specifically to the act of holding the meeting itself, the HOA may not be required to schedule it.
Alj Quote
There are no accompanying words that are inherently binding such as shall or must that would require Respondent to hold a second meeting based on the aforementioned verbiage used.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 8
Topic Tags
meetings
quorum
bylaw interpretation
Question
Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the rules?
Short Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA committed the alleged violation.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law No. 3
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
procedure
Question
Does it matter if the HOA hasn't followed a specific rule for many years?
Short Answer
Yes. Long-term non-enforcement or lack of awareness by the board can be evidence that the rule was never validly adopted.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ considered the fact that the petitioner and board members were unaware of the amendment for years, and had failed to use it during previous quorum failures, as evidence weighing against the document's validity.
Alj Quote
Petitioner conceded that during his tenure on the Board and thereafter he was unaware of the purported amendment’s existence, notwithstanding several instances over a number of years where voting members failed to meet quorum requirements and did not utilize the provisions of the alleged amendment.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
past practice
board conduct
validity
Question
What standard of proof is used in these HOA hearings?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that a contention is more probably true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law No. 4
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
Case
Docket No
24F-H035-REL
Case Title
Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2024-08-09
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jesse Freeman(petitioner) Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Member Spelling varies as 'Jesse Freemen' in some sources; also served as Treasurer on the Board 2017-2018.
Nicholas Belisi(witness) Potential witness for Petitioner; seconded the motion to adjourn and reconvene the meeting.
Respondent Side
Augustus H. Shaw IV(HOA attorney) Shaw & Lines, LLC Counsel for Respondent Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association.
Brandon David Moore(senior community manager/witness) Brown Property Management Senior Community Manager for Respondent Millett Ranch HOA, testified as a witness.
Christopher Redden(Board President/witness) Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Former Board President (9 years) and Board Member (13-14 years), testified as a witness.
Mark Saul(HOA attorney) Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Identified by Petitioner as the association's attorney who abruptly ended the January 16, 2024 meeting.
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) ADRE
vnunez(ADRE staff (Recipient)) ADRE Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
djones(ADRE staff (Recipient)) ADRE Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
labril(ADRE staff (Recipient)) ADRE Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
mneat(ADRE staff (Recipient)) ADRE Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
akowaleski(ADRE staff (Recipient)) ADRE Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
gosborn(ADRE staff (Recipient)) ADRE Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to meet their burden of proving a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248 regarding the May 19, 2023, Executive Board Meeting.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove the statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence, as the Executive Session was deemed appropriate for receiving legal advice or conducting discussion related thereto, which falls under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of open meeting law concerning Executive Board Meeting on May 19, 2023
Petitioners alleged the Association violated ARS § 33-1248 by improperly conducting business (Code of Conduct review and vote on minutes) in a closed Executive Session on May 19, 2023, and by failing to provide 48-hour notice.
Orders: Petitioners' petition was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Open Meeting Law, Executive Session, Legal Advice Exception, Code of Conduct, Burden of Proof, Condominium Association Statute, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H024-REL Decision – 1138580.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:38 (54.3 KB)
24F-H024-REL Decision – 1144884.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:41 (50.1 KB)
24F-H024-REL Decision – 1146526.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:44 (61.9 KB)
24F-H024-REL Decision – 1161533.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:47 (48.9 KB)
24F-H024-REL Decision – 1179547.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:52 (132.9 KB)
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA committed the alleged violation. This means showing that the claim is more likely true than not.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.
Legal Basis
Preponderance of the Evidence
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
procedure
Question
Can the HOA board go into a closed executive session to get legal advice?
Short Answer
Yes, the board may close a meeting to receive legal advice from the association's attorney.
Detailed Answer
State statute explicitly allows portions of meetings to be closed if limited to consideration of legal advice from an attorney for the board or association. Legal advice is defined broadly as guidance given by lawyers to their clients.
Alj Quote
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that 'Any portion of a meeting may be closed only if that portion of the meeting is limited to consideration of one or more of the following: (1) legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association.'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)
Topic Tags
executive session
legal advice
open meeting laws
Question
If I file a petition for one specific violation, can I bring up other issues during the hearing?
Short Answer
No, the tribunal will generally only address the specific issue paid for in the petition.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ may refuse to address tangential issues or additional complaints raised during the hearing if the petitioner only paid the filing fee for the adjudication of a single specific issue.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioners only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioners raised during the presentation of their case or closing arguments, including whether the Association properly provided notice of its May 19, 2023, Board Meeting.
Legal Basis
Procedural Scope
Topic Tags
hearing procedure
filing fees
scope of hearing
Question
Does draft language stating a policy 'has been approved' prove the board secretly voted on it?
Short Answer
No, the tense used in a draft document is considered irrelevant if the document was not actually adopted.
Detailed Answer
Even if a proposed document uses language like 'The Board… has approved,' this is considered a 'red herring' if the evidence shows the document was merely a proposal that board members were advised to sign but ultimately declined.
Alj Quote
The fact that language in the proposal used current language, rather than future tense, is a Red Herring argument and irrelevant.
Legal Basis
N/A
Topic Tags
evidence
board documents
voting
Question
Is it a violation for the board to discuss public materials (like a website printout) in executive session?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, provided that discussing those materials was not the sole purpose of the closed session.
Detailed Answer
While discussing public materials alone is technically not legal advice, it does not invalidate an executive session if the session also included legitimate purposes, such as receiving counsel's advice on other matters.
Alj Quote
While it is accurate that going into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing reading materials printed from a public website regarding revision of Association’s governing documents is not technically legal advice, as it is inherently unprivileged documentation, this record reflects that this was not the sole purpose of closing the Board Meeting from the public.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1248
Topic Tags
executive session
public records
violations
Question
What is the standard of proof required to win an HOA dispute case?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
This standard requires proof that convinces the judge that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' It is based on the convincing force and weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Standard of Proof
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
Question
Can the board discuss a Code of Conduct in executive session?
