Tag Archives: JC

Jeremy R. Whittaker vs The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H026-REL
Agency —
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2026-05-19
Administrative Law Judge JC
Outcome —
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jeremy R. Whittaker Counsel —
Respondent The Val Vista Lakes Community Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1262321.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:37 (67.7 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1274825.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:38 (62.7 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1277677.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:39 (52.5 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1277691.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:40 (8.6 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1281267.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:41 (55.3 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1282653.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:42 (50.0 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1283531.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:42 (60.8 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1292473.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:43 (48.5 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1295583.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:44 (49.2 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1297916.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:45 (54.7 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1297917.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:47 (8.3 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1318011.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:47 (51.0 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1323221.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:48 (57.7 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1323588.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:49 (51.2 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1327743.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:50 (60.2 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1338614.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:51 (67.3 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1354673.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:52 (65.8 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1374117.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:53 (56.0 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1379565.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:54 (51.5 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1384427.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:54 (47.0 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1386798.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:55 (8.2 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1390444.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:56 (53.7 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1392101.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:57 (53.8 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1392105.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:58 (7.7 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1427272.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:18:59 (272.8 KB)

25F-H026-REL Decision – 1427790.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:19:00 (42.3 KB)

Comprehensive Briefing: Val Vista Lakes Community Association Election and Expenditure Disputes

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the ongoing legal and administrative disputes involving the Val Vista Lakes Community Association (the Association), Jeremy Whittaker, and CHDB Law. The conflict centers on two primary issues: the accountability for the 2023 Board of Directors election process and the alleged violation of the community's Master Declaration (CC&Rs) regarding the expenditure of association funds for "political" advocacy.

Evidence from internal emails and court transcripts indicates a significant disagreement over the interpretation of Article 9, Section 1 of the CC&Rs. The Association maintains that its efforts to advocate for a $25 dues increase were necessary to avoid financial insolvency and did not constitute "political" activity. Conversely, the petitioner, Jeremy Whittaker, argues that any ballot-based measure is inherently political and that the Board's use of approximately $4,500 for "Vote Yes" signage and mailers constitutes a mandatory violation of governing documents. Simultaneously, the Association has recently produced documents from 2023 that shift the responsibility for election form deficiencies to the previous Board of Directors and their management company, FSR.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Responsibility for the 2023 Election Process

Recent correspondence from CHDB Law clarifies the Association's position regarding the 2023 election. For a period, the Association maintained it was not in possession of certain 2023 Candidate Forms. These documents, recently provided by FSR, reveal that:

  • Board Oversight: The 2023 Board President, Sharon Maiden, appointed Christine Tucker to oversee the election.
  • Approval Authority: The 2023 Board explicitly stated they would approve the 2023 Candidate Form and the election timeline.
  • Legal Defensibility: CHDB Law asserts that any issues with the forms—specifically a lack of required disclosures—were the result of decisions made by the 2023 Board. The firm maintains it was only contracted to count votes at the annual meeting and was not involved in candidate certification.
2. The Semantic Interpretation of "Political Issue"

A central point of contention in the 2026 hearing is the definition of "political" as used in Article 9, Section 1 of the CC&Rs, which states the Association "shall not expend funds directly or indirectly to support, endorse or contribute to any political candidate or issue."

Perspective Definition/Argument
Petitioner (Whittaker) Defines "political" broadly as anything submitted to a vote of the membership (ballot measures, dues increases, board elections). Argues that "political" is not limited to "governmental" elections in the text.
Respondent (Association) Defines "political" narrowly using a standard dictionary definition relating to government or public affairs. Argues the provision's intent is to prevent the Association from taking sides in Republican vs. Democrat elections.
3. Expenditure for Advocacy and Signage

In 2024, the Board authorized a budget of up to $4,500 for mailers and signs to advocate for a $25 dues increase.

  • Signage: The Association placed "Vote Yes" signs in common areas. Petitioner argues these were advocacy materials, not neutral informational notices.
  • Email Distribution: Treasurer Diana Ebertshauser used the official Association distribution list to send mass emails urging a "yes" vote. The Petitioner contends this constitutes an "indirect expenditure" of funds, as the distribution list is a maintained Association asset.
  • Financial Records: A dispute exists regarding the "general ledger" and "check register." The Association has withheld transaction-level data, asserting privilege, which has prevented the Petitioner from identifying the exact dollar amount spent on the advocacy campaign.
4. Financial Necessity vs. Procedural Compliance

The Association justifies its advocacy by citing "great financial distress" beginning in 2021. Legal counsel for the Association argued that without the $25 increase, the community faced threats of bankruptcy, receivership, or judicial relief. The Association maintains that communicating the "desperation" of the financial situation to members is essential "association business" rather than political advocacy.

Important Quotes with Context

On Election Accountability

"Therefore, any issues, including the lack of any disclosures, with the 2023 Candidate Form were a direct result of the approvals and decisions made by the 2023 Board of Directors."

— Josh Bolen, Esq. (March 4, 2025 email) Context: Bolen is addressing allegations that current legal counsel or the current Board mishandled the 2023 candidate certification, shifting the blame to the prior year's leadership.

On the Definition of "Political"

"If the issue excludes association votes, then the association could always spend dues to influence membership vote… simply by labeling it 'association business.' That reading makes the restriction meaningless."

— Jeremy Whittaker (Hearing Testimony, Jan 30, 2026) Context: Whittaker arguing that allowing the Board to spend money to influence its own elections or assessments creates a loophole that ignores the CC&Rs' mandatory "shall not" language.

"A simple Google search of the word political involves the government or the processes of the government. The association is not government."

— Josh Bolen, Esq. (Hearing Argument, Jan 30, 2026) Context: The Association's legal defense for spending money on "Vote Yes" signs, arguing that internal HOA matters do not meet the definition of "political."

On Quasi-Governmental Status

"My position is that the the association is quasi governmental… [it is] just like taxation, right? In the municipal government, the government is not allowed to advocate for an issue."

— Jeremy Whittaker (Hearing Testimony, Jan 30, 2026) Context: Whittaker responding to cross-examination regarding whether a non-profit corporation should have the same advocacy restrictions as a government entity.

Actionable Insights

Based on the provided context, the following observations represent key areas for resolution or further investigation:

  • Transparency in Accounting: The dispute over "privileged" general ledgers suggests a need for a clear determination on whether transaction-level data regarding election spending is truly privileged. Resolving this would clarify the exact scale of the advocacy expenditure.
  • Clarification of CC&R Language: The term "political issue" in Article 9 is currently being interpreted through "deference" by the Board. A formal adjudication or amendment to the CC&Rs may be necessary to define whether this includes internal ballot measures.
  • Separation of Information and Advocacy: To avoid future litigation, the Association could adopt a "neutral informational" standard for ballot measures, providing facts and figures (e.g., town hall dates, budget requirements) without explicit "Vote Yes" or "Vote No" directives.
  • Audit of Candidate Disclosures: Given that the 2023 candidate forms have now been recovered from FSR, a retrospective audit could confirm if any conflicts of interest were indeed withheld from the membership during that election cycle.
  • Standardization of Distribution Lists: The use of the official distribution list by individual board members for advocacy is a point of legal friction. Establishing a policy that limits the use of these lists to neutral business notices would mitigate claims of "indirect expenditure" for advocacy.

Study Guide: Val Vista Lakes Community Association Governance and Legal Disputes

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the organizational structure, legal definitions, and recent administrative conflicts within the Val Vista Lakes Community Association (VVL). It synthesizes information from the Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), legal correspondence regarding election protocols, and hearing transcripts concerning the use of association funds for political advocacy.

Part 1: Key Concepts and Themes

1. The Interpretation of Article 9, Section 1

The central legal dispute in the 2026 hearing (Whittaker v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association) hinges on the interpretation of Article 9, Section 1 of the CC&Rs. The text states:

"The association shall not expend funds directly or indirectly to support, endorse or contribute to any political candidate or issue."