Short Answer
Yes, if the discussion involves receiving legal advice or guidance from the association's attorney.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found no violation when the board went into executive session to discuss a Code of Conduct because the board members were receiving information, asking questions, and being advised by counsel regarding the document.
Alj Quote
The crux of the underlying issue is that newly elected Board Members, Petitioners, were provided with information regarding the Code of Conduct, the opportunity to discuss and ask questions privately, and advised to sign by Counsel for the Association; which they declined as was their right.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)
Topic Tags
code of conduct
executive session
board meetings
Case
Docket No
24F-H024-REL
Case Title
Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox v. Casa Del Monte, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-05-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA committed the alleged violation. This means showing that the claim is more likely true than not.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.
Legal Basis
Preponderance of the Evidence
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
procedure
Question
Can the HOA board go into a closed executive session to get legal advice?
Short Answer
Yes, the board may close a meeting to receive legal advice from the association's attorney.
Detailed Answer
State statute explicitly allows portions of meetings to be closed if limited to consideration of legal advice from an attorney for the board or association. Legal advice is defined broadly as guidance given by lawyers to their clients.
Alj Quote
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that 'Any portion of a meeting may be closed only if that portion of the meeting is limited to consideration of one or more of the following: (1) legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association.'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)
Topic Tags
executive session
legal advice
open meeting laws
Question
If I file a petition for one specific violation, can I bring up other issues during the hearing?
Short Answer
No, the tribunal will generally only address the specific issue paid for in the petition.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ may refuse to address tangential issues or additional complaints raised during the hearing if the petitioner only paid the filing fee for the adjudication of a single specific issue.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioners only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioners raised during the presentation of their case or closing arguments, including whether the Association properly provided notice of its May 19, 2023, Board Meeting.
Legal Basis
Procedural Scope
Topic Tags
hearing procedure
filing fees
scope of hearing
Question
Does draft language stating a policy 'has been approved' prove the board secretly voted on it?
Short Answer
No, the tense used in a draft document is considered irrelevant if the document was not actually adopted.
Detailed Answer
Even if a proposed document uses language like 'The Board… has approved,' this is considered a 'red herring' if the evidence shows the document was merely a proposal that board members were advised to sign but ultimately declined.
Alj Quote
The fact that language in the proposal used current language, rather than future tense, is a Red Herring argument and irrelevant.
Legal Basis
N/A
Topic Tags
evidence
board documents
voting
Question
Is it a violation for the board to discuss public materials (like a website printout) in executive session?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, provided that discussing those materials was not the sole purpose of the closed session.
Detailed Answer
While discussing public materials alone is technically not legal advice, it does not invalidate an executive session if the session also included legitimate purposes, such as receiving counsel's advice on other matters.
Alj Quote
While it is accurate that going into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing reading materials printed from a public website regarding revision of Association’s governing documents is not technically legal advice, as it is inherently unprivileged documentation, this record reflects that this was not the sole purpose of closing the Board Meeting from the public.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1248
Topic Tags
executive session
public records
violations
Question
What is the standard of proof required to win an HOA dispute case?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
This standard requires proof that convinces the judge that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' It is based on the convincing force and weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Standard of Proof
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
Question
Can the board discuss a Code of Conduct in executive session?
Short Answer
Yes, if the discussion involves receiving legal advice or guidance from the association's attorney.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found no violation when the board went into executive session to discuss a Code of Conduct because the board members were receiving information, asking questions, and being advised by counsel regarding the document.
Alj Quote
The crux of the underlying issue is that newly elected Board Members, Petitioners, were provided with information regarding the Code of Conduct, the opportunity to discuss and ask questions privately, and advised to sign by Counsel for the Association; which they declined as was their right.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)
Topic Tags
code of conduct
executive session
board meetings
Case
Docket No
24F-H024-REL
Case Title
Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox v. Casa Del Monte, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-05-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jeffrey Connell(petitioner) Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA Also served as a board member.
Corey Cox(petitioner) Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA Also served as a board member.
Ross Meyer(attorney) Meyer & Partners, PLLC; Enara Law PLLC Counsel for Petitioners.
Jonathan Dessaules(witness) The Sol Law Group Testified as a subject matter expert/HOA attorney.
Matthew Elias(attorney) Enara Law PLLC Counsel for Petitioners; listed in final decision transmittal.
Respondent Side
Lori N. Brown(attorney) Gordon Rees Scully Mansukahani, LLP Counsel for Respondent.
Benjamin Bednarek(attorney) Gordon Rees Scully Mansukahani, LLP Counsel for Respondent.
Curtis Ekmark(HOA attorney) Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA Association Corporate Counsel/General Counsel.
Solomon Krotzer(attorney) Gordon Rees Scully Mansukahani, LLP Counsel for Respondent; appeared at hearing (referred to as 'Paulo' once).
Mary Lou Ehmann(property manager) Pride Management Former Community Manager for Casa Del Monte; provided testimony.
Jonathan Ryder(board president) Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA Also referred to as John Ryder.
Jean Yen(board member) Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA Also referred to as Jeannie Yen; Treasurer.
Bill McMichael(board member) Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA Vice President.
Jim Burton(board member) Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA Secretary.
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) ADRE
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official case transmission.
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official case transmission.
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official case transmission.
labril(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official case transmission.
kvanfredenberg(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official case transmission.
The ALJ granted the petition after finding that the Respondent HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258 by failing to fulfill a records request within the statutory ten business days. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500 filing fee and comply with the statute, but was not assessed a civil penalty.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258 because the “HOA has not complied witha [sic] formal records request … regarding damage to homeowner's unit.”
Respondent received Petitioner's records request on November 28, 2023, but did not comply until February 13, 2024, nearly two months later. The Tribunal found no viable justification for the delay, establishing a violation of the statute.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is granted. Respondent must reimburse the $500 filing fee in certified funds and must henceforth comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258. No civil penalty was assessed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records request, statutory violation, HOA transparency, filing fee reimbursement
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H032-REL Decision – 1162594.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:42 (51.3 KB)
24F-H032-REL Decision – 1167907.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:48 (184.7 KB)
Questions
Question
How long does my HOA have to respond to a formal records request?