Differing Interpretations:

  • Broad Interpretation (Petitioner): Argues that "any political candidate or issue" includes internal association votes, such as dues increases or special assessments. This view posits that when a Board advocates for a specific outcome on a ballot, it is engaging in political activity.
  • Narrow Interpretation (Respondent): Argues that "political" refers strictly to governmental elections (city, county, state, or federal). The Association maintains that promoting "association business" (e.g., a dues increase to avoid bankruptcy) is not political and is necessary for the corporation’s survival.
2. Election Management and Board Responsibility

Documentation from 2023 and 2024 highlights a shift in election oversight and disclosure protocols:

  • 2023 Election: Overseen by a Board-appointed member (Christine Tucker) under then-President Sharon Maiden. Disputes arose regarding the lack of candidate disclosures and the approval of candidate forms. The current Association position is that the 2023 Board held sole control and responsibility for any issues during that cycle.
  • 2024 Election: The 2024 Board implemented stricter requirements, mandating "proper" candidate forms to ensure greater transparency and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.
3. Financial Distress and "Association Business"

In 2024/2025, the Association argued it was under "great financial distress" and faced potential bankruptcy or judicial receivership. This led to a membership vote for a $25 dues increase. The Board authorized a budget of up to $4,500 for mailers and signage to advocate for a "Yes" vote, sparking a legal challenge over whether these funds were used for "political" purposes in violation of the CC&Rs.

Part 2: Glossary of Important Terms

The following terms are defined according to the 1985 Master CC&Rs and supplemental legal context:

Term Definition
Annual Assessment A charge levied each year against each Lot, Parcel, or Owner to fund Association operations.
Association Land Real property owned or leased by the Association, including buildings and improvements.
Common Area All land within Val Vista Lakes intended for the use and enjoyment of Members, including areas for landscaping, drainage, or flood control.
Declarant Val Vista Lakes Development, an Arizona General Partnership, and its successors.
Dwelling Unit Any building or portion thereof situated on a Lot/Parcel intended for single-family occupancy.
Exempt Property Land owned by governmental entities (City of Gilbert, Maricopa County, etc.) or Association Land, which is exempt from certain assessments.
General Ledger The transaction-level book of accounts that records specific expenditures; a point of contention regarding privilege and transparency.
Land Use Classification A designation (e.g., Single Family Residential, Commercial Office) that determines the permitted improvements and uses for a specific Lot or Parcel.
Member Any person holding a Membership in the Association, typically as a record holder of legal title (Owner).
Tract Declaration A recorded declaration that establishes specific covenants and restrictions for a particular portion of Val Vista Lakes.
Visible From Neighboring Property An object that would be visible to a person six feet tall standing at ground level on neighboring property.

Part 3: Short-Answer Practice Quiz

  1. Who was the 2023 Board President responsible for appointing the overseer of the 2023 Election?
  • Answer: Sharon Maiden.
  1. What was the specific budget amount approved by the Board for mailers regarding the 2024 dues increase vote?
  • Answer: $4,500.
  1. According to the CC&Rs, what must happen before an Owner can make an alteration to the exterior appearance of their property?
  • Answer: They must obtain prior written approval from the Architectural Committee.
  1. What is the "Deference Clause" mentioned by the Association’s legal counsel?
  • Answer: A provision (Article 9, Section 1) that purportedly gives the Board the authority to interpret provisions of the Declaration when ambiguity exists.
  1. Under Article 4, Section 2(m), what types of signs are generally prohibited if they are "Visible From Neighboring Property"?
  • Answer: Commercial, political, and "similar signs," with specific exceptions for legal proceedings or approved residential identification.
  1. What was CHDB Law's specific role in the 2023 Election process, according to Josh Bolen?
  • Answer: They were only asked to count the votes at the annual meeting.
  1. Identify one reason the Association gave for its "Vote Yes" advocacy campaign.
  • Answer: The Association was in financial distress and needed the funds to avoid bankruptcy or receivership.
  1. How does the CC&R define "Single Family"?
  • Answer: A group of persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or a group of not more than three unrelated persons maintaining a common household.

Part 4: Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Conflict of Interpretation: Analyze the legal and logical arguments regarding the term "political issue" as found in the Val Vista Lakes CC&Rs. Contrast the view that "political" is limited to government elections with the view that it includes any issue put to a membership vote. Which interpretation better serves the intended purpose of protecting member dues from being used for advocacy?
  2. Governance and Transparency: Evaluate the evolution of election procedures from 2023 to 2024. Discuss the implications of disclosing candidate conflicts after an election versus requiring comprehensive candidate forms before the vote. How do these practices impact community trust and Association liability?
  3. Fiduciary Duty vs. Restrictive Covenants: The Association argued that advocating for a dues increase was a business necessity to avoid financial ruin. Discuss whether a Board's fiduciary duty to keep the Association solvent overrides restrictive covenants (like Article 9, Section 1) that prohibit spending on advocacy.
  4. The Role of Quasi-Governmental Entities: Based on the hearing transcript, explore the concept of a Homeowners Association as a "quasi-governmental" entity. How does this classification affect the rights of members regarding "taxation" (assessments) and the use of forced funds for "electioneering"?

Part 5: Summary Table of 2023 vs. 2024 Election Facts

Feature 2023 Election 2024 Election
Board Oversight Christine Tucker (Appointed by Sharon Maiden) 2024 Board (including Ebertshauser and Hurtado)
Candidate Forms Approved by 2023 Board; lacked certain disclosures "Proper" forms required to ensure disclosure
CHDB Law Role Vote counting only No involvement in form review/certification
Post-Election Conflicts disclosed to Board after the fact Focus on compliance and correcting past statements

Inside the Val Vista Lakes Legal Battle: Dues Increases, "Missing" Forms, and the Definition of "Political"

1. Introduction: A Community at a Crossroads

On January 30, 2026, the governance of Val Vista Lakes was placed under a legal microscope in hearing docket number 25026 RO. The proceedings, Jeremy Whittaker v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association, represent more than a simple neighborly dispute; they address a foundational question of HOA power: Can a board use "forced dues" to influence the outcome of its own elections?

The atmosphere was marked by palpable tension as petitioner Jeremy Whittaker framed the Association as a "quasi-governmental" entity that had overstepped its bounds. At the heart of the conflict are two explosive revelations: the sudden, eleventh-hour reappearance of "missing" 2023 election documents and allegations of improper spending. As the community watches, the case sets a high-stakes precedent for whether an HOA board can legally engage in outcome-directed advocacy using the membership’s own resources.

2. The Mystery of the 2023 Election Forms

A central pillar of the Association’s recent defense involves a cache of 2023 Candidate Forms that were long claimed to be non-existent. In a startling shift, a March 4, 2025, email from Association counsel Josh Bolen revealed that these documents were "suddenly" produced by FirstService Residential (FSR) on March 3, just as legal scrutiny intensified.

The Association’s narrative has pivoted from a claim of "non-possession" to one of "prior board negligence." Key details from the internal trail include:

  • The Sudden Discovery: After maintaining for months that these records were missing, the Association turned them over only after FSR located them in early March 2025.
  • The Maiden Appointment: Evidence confirms that 2023 Board President Sharon Maiden specifically appointed Christine Tucker to oversee the 2023 election process.
  • Shifting Accountability: The current Board now asserts it had no involvement in the 2023 approval process, effectively blaming the previous administration for any "lack of disclosures" found within those newly discovered forms.

"The Paperwork Trail" Counsel Josh Bolen has been explicit in distancing current leadership from the discovery, asserting that the 2023 Board "solely controlled" the election process. This move effectively frames any procedural failures or disclosure gaps as the legacy of former leadership, rather than a systemic failure of the Association’s current management.

3. Issue 3: The $4,500 "Vote Yes" Campaign

The most contentious testimony focused on whether the Board violated Article 9, Section 1 of the CC&Rs by using community funds to advocate for a $25 dues increase. Whittaker argued that the Association abandoned its role as a neutral provider of information, instead engaging in a biased campaign.

Whittaker presented a timeline of "outcome-directed advocacy" supported by the following evidence:

  • Authorized Budgeting: Board minutes show a motion (seconded by Diana Ebertshauser) to authorize a budget of $4,500 for "Vote Yes" mailers and signage.
  • The "Treasurer’s Email": Whittaker identified Board Treasurer Diana Ebertshauser as having used the official Association distribution list—a resource unavailable to the general membership—to send mass emails urging a "Yes" vote.
  • Common Area Signage: Between August and November 2024, "Vote Yes" signs were placed prominently throughout common areas.

In response, the Association’s counsel argued that while the Board authorized a "not to exceed" budget of $4,500, the actual expenditure was "significantly less" because members allegedly donated many of the signs. Whittaker remained steadfast, stating: "No governing body should have the power to spend money on something that is politically motivated… my position is that the association is quasi-governmental."

4. The Great Debate: What Defines a "Political Issue"?

The adjudication rests on the interpretation of a single word: political. The hearing showcased two fundamentally different views of the Association’s legal restrictions.

Party Interpretation of "Political Issue" Core Argument
Petitioner (Whittaker) Any ballot measure or vote submitted to the membership. The Municipal Analogy: Whittaker argued that HOA assessments are like taxes. Just as a school board or city cannot use tax dollars to campaign for a "Yes" vote on a tax increase, an HOA cannot use forced dues to influence "Association business."
Respondent (Bolen/Association) Limited strictly to governmental elections (City, County, State, Federal). The Google Definition: Bolen cited a Google search defining "political" as relating to "government or public affairs of a country." As a non-profit corporation, the HOA argues it must be free to "encourage" members to support its business goals.
5. Financial "Dire Straits" vs. Governance Restrictions

The Association justified its advocacy by painting a picture of financial ruin. Josh Bolen testified that between 2021 and 2024, the community was in "great financial distress," facing the imminent threat of receivership or bankruptcy. He argued that the dues increase was a desperate necessity and that failing to advocate for it would "severely hamstring" the Association.

Whittaker countered that financial urgency does not grant the Board license to ignore the CC&Rs. He offered a blunt perspective on the threat of insolvency: "I think bankruptcy is actually the solution to a problem at times… when spending goes unchecked for too long." His primary contention was that the Board’s duty is to provide "unbiased information," allowing the residents to decide the community's financial fate without being influenced by their own dues.

6. The CC&R Ground Truth: Article 9, Section 1

The legal fulcrum of the case is the exact text of the Master CC&Rs:

"The Association shall not expend funds directly or indirectly to support, endorse or contribute to any political candidate or issue."

The Association’s defense relies heavily on a "Deference" clause, claiming that because the word "political" is not defined, the Board has the absolute power to interpret the provision as it sees fit. Whittaker challenged this logic, arguing that a deference clause is not a "get out of jail free" card and cannot be used to "erase" mandatory "shall not" language from the community’s highest governing document.

7. Conclusion: What This Means for Val Vista Lakes Residents

As the community awaits a final ruling, the evidence presented in Docket 25026 RO highlights a significant rift in how Val Vista Lakes is managed. For residents, there are three critical takeaways:

  1. Accountability: The Association has formally shifted the blame for the 2023 election irregularities to the former Board, specifically citing the oversight of Christine Tucker.
  2. Transparency: A major flashpoint remains the "General Ledger." The Association continues to withhold transaction-level details, asserting Attorney-Client Privilege because the ledger contains line items for legal fees paid to CHDB Law. This leaves residents unable to verify the exact amount of dues spent on advocacy.
  3. Precedent: If the Board’s interpretation of "political" holds, it sets a precedent where future Boards can use member dues to campaign for any preferred outcome—including their own re-elections—simply by labeling it "Association business."

The resolution of this case will ultimately define whether Val Vista Lakes operates as a neutral service provider or as a political entity capable of campaigning against its own members with their own money. Homeowner participation remains the only true check on this expanding power.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jeremy R. Whittaker (Petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf.
  • Michael Raine (Counsel for Petitioner)
    Boesen & Snow LLC
    Withdrew as counsel on December 18, 2025.
  • Sharon Maiden (Witness)
    Called as a witness by the Petitioner.

Respondent Side

  • Josh M. Bolen (Counsel for Respondent)
    CHDB Law, LLP
  • Ashley N. Turner (Counsel for Respondent)
    CHDB Law, LLP
  • Bryan Patterson (Witness)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    Appeared as a witness for the Respondent.
  • Diana Ebertshauser (Director / Subpoenaed Witness)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
  • Brodie Hurtado (Director / Subpoenaed Witness)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
  • Brian Solomon (Treasurer / Subpoenaed Witness)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
  • Jonathan Ebertshauser (Subpoenaed Witness)
    CHDB Law, LLP
  • Tamara Swanson (Community Manager / Subpoenaed Witness)
    HOAMCO
  • Theresa Laubenthal (Paralegal)
    CHDB Law, LLP
    Worked on filings and correspondence for Respondent.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding judge for the case.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Laura Tannery (Former Property Manager / Subpoenaed Witness)
    FirstService Residential
  • Mike Dill (Subpoenaed Witness)
  • Douglas Austin (Former Manager / Subpoenaed Witness)
    FirstService Residential
  • Delaney Gazaille (Subpoenaed Witness)

R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H056-REL
Agency —
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2025-11-19
Administrative Law Judge JC
Outcome —
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties $167.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner R.L. Whitmer Counsel Pro Se
Respondent Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners Counsel Emily Mann, Esq.

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1335493.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:49:48 (847.7 KB)

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1335502.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:49:52 (74.4 KB)

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1335656.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:49:55 (10.6 KB)

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1352057.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:50:01 (53.9 KB)

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1352067.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:50:11 (7.8 KB)

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1353232.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:50:20 (52.9 KB)

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1357681.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:50:26 (82.0 KB)

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1360270.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:50:31 (52.2 KB)

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1369834.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:50:35 (190.0 KB)

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

Docket Number

25F-H056-REL

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Administrative Law Judge

Jenna Clark

Referring Agency

Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

Petitioner

R.L. Whitmer (appearing on his own behalf)

Respondent

Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners

Respondent’s Counsel

Emily Mann, Esq. (Phillips Maceyko & Battock, PLLC)

Respondent’s Witness

Robert Westbrook (HOA President)

Date of Incident

April 7, 2025

Petition Filed

April 9, 2025

Hearing Date

November 3, 2025

ALJ Decision Date

November 19, 2025

II. Petitioner’s Allegations and Requested Relief

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.

Study Guide: R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal dispute between R.L. Whitmer (Petitioner) and the Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners (Respondent). It explores the application of Arizona’s Open Meeting Laws, the procedural requirements of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), and the nuances of statutory interpretation in homeowners' association (HOA) disputes.

Key Concepts and Case Background

The Core Dispute

The case (File No. 25F-H056) centers on whether the Hilton Casitas HOA violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) regarding open meetings during a budget ratification process on April 7, 2025. The Petitioner alleged that the HOA failed to provide an agenda, refused to allow him to speak, and held an unnoticed informal meeting ("Town Hall") involving a quorum of the board.