Short Answer
The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, an association is strictly required to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies of requested records within ten business days. Failure to meet this deadline without a viable justification constitutes a violation of the statute.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative, the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
records request
deadlines
HOA obligations
Question
Can my HOA charge me a fee to simply review or inspect records?
Short Answer
No, the HOA cannot charge a fee for making material available for review.
Detailed Answer
The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making materials available for review. However, they may charge a specific fee for making actual copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
fees
records request
homeowner rights
Question
How much can the HOA charge if I ask for copies of records?
Short Answer
The HOA may charge a fee for copies, but it cannot exceed fifteen cents per page.
Detailed Answer
While review is free, if a homeowner requests physical copies of the records, the association is permitted by statute to charge a fee, capped at fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
fees
records request
copies
Question
What happens if my HOA responds to my records request weeks or months late?
Short Answer
Responding late without a valid excuse is a violation of the statute.
Detailed Answer
If the HOA fails to provide the records within the statutory 10-business-day window without a viable justification, they are in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258. In this case, a response provided nearly two months late was deemed a violation.
Alj Quote
The record also reflects that although Petitioner follow-up with Respondent on December 12, 2023, regarding her request, Respondent did not comply until February 13, 2024, nearly two (2) months late… Nothing in the record establishes a viable justification or excuse for Respondent’s inaction and/or lack of performance on Petitioner’s records request during the applicable time period.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
Topic Tags
violations
delays
enforcement
Question
Can the HOA be penalized for failing to provide a document that doesn't exist?
Short Answer
No, an HOA cannot be held liable for failing to provide a record that simply does not exist.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner requests a specific document (like a warranty) and the association does not possess such a document because it never existed, the association is not in violation for failing to provide it.
Alj Quote
Additionally, because the Association never had a “termite warranty,” Respondent was unable to provide Petitioner with something that did not exist.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
Topic Tags
records request
defense
HOA obligations
Question
Does it matter if my wording in a records request is vague?
Short Answer
Yes, vague requests may lead to incomplete information, and the HOA might not be faulted for misinterpreting ambiguous terms.
Detailed Answer
Homeowners should be specific. In this case, requesting 'Policy Information' rather than the 'entire policy' was considered vague and ambiguous, which explained why the HOA only provided declarations and exclusion pages rather than the full policy.
Alj Quote
While Petitioner contends that she only received some of the documents she requested, the record further reflects that she never asked for the Association’s entire insurance policy, only “HOA Insurance Policy Information,” which was vague and ambiguous.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact
Topic Tags
records request
best practices
homeowner responsibilities
Question
If I win my case against the HOA at a hearing, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the petition is granted and a violation is found, the ALJ has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee in certified funds.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioners’ filing fee (e.g. $500.00) in certified funds.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
remedies
fees
reimbursement
Question
Will the HOA automatically have to pay a civil penalty if they are found in violation?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. The judge may decide not to assess a civil penalty even if a violation is found.
Detailed Answer
Finding a violation does not automatically result in a fine. The ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties. In this instance, despite finding a violation regarding records, the judge ordered compliance and fee reimbursement but explicitly chose not to assess a civil penalty.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a civil penalty shall not be assessed against Respondent in this matter.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
penalties
civil penalty
enforcement
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner filing the complaint must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means they must show it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119(B)(2)
Topic Tags
procedure
burden of proof
evidence
Question
Can I designate someone else to inspect the HOA records for me?
Short Answer
Yes, a member can designate a representative in writing.
Detailed Answer
The statute allows records to be examined by the member or any person designated by the member in writing as their representative.
Alj Quote
[A]ll financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
representation
records request
access
Case
Docket No
24F-H032-REL
Case Title
Laura R. Braglia v. Palo Verde Estates Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-04-17
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
How long does my HOA have to respond to a formal records request?
Short Answer
The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, an association is strictly required to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies of requested records within ten business days. Failure to meet this deadline without a viable justification constitutes a violation of the statute.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative, the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
records request
deadlines
HOA obligations
Question
Can my HOA charge me a fee to simply review or inspect records?
Short Answer
No, the HOA cannot charge a fee for making material available for review.
Detailed Answer
The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making materials available for review. However, they may charge a specific fee for making actual copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
fees
records request
homeowner rights
Question
How much can the HOA charge if I ask for copies of records?
Short Answer
The HOA may charge a fee for copies, but it cannot exceed fifteen cents per page.
Detailed Answer
While review is free, if a homeowner requests physical copies of the records, the association is permitted by statute to charge a fee, capped at fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
fees
records request
copies
Question
What happens if my HOA responds to my records request weeks or months late?
Short Answer
Responding late without a valid excuse is a violation of the statute.
Detailed Answer
If the HOA fails to provide the records within the statutory 10-business-day window without a viable justification, they are in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258. In this case, a response provided nearly two months late was deemed a violation.
Alj Quote
The record also reflects that although Petitioner follow-up with Respondent on December 12, 2023, regarding her request, Respondent did not comply until February 13, 2024, nearly two (2) months late… Nothing in the record establishes a viable justification or excuse for Respondent’s inaction and/or lack of performance on Petitioner’s records request during the applicable time period.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
Topic Tags
violations
delays
enforcement
Question
Can the HOA be penalized for failing to provide a document that doesn't exist?
Short Answer
No, an HOA cannot be held liable for failing to provide a record that simply does not exist.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner requests a specific document (like a warranty) and the association does not possess such a document because it never existed, the association is not in violation for failing to provide it.
Alj Quote
Additionally, because the Association never had a “termite warranty,” Respondent was unable to provide Petitioner with something that did not exist.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
Topic Tags
records request
defense
HOA obligations
Question
Does it matter if my wording in a records request is vague?
Short Answer
Yes, vague requests may lead to incomplete information, and the HOA might not be faulted for misinterpreting ambiguous terms.
Detailed Answer
Homeowners should be specific. In this case, requesting 'Policy Information' rather than the 'entire policy' was considered vague and ambiguous, which explained why the HOA only provided declarations and exclusion pages rather than the full policy.