Relevant Legislation: A.R.S. § 33-1248

This statute serves as the foundation for the litigation. Its primary components include:

  • Subsection A: Requires that meetings of unit owners' associations and boards of directors be open to all members and that members be allowed to speak at appropriate times during deliberations.
  • Subsection E(1): Mandates that an agenda be available in advance for unit owners attending board of directors meetings.
  • Subsection E(4): Requires any quorum of the board meeting informally to discuss association business (including workshops) to comply with open meeting and notice provisions.
  • Subsection F: Declares the state's policy that all condominium meetings be conducted openly and that notices/agendas contain information reasonably necessary to inform owners of matters to be decided.
Procedural History
  1. Initial Petition (April 2025): Filed by Whitmer regarding a $500 single-issue fee.
  2. Stay and Amended Petition (August 2025): Whitmer attempted to amend the petition to include additional issues but failed to pay the required additional $1,000 in filing fees.
  3. Summary Judgment Motions (September-October 2025): Both parties filed for summary judgment. The ALJ dismissed the amended petition with prejudice but allowed the original petition to proceed.
  4. Hearing (November 3, 2025): A remote hearing was conducted via Google Meet, involving testimony from Whitmer and HOA President Robert Westbrook.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

Question Answer based on Source Context
1. What was the specific purpose of the April 7, 2025, special meeting? To ratify the 2025 revised budget and approve a $300 per month dues increase due to insolvency.
2. Why was the Petitioner’s amended petition dismissed with prejudice? He failed to pay the $1,000 filing fee for the additional issues identified in the amendment.
3. How many ballots were cast in the budget ratification, and what was the result? 25 of 29 ballots were received; 24 voted "Yes" and 1 voted "No."
4. What was the HOA's primary defense against the charge of failing to provide an agenda? They argued the meeting was a "Special Meeting of Members," not a Board meeting, and that the ballot packet itself served as the agenda.
5. What did the Petitioner say when asked if he cared to vote during the meeting? He stated, "I'm waiting for the public comment."
6. Why did the ALJ dismiss the allegation regarding the "Town Hall" meeting? The ALJ ruled that the existence of a quorum at an informal gathering does not constitute a meeting unless association business is discussed; to rule otherwise would lead to "absurdity."
7. What was the final civil penalty imposed on the Respondent? $167.00.
8. Which specific statutory subsection did the ALJ find the Respondent had violated? A.R.S. § 33-1248(A).

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The Nuance of "Explicit" vs. "Implied" Requests to Speak

In the hearing, the Respondent argued that Petitioner never explicitly asked to speak. However, the ALJ found that Petitioner's statement—"I'm waiting for the public comment"—was a clear and unambiguous indication that he wished to be heard. Discuss the implications of this ruling for HOA boards. Should boards be required to proactively offer a comment period, or should the burden remain on the homeowner to use specific "magic words" to trigger their rights under A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)?

2. Statutory Interpretation and the "Absurd Result" Doctrine

The ALJ noted that prohibiting board members from attending informal social gatherings where a quorum might naturally occur (like the "Town Hall" at a member's home) would result in an "absurd result." Analyze how this doctrine balances the need for transparency in governance with the personal rights of board members to exist as individual members of a community. Where should the line be drawn between a "neighborly discussion" and "informal business discussion" under A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)(4)?

3. The Impact of Litigiousness on Association Governance

The source context highlights an "acrimonious relationship" between the parties, noting approximately 25 legal actions filed by the Petitioner in 10 years. Explore how persistent litigation affects an HOA's ability to remain solvent and functional. To what extent should an ALJ consider the history and motivations of the parties when determining the necessity of civil penalties or the reimbursement of filing fees?

Glossary of Important Terms

  • ADRE (Arizona Department of Real Estate): The state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners' associations.
  • ALJ (Administrative Law Judge): The presiding official at the Office of Administrative Hearings who hears evidence and issues a decision (in this case, Jenna Clark).
  • Amended Petition: A revised legal document intended to add or change claims; in this case, it was dismissed because the Petitioner did not pay the additional $500-per-issue fee.
  • Dismissal With Prejudice: A final judgment on the merits of a case that prevents the same parties from filing another lawsuit on the same claim.
  • Insolvency: A financial state where an association's expenses exceed its budget and reserves, as was the case with Hilton Casitas before the dues increase.
  • OAH (Office of Administrative Hearings): An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts hearings for various state agencies.
  • Open Meeting Law: Statutes (specifically A.R.S. § 33-1248 for condominiums) requiring that the deliberations and actions of governing bodies be open to the public.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The burden of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning the claim is "more probably true than not."
  • Quorum: The minimum number of members of an assembly or board that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.
  • Ratification: The official way to approve an action that has been proposed, such as the 2025 budget in this dispute.
  • Summary Judgment: A legal move where one party asks the judge to decide the case based on the facts already in the record, without going to a full hearing.

Transparency in the Neighborhood: Lessons from the Hilton Casitas HOA Legal Ruling

1. Introduction: A Seven-Minute Meeting with Lasting Consequences

On the afternoon of April 7, 2025, a group of homeowners gathered at a private residence in Scottsdale, Arizona, for what was intended to be a routine special meeting of the Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners. The stakes, however, were anything but routine: a proposed budget that would significantly impact every resident's wallet. Despite the gravity of the financial discussion, the official meeting was remarkably brief, lasting only seven minutes.

What transpired in that narrow window sparked a pivotal legal battle between homeowner R.L. Whitmer and the HOA Board. This case highlights the "procedural trap" many small boards fall into when they prioritize administrative expediency over the statutory speech rights of their members. It serves as a stark reminder that in the world of community governance, even the most "neighborly" interactions must strictly adhere to the law, or face the consequences of judicial scrutiny.

2. Case Background: The $300 Question

The conflict originated when the Hilton Casitas Board of Directors conducted its 2025 budget assessment and determined the association was essentially insolvent. To rectify the shortfall, the Board proposed a revised budget that was 21% higher than the previous year. For the individual homeowner, this translated to a $300 monthly dues increase—a staggering 75% jump from the 2024 rate of $400 to a new rate of $700.

The HOA cited three primary drivers for this financial crisis:

  • Maintenance: Escalating costs related to the community’s aging physical infrastructure.
  • Insurance: Significant and unforeseen spikes in premiums and difficulty maintaining coverage.
  • Legal Expenses: A budget line item exhausted by an "acrimonious relationship" between the parties, characterized by approximately 25 legal actions filed over the last decade.
3. The Three Legal Pillars: Analyzing the Allegations

The Petitioner, R.L. Whitmer, alleged three specific violations of A.R.S. § 33-1248, commonly known as the Arizona Open Meeting Law for condominiums. The following table compares these statutory allegations against the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ):

Statute/Allegation Petitioner’s Argument Judicial Finding
A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)(1) (Agenda) Argued the Board failed to provide a formal meeting agenda, claiming a budget memorandum was insufficient. No Violation. The Judge found the memorandum and ballot provided enough detail to inform owners of the meeting's purpose.
A.R.S. § 33-1248(A) (Right to Speak) Claimed he was denied a chance to speak before the meeting was abruptly adjourned. Violation. The Judge ruled the Board failed to allow the Petitioner to speak despite his clear indication that he wished to be heard.
A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)(4) (Informal Quorum) Contended that a post-meeting "Town Hall" was actually an unnoticed board meeting because a quorum was present. No Violation. The Judge determined the gathering was a social interaction and not a venue for "workshopping" official business.
4. The "Public Comment" Turning Point

The centerpiece of the ALJ’s ruling was the Board’s failure to honor the "Right to Speak" provision. During the special meeting, Board President Robert Westbrook asked the Petitioner if he wished to cast a vote. The following exchange, recorded in the transcript, became the "aha!" moment for the court:

Mr. Westbrook: "Do you care to vote?" Mr. Whitmer: "I’m waiting for the public comment." Mr. Westbrook: "I’m just asking if you’re going to vote." Mr. Whitmer: "No, I’m not."

Shortly after this exchange, the meeting was adjourned without a public comment period. The Board’s defense—that the Petitioner never used "magic legal words" to explicitly ask for the floor—was rejected by the ALJ as "disingenuous." The ruling clarified that stating one is "waiting for public comment" is a clear request to be heard. Under Arizona law, boards must allow members to speak before taking formal action or adjourning; failing to do so is a statutory violation.

5. The "Town Hall" Debate: When a Quorum is Just a Gathering

Following the seven-minute meeting, the Board President invited attendees to stay for an informal discussion, which one board member colloquially called a "Town Hall." While a quorum of the board remained, the ALJ ruled this was not a violation of unnoticed meeting laws.