Alj Quote
While Petitioner contends that she only received some of the documents she requested, the record further reflects that she never asked for the Association’s entire insurance policy, only “HOA Insurance Policy Information,” which was vague and ambiguous.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact
Topic Tags
records request
best practices
homeowner responsibilities
Question
If I win my case against the HOA at a hearing, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the petition is granted and a violation is found, the ALJ has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee in certified funds.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioners’ filing fee (e.g. $500.00) in certified funds.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
remedies
fees
reimbursement
Question
Will the HOA automatically have to pay a civil penalty if they are found in violation?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. The judge may decide not to assess a civil penalty even if a violation is found.
Detailed Answer
Finding a violation does not automatically result in a fine. The ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties. In this instance, despite finding a violation regarding records, the judge ordered compliance and fee reimbursement but explicitly chose not to assess a civil penalty.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a civil penalty shall not be assessed against Respondent in this matter.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
penalties
civil penalty
enforcement
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner filing the complaint must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means they must show it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119(B)(2)
Topic Tags
procedure
burden of proof
evidence
Question
Can I designate someone else to inspect the HOA records for me?
Short Answer
Yes, a member can designate a representative in writing.
Detailed Answer
The statute allows records to be examined by the member or any person designated by the member in writing as their representative.
Alj Quote
[A]ll financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
representation
records request
access
Case
Docket No
24F-H032-REL
Case Title
Laura R. Braglia v. Palo Verde Estates Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-04-17
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Laura R. Braglia(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf; testified as witness.
Respondent Side
Jacqueline Zipprich(property manager) Desert Realty Association Management Appeared on behalf of Respondent; testified as witness; also served as Statutory Agent for Respondent.
Joe Wolf(HOA president) Palo Verde Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. HOA Board President.
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Susan Nicolson(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of the recommended order.
Vivian Nunes(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).
D. Jones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).
L. Abril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).
M. Neat(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).
A. Kowaleski(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).
G. Osborn(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).
Petitioner sustained its burden of proof establishing that Respondents violated CC&Rs sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31 by operating a cat rescue business (VKNR) from their residence, which involved unauthorized commercial activity, excessive non-pet animals, and creating a nuisance. Violation of 7.29 was not established. The petition was granted.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of CC&Rs by operating an unauthorized business out of their home and housing dozens of cats in excess of a reasonable number of household pets, creating a nuisance.
Respondents operated a nonprofit cat rescue (VKNR) from their single-family residence, housing 50+ cats in a 3-car garage, which constituted an unauthorized commercial use, exceeded a reasonable number of pets, and created traffic and waste nuisances.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is granted. Respondents must henceforth abide by CC&Rs sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31.
Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
CC&Rs section 7.2
CC&Rs section 7.3
CC&Rs section 7.25
CC&Rs section 7.26
CC&Rs section 7.28
CC&Rs section 7.31
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Home Business, Pets/Animals, Nuisance, CC&Rs, Enforcement, HOA
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1094853.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:39 (51.0 KB)
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1113338.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:44 (49.4 KB)
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1125372.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:48 (65.5 KB)
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1147484.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:51 (184.8 KB)
Study Guide – 24F-H003-REL
Select all sources
1094853.pdf
1113338.pdf
1113415.aac
1113416.aac
1113417.aac
1125372.pdf
1147484.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
24F-H003-REL
7 sources
In a legal dispute before the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association alleged that residents Duane and Mary Eitel violated community CC&Rs by operating an unauthorized cat rescue from their garage. The association contended that housing dozens of animals constituted an illegal business and a nuisance that impacted the neighborhood’s residential character. While the homeowners argued their nonprofit fostering was a charitable endeavor rather than a commercial enterprise, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the large-scale operation exceeded the “reasonable number of pets” allowed. Evidence from Pinal County inspections and neighbor testimony confirmed that the garage held over 50 cats, leading to concerns over traffic, sanitation, and debris. Ultimately, the judge found the homeowners in violation of multiple governing documents and ordered them to cease operations.
What were the main legal arguments regarding the cat rescue?
How did the court define a home-based business versus a nonprofit?
What specific HOA rules were the homeowners found to have violated?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 3:04 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 24F-H003-REL
Select all sources
1094853.pdf
1113338.pdf
1113415.aac
1113416.aac
1113417.aac
1125372.pdf
1147484.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
24F-H003-REL
7 sources
In a legal dispute before the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association alleged that residents Duane and Mary Eitel violated community CC&Rs by operating an unauthorized cat rescue from their garage. The association contended that housing dozens of animals constituted an illegal business and a nuisance that impacted the neighborhood’s residential character. While the homeowners argued their nonprofit fostering was a charitable endeavor rather than a commercial enterprise, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the large-scale operation exceeded the “reasonable number of pets” allowed. Evidence from Pinal County inspections and neighbor testimony confirmed that the garage held over 50 cats, leading to concerns over traffic, sanitation, and debris. Ultimately, the judge found the homeowners in violation of multiple governing documents and ordered them to cease operations.
What were the main legal arguments regarding the cat rescue?
How did the court define a home-based business versus a nonprofit?
What specific HOA rules were the homeowners found to have violated?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 3:04 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Anthony Rossetti(petitioner attorney, property manager) Rossetti Management & Realty Services Represented Petitioner and owned the newly hired management company.
Douglas Karolak(witness, homeowner) VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member Testified on behalf of Petitioner.
Nicole Elliot(property manager) Norris Management Former HOA management committee/manager who issued warning letters.
CD Mai(homeowner/neighbor) VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member Mentioned by Karolak as a vocal opponent/adjacent neighbor to the Eitels.
Respondent Side
Duane Eitel(respondent, witness) VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member Referred to as Duane S Eitel in earlier documents; DE in the decision.
Mary Eitel(respondent) VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member, CEO/Director of Valley Kitten Nursery & Rescue Inc. Referred to as Mary L Eitel in earlier documents.