The legal distinction relies on the concept of "Two Hats": a director does not lose their rights as an individual homeowner simply because they serve on a board. In this instance, the directors were acting in their capacity as neighbors engaging in social interaction, rather than "workshopping" or deciding association business.

The "Absurdity" Argument The ALJ emphasized that a literal interpretation of the law barring board members from ever gathering socially would lead to "absurd" results. If the mere presence of a quorum at a neighborhood social event transformed it into an official board meeting, directors would effectively be barred from any community interaction. The law does not intend to exile board members from their own neighborhoods.

6. The Verdict: The $167 Penalty

On November 19, 2025, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued the Final Order, which included the following outcomes:

  1. Partial Victory: The petition was granted specifically regarding the violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248(A).
  2. Fee Denial: The Petitioner was denied reimbursement for his $500 filing fee; both parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
  3. Civil Penalty: The HOA was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $167.00 directly to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
  4. Cease and Desist: The HOA was formally directed to comply with the Open Meeting Law and not violate this provision in the future.
7. Compelling Conclusion & Homeowner Takeaways

The Hilton Casitas ruling serves as a vital lesson in balancing administrative efficiency with the protection of homeowner rights. Transparency in community governance is not a courtesy; it is a statutory mandate.

Critical Takeaways for the Community:

  • For Boards: Don't Ignore the "Waiting" Member. You do not need to hear a formal motion to speak. If a homeowner indicates they are waiting for a comment period, the Board must provide a reasonable window for them to be heard before the gavel falls.
  • For Homeowners: Rights Have Limits. While you have a fundamental right to speak at meetings, not every gathering of your neighbors—even those on the board—constitutes a secret meeting. The "two hats" doctrine protects the social fabric of the community.
  • The Cost of Acrimony: The ALJ noted a decade of friction, including 25 legal actions, contributed significantly to the budget crisis. When a community chooses litigation over communication, the financial impact—in this case, a 75% dues increase—is felt by every neighbor.

Ultimately, this case proves that even in a meeting lasting only seven minutes, the failure to listen can lead to months of litigation and costly penalties.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • R.L. Whitmer (Petitioner)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
    Homeowner appearing on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Emily Mann (Counsel)
    Phillips Maceyko & Battock, PLLC
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Robert Westbrook (President / Witness)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
    HOA President and unit owner
  • Karen Kass (Statutory Agent)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
  • John Brooke (Director)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
  • Curt Richard Roberts (Secretary)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
    Recorded meeting minutes
  • Jay Panzer (Director)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
    Recorded the April 7th meeting
  • James Cox (Treasurer)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding judge
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Liz Recchia (Division Manager)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Mike Benson (Former Board Member)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
    Mentioned during the hearing as attending the gathering

Anne F. Segal vs Prince Court Homeowners Association, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H032-REL
Agency Arizona Department of Real Estate
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2025-05-22
Administrative Law Judge JC
Outcome Petition Denied
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anne F. Segal Counsel Pro Se
Respondent Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Wendy Ehrlich, Esq.

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1269718.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:38:59 (53.7 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1269742.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:39:05 (7.8 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1274756.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:39:08 (54.6 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1274775.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:39:17 (7.9 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1277633.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:39:22 (48.1 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1288621.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:39:25 (51.6 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1308520.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:39:30 (206.1 KB)

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.

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

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

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Anne F. Segal (Petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf
  • Robert Segal (Witness)
    Husband of Petitioner
  • David Zeinfeld (Witness)
    Original developer of the subdivision

Respondent Side

  • Wendy Ehrlich (Counsel)
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Mary Beth Snyder (Witness)
    Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Board President
  • Susan Matheson (Witness)
    Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Board Vice President

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding ALJ
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Dianna Tidle (Observer)

Steven Schmidt v. Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222040-REL
Agency Arizona Department of Real Estate
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2022-07-13
Administrative Law Judge JC
Outcome —
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Steven J. Schmidt Counsel Pro Se
Respondent Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc. Counsel Michael S. Shupe, Esq. (Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC)

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222040-REL Decision – 2022 04 22 ADRE Response HO22-22040.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:49:43 (95.9 KB)

22F-H2222040-REL Decision – 973190.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:49:46 (45.6 KB)

22F-H2222040-REL Decision – 975956.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:49:50 (54.8 KB)

22F-H2222040-REL Decision – 983362.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:49:53 (165.5 KB)

22F-H2222040-REL Decision – Date of Hearing Recieved.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:49:57 (169.0 KB)

22F-H2222040-REL Decision – HO22-22040_Notice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:50:03 (521.1 KB)

22F-H2222040-REL Decision – Notice of Hearing .pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:50:09 (1792.3 KB)

22F-H2222040-REL Decision – Response to Petition – 4.22.22.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:50:22 (127.2 KB)

Briefing Document: Steven Schmidt v. Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative hearing and subsequent decision regarding a dispute between Steven Schmidt (Petitioner) and the Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc. (Respondent/Association). The central conflict involved the interpretation of the Association's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) specifically concerning the allowable square footage of a detached accessory structure.

The Petitioner sought to construct a 1,441-square-foot detached garage, arguing that the CC&Rs allowed for a size based on 40% of his "Dwelling Unit," which he interpreted as the total structure including his existing attached garage and porches. The Association denied the application, contending that "Dwelling Unit" refers only to the livable square footage of the home. Following a formal hearing on June 23, 2022, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark ruled in favor of the Association, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of the CC&Rs.

Case Overview and Procedural History

Item Details
Case Number 22F-H2222040-REL (ADRE Case # HO22-22/040)
Petitioner Steven Schmidt (Homeowner, Lot 9)
Respondent Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Primary Issue Interpretation of CC&Rs Article 7, Section 7 (Accessory Structure size)
Petition Date March 21, 2022
Hearing Date June 23, 2022
Decision Date July 13, 2022
Background

In May 2019, the Petitioner submitted plans to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for a detached garage project. The Association issued three separate denial letters between July 2019 and February 2020. The primary reason for denial was that the proposed 1,441-square-foot structure exceeded the allowable size limits dictated by the CC&Rs.

Analysis of Key Themes

1. The Definition of "Dwelling Unit"

The crux of the legal dispute was the definition of the term "Dwelling Unit" as used in CC&Rs Article 7, Section 7.

  • The Provision: "Accessory structures shall be limited to 5% of the lot area or forty percent (40%) of the main Dwelling Unit, whichever is less."
  • Petitioner's Interpretation: Argued that a "Dwelling Unit" is the entire physical structure. Under this view, his dwelling unit totaled 4,438 square feet (2,820 livable + 1,002 attached garage + 616 porches). This would allow an accessory structure of up to 1,775 square feet.
  • Respondent's Interpretation: Maintained that "Dwelling Unit" is a defined term separate from garages and porches. Under this view, the Petitioner’s dwelling unit was only the 2,820 square feet of livable space, limiting the accessory structure to 1,128 square feet.
2. Contractual Hierarchy and Internal Consistency

The Association’s counsel, Michael Shupe, argued that the CC&Rs must be read as a whole. He pointed to specific definitions in Article I:

  • Section 1.15: Defines "Dwelling Unit" as a building or portion of a building designed for use as a "Residence."
  • Section 1.29: Defines "Residence" as a lot together with the "residential Dwelling Unit, garage, patio and other Improvements."

By listing "Dwelling Unit" separately from "garage" and "patio" in the definition of "Residence," the Association argued the drafters intended these to be distinct categories.

3. Lay Interpretation vs. Legal Precision

The Petitioner, appearing on his own behalf, emphasized a "lay interpretation" of the documents. He argued that as a non-lawyer, he perceived the dwelling unit to be the total structure. He contended that if "Dwelling Unit" only meant livable space, other sections of the CC&Rs—such as those regarding solar panels or antennas being permitted on a "Dwelling Unit"—would imply those items could not be placed on garages or porches, which he deemed "nonsense."

Important Quotes with Context

From Petitioner Steven Schmidt

"The clear intent of the CC&Rs is to treat the dwelling unit as an entire structure, including the garage and porches… The Association has ignored the language of their own CC&Rs and design guidelines."

  • Context: Closing argument during the June 23 hearing, where Schmidt emphasized that the physical architecture of the home should dictate the calculation.

"I read the CC&Rs. I perceive them in good taste to mean what I have defined that they mean… The CC&Rs do not begin by [saying] 'you must get a contract expert to read and interpret for you, Mr. Owner.'"

  • Context: Rebuttal argument addressing the Association's reliance on technical legal definitions found in the "Definitions" section of the CC&Rs.
From Respondent’s Counsel (Michael Shupe)

"As a matter of contract interpretation, you look at the entire contract… one of the principal ideas is to look at the express language and find out if there's any ambiguity."

  • Context: Arguments made during the hearing to justify why the ARC looked at the "Definitions" section of the CC&Rs rather than just Section 7.7.
From Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark

"It is clear from the record that a 'Dwelling Unit' can only consist of a portion of a building that is distinct from other structures and improvements like garages and patios."

  • Context: Found in the "Conclusions of Law" section of the final decision, explaining why the Petitioner’s calculation was rejected.

Data Points and Square Footage Calculations

The following table reflects the data used by the ALJ to reach the final decision:

Structure Component Square Footage
Livable Area (Home) 2,820
Attached Garage 1,002
Covered Front Porch 289
Covered Rear Porch 327
Petitioner's Claimed "Dwelling Unit" Total 4,438
Calculated "Dwelling Unit" per ALJ Decision 2,820 (Livable Only)
Petitioner's Proposed Detached Garage 1,441
Max Allowable Size (40% of 2,820) 1,128 (Approx.)

Note: The ALJ decision explicitly noted that with a livable area of 2,820, the maximum allowable square footage for an accessory structure is capped at 1,141.2 (though 40% of 2,820 is 1,128, the decision mentions 2,853 as a figure in one instance, leading to the 1,141.2 cap).

Actionable Insights

  • Definition Primacy: Homeowners and Associations must prioritize the "Definitions" section of their governing documents. Even if a specific section (like Article 7.7) seems clear in isolation, defined terms carry their specific meaning throughout the entire document.
  • Burden of Proof: In administrative hearings of this nature, the Petitioner bears the burden of proving a violation by a "preponderance of the evidence." Lay interpretations, however logical they may seem from a spatial or architectural perspective, often fail to overcome specific contractual definitions.
  • Consistency in Denials: The Association's success in this matter was supported by their consistent application of the 2,500-square-foot minimum livable space requirement (Section 7.6) and the consistent separation of "livable" space from "garages/patios" in both the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.
  • Administrative Process: The case highlights the utility of prehearing conferences to identify stipulated facts, which streamlined this hearing by removing factual disputes and focusing solely on the legal interpretation of terms.

Case Analysis Study Guide: Schmidt v. Catalina Ridge Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing regarding the dispute between Steven Schmidt (Petitioner) and the Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc. (Respondent). It is designed to assist in understanding the nuances of contract interpretation within the context of homeowners' association (HOA) governance.

I. Case Overview and Key Concepts

Central Legal Issue

The primary conflict in this case is the interpretation of Article 7, Section 7 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, the parties disagreed on the method for calculating the allowable square footage of an "accessory structure" (in this instance, a detached garage).

The Mathematical Conflict

The CC&Rs state that an accessory structure is limited to 5% of the lot area or 40% of the main Dwelling Unit, whichever is less. While the lot area was not in dispute, the definition of "Dwelling Unit" was the crux of the case.

Component Petitioner’s Calculation Respondent’s Calculation
Livable Square Footage 2,820 2,820
Covered Front Porch 289 Excluded
Covered Rear Porch 327 Excluded
Attached Garage 1,002 Excluded
Total "Dwelling Unit" Base 4,438 sq. ft. 2,820 sq. ft.
Allowable Accessory Size (40%) 1,775 sq. ft. 1,128 sq. ft.
Key Legal Principles
  • Absolute Source Fidelity: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) must interpret terms based on the definitions provided within the governing documents (CC&Rs and Design Guidelines).
  • Contract as a Whole: Under legal principles of contract interpretation, a document must be read in its entirety to ensure no provision is rendered meaningless or contrary to another.
  • Burden of Proof: In these proceedings, the Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the community documents.

II. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. On what date did the Association issue the initial denial letter for the Petitioner's detached garage project? Answer: July 25, 2019.

2. According to CC&R Article 7, Section 7, what is the maximum height allowed for an accessory structure? Answer: Twenty (20) feet.

3. What was the square footage of the detached garage proposed by Steven Schmidt? Answer: 1,441 square feet.

4. The Association’s Design Guidelines (Section 3.2.2) require a minimum livable square footage of 2,500. What specific areas are explicitly excluded from this minimum requirement? Answer: Garages, porches, Guest Houses, and patios.

5. Why did the ALJ strike "Stipulated Finding of Fact number 11" during the hearing? Answer: There was a point of contention regarding a typographical error in the date (noting February 5, 2022, instead of 2020), meaning it was no longer a stipulated (agreed-upon) fact.

6. What was the final decision rendered by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark on July 13, 2022? Answer: The petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.

7. How much was the filing fee paid by the Petitioner to the Department of Real Estate to initiate the dispute? Answer: $500.00.

III. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The Conflict of Definitions

Compare the Petitioner's "lay interpretation" of the term "Dwelling Unit" with the Respondent's "contractual interpretation." How did the inclusion of Section 1.15 and Section 1.29 of the CC&Rs influence the ALJ's final decision? In your answer, address why the ALJ concluded that a "Dwelling Unit" must be distinct from structures like garages and patios.

2. Procedural Requirements of Administrative Hearings

The pre-hearing conference established several strict deadlines for both parties. Discuss the importance of the Subpoena deadline, the Disclosure deadline, and the Pre-hearing memorandum. How do these procedural steps ensure a fair hearing, and what are the consequences of failing to adhere to them (e.g., the admission of exhibits or the calling of witnesses)?

3. Demonstrative Evidence vs. Formal Record

During the hearing, the Petitioner utilized "demonstrative evidence" (large-scale plans on easels). Explain the ALJ's ruling on why these large visual aids were not admitted into the formal evidentiary record. Discuss the practical challenges of "spatial arguments" in a recorded administrative setting and the alternative solutions suggested by the court.

IV. Glossary of Important Terms

  • Accessory Structure: Structures including, but not limited to, detached garages and guest homes, which are subject to specific size and height limitations under the CC&Rs.
  • ARC (Architectural Review Committee): The body within the Association responsible for reviewing and approving or denying construction and modification applications on lots.
  • Bates Stamps: Numerical page labels used on exhibits to ensure that all parties and the court can easily reference specific pages during testimony and deliberation.
  • CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The enforceable contract between an HOA and its property owners that governs property use and community standards.
  • Dwelling Unit: As defined in CC&R Section 1.15, any building or portion of a building situated upon a lot designed and intended for use and occupancy as a residence by a single family.
  • In Limine (Motions in Limine): Housekeeping issues or motions raised at the onset of a hearing to limit or prevent certain evidence from being presented.
  • Livable Square Footage: The interior residential space of a home, which, according to the Association’s guidelines, excludes non-livable areas such as garages, porches, and patios.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in civil and administrative matters, meaning the evidence shows that a contention is "more probably true than not."
  • Stipulated Facts: Facts that both the Petitioner and Respondent agree are true before the hearing begins, allowing the court to focus only on the remaining points of legal or factual dispute.

Building by the Numbers: Lessons from a 1,441-Square-Foot Garage Dispute

Introduction: The High Stakes of Home Improvements

For many homeowners, the ultimate property goal is the addition of a sprawling detached workshop or a custom multi-car garage. However, in communities governed by Homeowners Associations (HOAs), these architectural dreams are often tethered to the cold, hard math of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Navigating these rules requires more than just a set of blueprints; it requires a surgical understanding of how your community defines its building limits.