Kevin Harper(respondent attorney) Harper Law, PLC
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Christopher Sinco(code compliance officer) Pinal County Animal Control Involved in the 2017/2018 county inspection.
Other Participants
Scott Lenderman(property manager) HOA management administrator (prior to Rossetti) Mentioned as the first HOA management administrator.
The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the Association's voting system constituted permissible delegate voting, which is not prohibited by the Planned Community Act. The prohibition in ARS § 33-1812 against proxy voting applies only when votes are “allocated to a unit,” which is not the case for Director elections where votes are allocated to the Neighborhood Voting Members as delegates.
Why this result: Petitioner did not sustain the burden of proving a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Respondent is in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
Petitioner alleged that the Association's use of a voting delegate system, where Voting Members cast votes for unit owners who did not respond to neighborhood polls, constitutes proxy voting prohibited under ARS § 33-1812.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119(B)(2)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, Planned Community Act, Delegate Voting, Proxy Voting, Board Election, ARS 33-1812, Nonprofit Corporation Act
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-211(B)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119(B)(2)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H012-REL Decision – 1115010.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:58 (162.7 KB)
Study Guide – 24F-H012-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H012-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert J. Garing v. Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2023-11-20”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Is a delegate voting system considered the same as illegal proxy voting in Arizona HOAs?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ determined that a delegate voting system is distinct from proxy voting and is not prohibited by the Planned Communities Act.”, “detailed_answer”: “While Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1812) explicitly prohibits proxy voting in planned communities after the period of declarant control, the Administrative Law Judge found that the legislature did not prohibit ‘delegate voting.’ In a delegate system, votes are allocated to the elected Voting Member (delegate) rather than directly to the individual unit for that specific election, meaning the prohibition on casting unit votes via proxy does not apply.”, “alj_quote”: “Here, the relevant and credible evidence of record establishes that while proxy voting is explicitly prohibited under the Planned Community Act, the legislature made no such bar regarding delegate voting as a form of HOA governance.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “proxies”, “delegates”, “elections” ] }, { “question”: “Can my HOA allow neighborhood representatives to vote on behalf of owners?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the governing documents establish a delegate system where votes are allocated to the representative rather than the unit.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision upholds a system where neighborhoods elect ‘Voting Members’ who then cast votes for the Board of Directors. The ALJ reasoned that the Planned Communities Act prohibits proxy voting only when votes are ‘allocated to a unit.’ Under the delegate system described, the votes for directors were allocated to the Voting Members, not the individual units.”, “alj_quote”: “The Planned Community Act does not regulate who is authorized to vote in planned community elections. Instead, it prohibits proxy voting when votes have been ‘allocated to a unit.’ Regarding the election of Board Directors, there are no votes ‘allocated to a unit.’ Instead, all votes are allocated to Neighborhood Voting Members as delegates…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “board of directors”, “governing documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can neighborhood delegates cast votes for homeowners who did not participate in the poll?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, provided the governing documents allow the delegate to cast unreceived votes at their discretion.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that Voting Members in this case had the discretion to cast votes for units that did not respond to the neighborhood poll. This practice was found not to violate the statutory prohibition on proxies because it was part of a valid delegate voting structure.”, “alj_quote”: “Voting Members do not have complete discretion when casting votes. They only have discretion to cast unreceived votes.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “discretionary voting”, “absentee ballots” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the statute. The standard used is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the homeowner must show that their contention is more likely true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “administrative hearing”, “legal procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Nonprofit Corporation Act apply to HOAs in Arizona?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, unless the Planned Communities Act specifically exempts the HOA from a provision.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ reasoned that because the legislature specifically exempted planned communities from some parts of the Nonprofit Act but was silent on delegate voting, the Nonprofit Act’s allowance of such systems remains relevant context for HOA governance.”, “alj_quote”: “In fact, the legislature specifically exempted planned communities from certain enumerated provisions of the Nonprofit Act, but did not address delegate voting within the Planned Community Act in any capacity.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 10-3101 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “corporate law”, “statutory interpretation”, “nonprofit act” ] }, { “question”: “If I disagree with the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, what can I do?”, “short_answer”: “You can appeal to the Superior Court within 35 days of being served the order.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision is binding, but parties have the right to seek judicial review. This appeal must be filed with the Superior Court within a strict 35-day window following the service of the order.”, “alj_quote”: “A party wishing to appeal this order must seek judicial review as prescribed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H) and title 12, chapter 7, article 6. Any such appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date when a copy of this order was served upon the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H); A.R.S. § 12-904(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “appeals”, “judicial review”, “superior court” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 24F-H012-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H012-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert J. Garing v. Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2023-11-20”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Is a delegate voting system considered the same as illegal proxy voting in Arizona HOAs?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ determined that a delegate voting system is distinct from proxy voting and is not prohibited by the Planned Communities Act.”, “detailed_answer”: “While Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1812) explicitly prohibits proxy voting in planned communities after the period of declarant control, the Administrative Law Judge found that the legislature did not prohibit ‘delegate voting.’ In a delegate system, votes are allocated to the elected Voting Member (delegate) rather than directly to the individual unit for that specific election, meaning the prohibition on casting unit votes via proxy does not apply.”, “alj_quote”: “Here, the relevant and credible evidence of record establishes that while proxy voting is explicitly prohibited under the Planned Community Act, the legislature made no such bar regarding delegate voting as a form of HOA governance.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “proxies”, “delegates”, “elections” ] }, { “question”: “Can my HOA allow neighborhood representatives to vote on behalf of owners?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the governing documents establish a delegate system where votes are allocated to the representative rather than the unit.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision upholds a system where neighborhoods elect ‘Voting Members’ who then cast votes for the Board of Directors. The ALJ reasoned that the Planned Communities Act prohibits proxy voting only when votes are ‘allocated to a unit.’ Under the delegate system described, the votes for directors were allocated to the Voting Members, not the individual units.”, “alj_quote”: “The Planned Community Act does not regulate who is authorized to vote in planned community elections. Instead, it prohibits proxy voting when votes have been ‘allocated to a unit.’ Regarding the election of Board Directors, there are no votes ‘allocated to a unit.’ Instead, all votes are allocated to Neighborhood Voting Members as delegates…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “board of directors”, “governing documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can neighborhood delegates cast votes for homeowners who did not participate in the poll?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, provided the governing documents allow the delegate to cast unreceived votes at their discretion.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that Voting Members in this case had the discretion to cast votes for units that did not respond to the neighborhood poll. This practice was found not to violate the statutory prohibition on proxies because it was part of a valid delegate voting structure.”, “alj_quote”: “Voting Members do not have complete discretion when casting votes. They only have discretion to cast unreceived votes.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “discretionary voting”, “absentee ballots” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the statute. The standard used is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the homeowner must show that their contention is more likely true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “administrative hearing”, “legal procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Nonprofit Corporation Act apply to HOAs in Arizona?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, unless the Planned Communities Act specifically exempts the HOA from a provision.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ reasoned that because the legislature specifically exempted planned communities from some parts of the Nonprofit Act but was silent on delegate voting, the Nonprofit Act’s allowance of such systems remains relevant context for HOA governance.”, “alj_quote”: “In fact, the legislature specifically exempted planned communities from certain enumerated provisions of the Nonprofit Act, but did not address delegate voting within the Planned Community Act in any capacity.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 10-3101 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “corporate law”, “statutory interpretation”, “nonprofit act” ] }, { “question”: “If I disagree with the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, what can I do?”, “short_answer”: “You can appeal to the Superior Court within 35 days of being served the order.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision is binding, but parties have the right to seek judicial review. This appeal must be filed with the Superior Court within a strict 35-day window following the service of the order.”, “alj_quote”: “A party wishing to appeal this order must seek judicial review as prescribed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H) and title 12, chapter 7, article 6. Any such appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date when a copy of this order was served upon the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H); A.R.S. § 12-904(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “appeals”, “judicial review”, “superior court” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Robert J. Garing(petitioner) Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc. member Also served as alternate Voting Member for 2 years
James Thomas Joan(witness) Also listed as Jimmy Yiannis
Respondent Side
Adrianne A. Speas(HOA attorney) Krupnik & Speas, LLC Appeared as counsel for Respondent
Robert Sisley(board president; witness) Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc. Also Alternate Voting Member for Parkside; served as the association representative
Catherine Black(assistant community manager; witness) Homeco Homeco is the HOA management company for Respondent
Lynn M. Krupnik(HOA attorney) Krupnik & Speas, LLC Counsel listed for Respondent in distribution
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Final decision authority/recipient of ALJ Decision
The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
Counsel
Lydia Linsmeier
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Article 4.4
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a violation of Article 4.4 of the CC&Rs, finding that the Association's regulation of the lap pool temperature was authorized and reasonable, and dismissed the petition.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated CC&Rs Article 4.4. Petitioner's preference for warmer water did not establish discrimination or a rule violation.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association (Respondent) is in violation of CC&Rs Article 4.4 for “turning off the lap pool heater … [f]or approximately one month” which Petitioner further alleges constitutes discrimination against senior residents.
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 4.4 by turning off the lap pool heater around mid-April 2023, making the temperature too cold for her use and constituting discrimination against senior residents who rely on the pool for exercise. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to prove a violation of CC&Rs Article 4.4 or age-based discrimination.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
CC&Rs Article 4.4
The Villages at Rancho El Dorado RULES & REGULATIONS 3.5.7(e)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Violation, Pool Heating, Discrimination Claim, Common Area Use, Burden of Proof, Planned Community
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-106
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
CC&Rs Article 4.4
CC&Rs 8.2(c)(12)
The Villages at Rancho El Dorado RULES & REGULATIONS 3.5.7
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H001-REL Decision – 1089588.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:27 (52.0 KB)
24F-H001-REL Decision – 1102316.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:31 (136.7 KB)
Study Guide – 24F-H001-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H001-REL”, “case_title”: “Kristeen L. Herron v. The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-10-16”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing, the petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated a community document. The standard of proof is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means showing that the claim is more likely true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA rule regarding amenity usage constitute discrimination if it negatively affects senior citizens’ preferences?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the rule is applied neutrally and is within the HOA’s authority, personal preference does not equate to discrimination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that rules regarding common area maintenance (such as pool temperature) do not amount to age-based discrimination simply because they do not meet the personal preferences of senior residents, provided the HOA has the authority to govern the property use.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s argument that she was unable to use the lap pool because the temperature was outside of her preference does not amount to age-based discrimination.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “discrimination”, “common areas”, “amenities” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA board adopt rules that restrict the use of common areas like pools?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the CC&Rs typically grant the Board the power to adopt rules governing property use.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that the HOA Board has the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules regarding the use of the property, including common areas, as long as those rules do not discriminate among owners and are consistent with the declaration.”, “alj_quote”: “By action of the Board, the Association may, from time to time and subject to the provisions of this Declaration, adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules.’ The Rules may restrict and govern the use of the Property”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA authority”, “rules and regulations”, “common areas” ] }, { “question”: “Does the administrative court have the power to interpret the CC&Rs as a contract?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ confirmed that the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and the property owner, and the OAH has the legal authority to interpret this contract during a dispute.”, “alj_quote”: “Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner… OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract law”, “jurisdiction”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA follows its written rules regarding maintenance (e.g., heating schedules), is it liable for a violation?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the HOA acts in accordance with the established rules, there is no violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA rules specified heating the pool during the ‘winter season’ to a specific range. Because there was no evidence the HOA failed to meet these specific written requirements, the ALJ found no violation.”, “alj_quote”: “There is no evidence in the record that would support the contention that the Association failed to do so through April 2023.”, “legal_basis”: “Recreation Center Complex Rule 3.5.7(e)”, “topic_tags”: [ “maintenance”, “compliance”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “What is the definition of ‘preponderance of the evidence’?”, “short_answer”: “It is evidence that convinces the judge the claim is ‘more probably true than not.'”