The case of Steven Schmidt v. Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc., adjudicated before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), serves as a cautionary tale for any homeowner. What began as a request for a 1,441-square-foot detached garage devolved into a multi-year legal battle over a single mathematical definition. The central conflict? The specific method used to determine the allowable size of an accessory structure.

The Core Conflict: The "40% Rule" Explained

The dispute originated when Petitioner Steven Schmidt proposed a 1,441-square-foot standalone garage. The Catalina Ridge Architectural Review Committee (ARC) denied the project, asserting it exceeded the size limitations set forth in CC&R Article 7.7.

To understand the denial, one must look at the community's "lesser of" formula for accessory structures. Under Article 7.7, a structure is limited to:

  • 5% of the total lot area; or
  • 40% of the "main Dwelling Unit," whichever is less.

In this case, the Petitioner's lot was approximately 46,300 square feet. A 5% calculation would have allowed for a massive 2,315-square-foot structure. Consequently, the "40% of the main Dwelling Unit" rule became the controlling—and far more restrictive—cap. The entire case hinged on two opposing interpretations of what "Dwelling Unit" actually means:

  • The Petitioner’s View: The "Dwelling Unit" should encompass the home's total physical footprint, including livable space, the attached garage, and porches.
  • The Association’s View: The "Dwelling Unit" is a legal term referring strictly to the livable, conditioned square footage of the home.

The Calculation Clash: Homeowner Math vs. HOA Math

The following table highlights the significant gap created by these two interpretations. While the Petitioner used a base of 4,438 square feet to justify his project, the ALJ ultimately adopted the Association's more conservative figures.

Component Petitioner’s Calculation (Total Footprint) Association’s Calculation (Livable Only)
Livable Area 2,820 sq. ft. 2,853 sq. ft.*
Front Porch 289 sq. ft. (Excluded)
Rear Porch 327 sq. ft. (Excluded)
Attached Garage 1,002 sq. ft. (Excluded)
Total Base Area 4,438 sq. ft. 2,853 sq. ft.
Allowable 40% Cap 1,775.2 sq. ft. 1,141.2 sq. ft.

\Note: While the Petitioner estimated his livable space at 2,820 sq. ft., the ALJ utilized the Association's calculated figure of 2,853 sq. ft. to determine the final legal cap. Under the HOA's math, the proposed 1,441 sq. ft. garage exceeded the limit by nearly 300 square feet.*

The Legal Deep Dive: Definitions Matter

In the courtroom, "common sense" interpretations of space often fail when compared to the specific language of a contract. To resolve the dispute, ALJ Jenna Clark performed a deep dive into the Article I definitions of the CC&Rs, specifically contrasting Section 1.15 (Dwelling Unit) with Section 1.29 (Residence).

The ruling relied on the legal principle of Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterius—the idea that the express mention of one thing excludes others. The ALJ highlighted Section 1.29, which defines a "Residence" as:

“'Residence' means any subdivided Lot shown on the Plat, together with the residential Dwelling Unit, garage, patio and other Improvements thereon…"

By listing "Dwelling Unit," "garage," and "patio" as separate items in a series, the contract legally establishes them as distinct, mutually exclusive entities. If the "Dwelling Unit" already included the garage and patio, listing them separately would make those words redundant—a violation of standard contract interpretation rules. Furthermore, the Association pointed to Section 7.6, which explicitly excludes garages and porches when establishing minimum livable square footage requirements (2,500 sq. ft.).

The Petitioner argued that if you exclude garages and porches, the community's minimum size requirements become "nonsense" because a house cannot exist as livable space alone. The ALJ rejected this functionalist view, favoring a textualist approach: the document says what it says, regardless of the homeowner's personal logic.

The Final Verdict: Why the ALJ Ruled for the HOA

On July 13, 2022, the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) issued its final decision. ALJ Jenna Clark ruled in favor of the Catalina Ridge Community Association.

The ALJ concluded that under the governing documents, a "Dwelling Unit" is a specific portion of a building intended for residential occupancy and is legally distinct from improvements like garages and patios. Because the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to show the HOA had violated the CC&Rs, and failed to do so, the Association's denial was upheld. The 1,441-square-foot garage was officially denied for exceeding the 1,141.2-square-foot cap.

Key Takeaways for Homeowners

As a consultant, I see these disputes frequently. Here are the strategic lessons to take from the Schmidt case:

  1. Livable Area $\neq$ Physical Footprint: In the world of HOAs, your "house" may be 4,000 square feet of stucco and roof, but its "Dwelling Unit" size—the number used for regulatory caps—is likely limited to your conditioned, livable square footage.
  2. Definitions Overrule Reality: Do not rely on dictionary definitions or "common sense." Always check the "Definitions" section of your CC&Rs first. If a term like "Residence" or "Improvement" is defined there, that definition is the only one that matters in court.
  3. The Burden of Proof Bias: In an administrative hearing, the burden of proof rests on the homeowner. If the contract language is even slightly in favor of the Association’s interpretation, the "tie" effectively goes to the Board unless you can prove a clear, express violation of the rules.

Conclusion: Navigating Your Next Project

The Schmidt case is a sobering reminder that a difference of just 300 square feet can lead to a multi-year legal battle and thousands of dollars in wasted planning. Precise language in community documents exists to maintain neighborhood character and consistency, even when that language leads to difficult math for the individual homeowner.

Before you invest in professional plans or architectural renderings, consult with your Architectural Review Committee (ARC). Ask them specifically for their "base calculation" of your dwelling unit. Understanding the community’s "rules of the road" and their specific definitions is the only way to ensure your project moves from the drawing board to the backyard without a legal detour.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Steven J. Schmidt (Petitioner)
    Catalina Ridge Community Association
    Homeowner of Lot 9

Respondent Side

  • Michael S. Shupe (Counsel for Respondent)
    Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC
  • Susan Workman (President)
    Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.
  • Phyllis Kapellen (Vice-President)
    Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.
  • Gina Batali (Secretary)
    Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.
  • Jason Boyd (Director)
    Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Daniel Y. Jones (Division Manager)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    Office of Administrative Hearings

Wesley T Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221022-REL
Agency —
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2022-06-14
Administrative Law Judge JC
Outcome —
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Wesley T Chadwick Counsel Pro se / Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association Counsel Nick Eicher, Esq., Eadie Rudder, Esq. (Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP)

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 946305.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:41:43 (47.7 KB)

22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 950368.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:41:47 (46.3 KB)

22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 957992.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:41:51 (54.5 KB)

22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 958039.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:41:54 (7.8 KB)

22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 960467.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:41:57 (49.7 KB)

22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 977411.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:42:01 (229.1 KB)

Legal Analysis and Case Briefing: Wesley T. Chadwick vs. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association (No. 22F-H2221022-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and subsequent decision regarding the dispute between homeowner Wesley T. Chadwick (Petitioner) and the Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association (Respondent/Association). The case centered on six violation notices issued between January and June 2021 regarding landscaping maintenance.

The Petitioner alleged that the Association exceeded its authority, issued vague and arbitrary notices, and failed to follow the procedural requirements outlined in the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Association contended it acted within its broad discretion to maintain community aesthetics and that the Petitioner failed to achieve full compliance.

On June 14, 2022, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark issued a decision granting the petition in part. The ALJ found that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9 by failing to provide specific steps to cure violations and by citing incorrect sections of the CC&Rs. Consequently, the Association was ordered to pay a $500 pro-rata portion of the filing fee to the Petitioner.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Specificity and the "Person of Ordinary Prudence"

A central theme of the dispute was the lack of clarity in the Association’s violation notices. The Association frequently used broad directives such as "PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS" or "fix rock area." The ALJ determined that these instructions were "vague, overbroad, and nondescript." The ruling emphasized that a "person of ordinary prudence" would not necessarily understand that "fix rock area" specifically required covering irrigation lines or removing a particular plant that the manager deemed a vine.