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision defines this legal standard as the greater weight of the evidence, which inclines a fair mind to one side of the issue, even if it doesn’t wholly free the mind from doubt.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Does a homeowner have to pay a fee to file a petition against their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, a filing fee is required by statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner in this case was required to tender a $500.00 filing fee to the Department of Real Estate when submitting their petition.”, “alj_quote”: “On July 07, 2023, tendered $500.00 to the Department as a filing fee for the petition at issue.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “filing process”, “procedure” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 24F-H001-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H001-REL”, “case_title”: “Kristeen L. Herron v. The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-10-16”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing, the petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated a community document. The standard of proof is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means showing that the claim is more likely true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA rule regarding amenity usage constitute discrimination if it negatively affects senior citizens’ preferences?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the rule is applied neutrally and is within the HOA’s authority, personal preference does not equate to discrimination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that rules regarding common area maintenance (such as pool temperature) do not amount to age-based discrimination simply because they do not meet the personal preferences of senior residents, provided the HOA has the authority to govern the property use.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s argument that she was unable to use the lap pool because the temperature was outside of her preference does not amount to age-based discrimination.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “discrimination”, “common areas”, “amenities” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA board adopt rules that restrict the use of common areas like pools?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the CC&Rs typically grant the Board the power to adopt rules governing property use.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that the HOA Board has the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules regarding the use of the property, including common areas, as long as those rules do not discriminate among owners and are consistent with the declaration.”, “alj_quote”: “By action of the Board, the Association may, from time to time and subject to the provisions of this Declaration, adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules.’ The Rules may restrict and govern the use of the Property”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA authority”, “rules and regulations”, “common areas” ] }, { “question”: “Does the administrative court have the power to interpret the CC&Rs as a contract?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ confirmed that the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and the property owner, and the OAH has the legal authority to interpret this contract during a dispute.”, “alj_quote”: “Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner… OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract law”, “jurisdiction”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA follows its written rules regarding maintenance (e.g., heating schedules), is it liable for a violation?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the HOA acts in accordance with the established rules, there is no violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA rules specified heating the pool during the ‘winter season’ to a specific range. Because there was no evidence the HOA failed to meet these specific written requirements, the ALJ found no violation.”, “alj_quote”: “There is no evidence in the record that would support the contention that the Association failed to do so through April 2023.”, “legal_basis”: “Recreation Center Complex Rule 3.5.7(e)”, “topic_tags”: [ “maintenance”, “compliance”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “What is the definition of ‘preponderance of the evidence’?”, “short_answer”: “It is evidence that convinces the judge the claim is ‘more probably true than not.'”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision defines this legal standard as the greater weight of the evidence, which inclines a fair mind to one side of the issue, even if it doesn’t wholly free the mind from doubt.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Does a homeowner have to pay a fee to file a petition against their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, a filing fee is required by statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner in this case was required to tender a $500.00 filing fee to the Department of Real Estate when submitting their petition.”, “alj_quote”: “On July 07, 2023, tendered $500.00 to the Department as a filing fee for the petition at issue.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “filing process”, “procedure” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Kristeen L. Herron(petitioner) The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association Property owner and member of the Association
Karen Ellis(witness) The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association Witness for Petitioner; property owner/member
LouAnne Schmidt(observer) Potential witness for Petitioner, not permitted to testify
The petition was dismissed with prejudice because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the HOA violated the community documents. The ALJ found that forcing enforcement of a discretionary restriction after decades of inaction would be unreasonable and that the matter was essentially a neighbor-to-neighbor dispute.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a community document violation by a preponderance of the evidence; enforcement would be an unreasonable exercise of discretion due to long-standing inaction; and there was no legal avenue for the HOA to compel removal of the private property (trees).
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to enforce Prohibited Plant List (Oleanders and Palm Trees exceeding 10 feet)
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Appendix B, Section 5 of the CC&Rs by failing to enforce the Prohibited Plant List and require her rear neighbors to remove oleander and palm trees that exceeded height guidelines and caused nuisance and damage.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed with prejudice.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: homeowner dispute, prohibited plants, HOA discretion, failure to enforce, neighbor dispute, CC&Rs, oleander, palm trees
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H046-REL Decision – 1049756.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:49 (41.2 KB)
23F-H046-REL Decision – 1049882.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:52 (47.2 KB)
23F-H046-REL Decision – 1055238.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:55 (50.0 KB)
23F-H046-REL Decision – 1057283.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:58 (50.3 KB)
23F-H046-REL Decision – 1058121.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:01 (52.9 KB)
23F-H046-REL Decision – 1059849.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:04 (52.5 KB)
23F-H046-REL Decision – 1072130.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:08 (49.8 KB)
23F-H046-REL Decision – 1082955.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:11 (155.5 KB)
Questions
Question
Can I force my HOA to remove a neighbor's plants that violate the community's design guidelines?
Short Answer
Generally, no. The HOA often lacks the legal authority to enter private property to remove landscaping, even if it violates guidelines.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that there was no legal way for the HOA to remove trees or shrubs from a neighbor's private backyard, nor compel them to be removed, particularly when the HOA does not own or maintain that specific property.
Alj Quote
Regardless, there is no legal avenue by which Respondent could legally remove Neighbors’ backyard Oleanders and/or Palm Trees, or have them removed.
Legal Basis
Property Rights / HOA Authority
Topic Tags
enforcement
landscaping
private property
Question
Does the HOA have to enforce a rule if they haven't enforced it for many years?
Short Answer
No. Sudden enforcement after long periods of inaction may be considered unreasonable.
Detailed Answer
If an HOA has ignored a specific restriction (like a height limit on plants) for decades, enforcing it suddenly against a single homeowner can be seen as an unreasonable exercise of authority and a violation of due process.
Alj Quote
Enforcement, in the face of decades of intentional inaction, would be an unreasonable exercise of authority and a likely deprivation of Neighbors’ due process rights.
Legal Basis
Due Process / Laches / Waiver
Topic Tags
selective enforcement
waiver
due process
Question
Will the Arizona Department of Real Estate resolve a dispute between me and my neighbor?
Short Answer
No. The Department does not have jurisdiction over disputes solely between homeowners.
Detailed Answer
The administrative hearing process is for disputes between a homeowner and the association. It does not cover disputes between two owners where the association is not a party.
Alj Quote
The department does not have jurisdiction to hear [a]ny dispute among or between owners to which the association is not a party.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
neighbor disputes
ADRE
Question
Is the HOA required to mediate disputes between neighbors?
Short Answer
Typically, no. Governing documents usually do not require the HOA to pick sides or resolve neighbor conflicts.
Detailed Answer
Unless the CC&Rs or guidelines specifically state otherwise, the HOA is not obligated to resolve disputes between neighbors or take one side.
Alj Quote
Moreover, neither the CC&Rs nor the Design Guidelines require Respondent to mediate or resolve a dispute between neighbors by taking one side or the other.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs / Design Guidelines
Topic Tags
mediation
neighbor disputes
HOA obligations
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) must show that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the governing documents.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated one or more provisions of the Association’s Design Guidelines.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
procedure
Question
If my neighbor's trees are causing a nuisance (like debris in my pool), does the HOA have to act?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. Subjective hardship does not automatically mandate HOA enforcement if the rules are discretionary.
Detailed Answer
Even if a neighbor's landscaping causes inconvenience or subjective hardship to another homeowner, the HOA is not required to enforce discretionary guidelines, especially if they have historically not done so.
Alj Quote
It is clear that plant debris from Neighbors’ backyard is causing Petitioner subjective hardship(s) and inconveniences, which amount to a perceived nuisance… [however] Respondent is not required to enforce a flora/height restriction in this instance.
Legal Basis
Discretionary Enforcement
Topic Tags
nuisance
maintenance
discretion
Case
Docket No
23F-H046-REL
Case Title
Brenda Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Decision Date
2023-08-11
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can I force my HOA to remove a neighbor's plants that violate the community's design guidelines?
Short Answer
Generally, no. The HOA often lacks the legal authority to enter private property to remove landscaping, even if it violates guidelines.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that there was no legal way for the HOA to remove trees or shrubs from a neighbor's private backyard, nor compel them to be removed, particularly when the HOA does not own or maintain that specific property.
Alj Quote
Regardless, there is no legal avenue by which Respondent could legally remove Neighbors’ backyard Oleanders and/or Palm Trees, or have them removed.
Legal Basis
Property Rights / HOA Authority
Topic Tags
enforcement
landscaping
private property
Question
Does the HOA have to enforce a rule if they haven't enforced it for many years?
Short Answer
No. Sudden enforcement after long periods of inaction may be considered unreasonable.
Detailed Answer
If an HOA has ignored a specific restriction (like a height limit on plants) for decades, enforcing it suddenly against a single homeowner can be seen as an unreasonable exercise of authority and a violation of due process.
Alj Quote
Enforcement, in the face of decades of intentional inaction, would be an unreasonable exercise of authority and a likely deprivation of Neighbors’ due process rights.
Legal Basis
Due Process / Laches / Waiver
Topic Tags
selective enforcement
waiver
due process
Question
Will the Arizona Department of Real Estate resolve a dispute between me and my neighbor?
Short Answer
No. The Department does not have jurisdiction over disputes solely between homeowners.
Detailed Answer
The administrative hearing process is for disputes between a homeowner and the association. It does not cover disputes between two owners where the association is not a party.
Alj Quote
The department does not have jurisdiction to hear [a]ny dispute among or between owners to which the association is not a party.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
neighbor disputes
ADRE
Question
Is the HOA required to mediate disputes between neighbors?
Short Answer
Typically, no. Governing documents usually do not require the HOA to pick sides or resolve neighbor conflicts.
Detailed Answer
Unless the CC&Rs or guidelines specifically state otherwise, the HOA is not obligated to resolve disputes between neighbors or take one side.
Alj Quote
Moreover, neither the CC&Rs nor the Design Guidelines require Respondent to mediate or resolve a dispute between neighbors by taking one side or the other.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs / Design Guidelines
Topic Tags
mediation
neighbor disputes
HOA obligations
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) must show that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the governing documents.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated one or more provisions of the Association’s Design Guidelines.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
procedure
Question
If my neighbor's trees are causing a nuisance (like debris in my pool), does the HOA have to act?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. Subjective hardship does not automatically mandate HOA enforcement if the rules are discretionary.
Detailed Answer
Even if a neighbor's landscaping causes inconvenience or subjective hardship to another homeowner, the HOA is not required to enforce discretionary guidelines, especially if they have historically not done so.
Alj Quote
It is clear that plant debris from Neighbors’ backyard is causing Petitioner subjective hardship(s) and inconveniences, which amount to a perceived nuisance… [however] Respondent is not required to enforce a flora/height restriction in this instance.
Legal Basis
Discretionary Enforcement
Topic Tags
nuisance
maintenance
discretion
Case
Docket No
23F-H046-REL
Case Title
Brenda Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Decision Date
2023-08-11
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Brenda Norman(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
Zvena Norman(potential witness) On standby as a potential witness for Petitioner
David Norman(associated party) Petitioner's husband; co-petitioner in prior litigation referenced during the hearing
Respondent Side
Michael S. McLeran(HOA attorney) Childers Hanlon 7 Hudson, PLC Counsel for Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Spencer Broad(witness, property manager) HA managed solutions Community Manager for Rancho Del Lago Community Association; also spelled Brod
Phil Brown(HOA attorney) Attorney referenced by Petitioner regarding a 2018 letter
Eric(compliance manager) HOA management solutions Compliance Manager since 2009; full last name withheld from the record
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge presiding over the matter
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Judge Mahalski(ALJ (prior case)) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge in 2019 litigation referenced during the hearing
Other Participants
Cindy White(neighbor) Owner of the plants subject to the dispute
Ray White(neighbor) Owner of the plants subject to the dispute
Nathan Tennyson(former HOA attorney) Former in-house counsel referenced by Petitioner