2. Misapplication of Governing Documents

The analysis revealed a significant technical error in the Association’s enforcement process. All six violation letters cited Article 4.5, which the ALJ found pertains exclusively to "Construction Activities." The correct section for landscaping maintenance was Article 4.4. The ALJ concluded that issuing notices under the incorrect article failed to provide the Petitioner with proper legal notice of the violations.

3. The "Moving Goalposts" of Compliance

The Petitioner argued that the Association engaged in a pattern of "moving the goalposts." After reaching a settlement in March 2021 to pay a fine and resolve the initial weed issues, the Petitioner received a fourth notice (dated prior to the settlement) introducing the new "fix rock area" requirement. The Petitioner contended that this new issue was treated as a continuation of previous violations (carrying a $100 fine) rather than a new issue requiring a fresh warning, effectively depriving him of the opportunity to cure without penalty.

4. Subjective vs. Objective Enforcement

Testimony from the Community Manager, Danielle Miglio, highlighted the subjective nature of the Association's inspections. Miglio performed unannounced drive-throughs twice monthly from a vehicle. She admitted she did not measure how much irrigation line was exposed, stating only that if she could see a "black line" from the street with no plant attached, it constituted a violation. The Petitioner countered this by providing photographic evidence (Exhibit 15) of exposed irrigation lines at the residence of the Board Vice President, who testified she had never received a violation notice for such an issue.

Chronology of Violation Notices (2021)

Date Notice Level Stated Violation Outcome/Action
Jan 21 Property Inspection Remove Weeds Petitioner hired contractors to remove dead cacti and weeds.
Feb 09 Second Notice Remove Weeds $50 fine assessed.
Feb 25 Third Notice Remove Weeds $100 fine assessed.
Mar 15 Fourth Notice Remove Weeds, "fix rock area" $100 fine; first mention of "rock area."
Mar 30 Fifth Notice Remove Weeds, "fix rock area" $100 fine; OPM later provided circled photos of concern.
Jun 16 Sixth Notice Remove Weeds $100 fine; related to a specific plant the HOA called a "vine."

Important Quotes with Context

On Notice Specificity

ALJ Jenna Clark: "The Association’s directive to 'PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS' or 'fix rock area' would not indicate to a person of ordinary prudence… to cover up exposed irrigation lines, remove a plant believed to be a vine, fill in holes, and/or make the lawn generally tidy and pleasing to the eye." * Context: Found in the Conclusions of Law, this explains why the ALJ ruled the Association violated the notice requirements of the CC&Rs.

On the Nature of Inspections

Danielle Miglio (Manager): "I stay in my vehicle… This is private property. It's trespassing… if I can see it from my vehicle, which is in the middle of the street, and I can see the black line… that is typically when I would say I'm going to give them a violation." * Context: Testimony explaining how OPM determines what constitutes an "unsightly" condition or "debris."

On Compliance Frustrations

Wesley T. Chadwick (Petitioner): "We feel that because of the lack of specificity of the notices, the lack of communication, exceeding the authority and arbitrarily forcing it… the gold posts were constantly being moved." * Context: From the Petitioner's closing argument, summarizing the claim that the HOA made it impossible to achieve full compliance.

On Board Policy

Cynthia Ecker (Board VP): "Typically the first thing [we] do is we'll ask property manager if there's been a waving of fines in the past. Like I said, it's a onetime courtesy." * Context: Explaining the Board's deliberation process for fine waiver requests.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners' Associations (HOAs)
  • Precision in Documentation: Violation notices must include "specific steps" to cure. Using vague terms like "fix rock area" is insufficient. Providing circled photographs at the first notice rather than after several fines can prevent legal challenges.
  • CC&R Fidelity: Ensure enforcement letters cite the exact article and section relevant to the violation. Citing a "Construction" article for a "Landscaping" issue can render the notice moot in an administrative hearing.
  • Consistent Enforcement: Evidence of "arbitrary enforcement"—where board members have similar issues on their property but face no violations—weakens the Association's standing.
  • Settlement Transparency: When reaching a settlement for past fines, the Association should clearly disclose if there are pending notices currently in the mail to avoid "bad faith" allegations.
For Homeowners
  • Utilize Appeal Rights: The Petitioner's failure to appeal the early notices (Letters 1-3) was noted by the ALJ, though it did not ultimately defeat his claim regarding the later letters.
  • Document Remediation: Keeping receipts (e.g., the Petitioner’s $350 cactus removal and $100 weeding receipts) provides essential evidence of "good faith" attempts to comply.
  • Request Specificity: If a notice is vague, homeowners should immediately request written clarification or a meeting before fines escalate.
  • Comparative Evidence: Identifying similar conditions on other properties within the association can support a claim of arbitrary or capricious enforcement.

Final Decision Order

The Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:

  1. Partial Grant: The petition was granted regarding the violation of Article 10.9 (Notice of Violation).
  2. Partial Denial: The petition was denied regarding violations of Article 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10.
  3. Restitution: The Association was ordered to pay $500.00 to the Petitioner within 30 days of the order (June 14, 2022).

Study Guide: Chadwick vs. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing case Wesley T. Chadwick vs. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association (No. 22F-H2221022-REL). It synthesizes the procedural history, core legal arguments, and the final judicial determination regarding the enforcement of community Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

I. Key Concepts and Case Overview

The Parties
  • Petitioner: Wesley T. Chadwick, a homeowner in the Entrada Mountainside subdivision since November 2016.
  • Respondent: Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association (the Association), governed by a Board of Directors and managed by Oasis Community Management (OPM).
Core Legal Framework: The CC&Rs

The dispute centered on the interpretation and application of specific articles within the Association’s recorded CC&Rs:

  • Article 4.4 (Maintenance of Landscaping): Requires owners to keep lots "neatly trimmed, cultivated and free from trash, weeds and unsightly material."
  • Article 4.5 (Nuisances): Prohibits weeds, dead trees, rubbish, or debris that render a property "unsanitary, unsightly, offensive, or detrimental." The judge later determined this article specifically pertained to construction activities.
  • Article 10.1 (Enforcement): Grants the Association the right to enforce project documents.
  • Article 10.9 (Notice of Violation): Requires the Association to provide a brief description of the nature of the violation and a "statement of the specific steps" required to cure it.
  • Article 10.10 (Laws and Regulations): Declares that violations of state or local laws are also violations of the CC&Rs.
The Procedural Timeline (2021-2022)
  1. January – February 2021: Petitioner receives three violation notices for weeds and dead plants. Petitioner pays $450 to remove cacti and weeds.
  2. March 2021: Petitioner reaches a settlement with OPM to waive a $100 fine if compliant for 90 days. However, a fourth notice is issued citing a new issue: "fix rock area."
  3. April – June 2021: Petitioner receives fifth and sixth notices. Issues include exposed irrigation lines and a plant OPM identifies as a "vine/weed."
  4. September 2021: The Association Board denies Petitioner’s appeal in executive session.
  5. October 2021: Petitioner files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).
  6. May 25, 2022: A formal administrative hearing is held.
  7. June 14, 2022: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark issues the final decision.

II. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. What specific phrase did the Association include in the fourth and fifth notices that was not present in the first three?

Answer: "Fix rock area."

2. According to the testimony of Danielle Miglio (OPM Manager), what did "fix rock area" specifically require the Petitioner to do?

Answer: It required the Petitioner to cover exposed irrigation lines with granite and fill in the holes left by the removal of dead cacti.

3. Why did the Petitioner argue that the fourth violation notice was issued in "bad faith"?

Answer: Because the fourth notice (dated March 15) was issued just three days before the Petitioner reached a settlement agreement (March 18) with the Association, which he believed resolved all outstanding issues.

4. What was the "secret third option" proposed by the ALJ regarding the Petitioner's subpoena for documents on the day of the hearing?

Answer: The Petitioner could choose to move forward with the case immediately and then continue the matter to a later date only if the substance of the missing documents became necessary during testimony.

5. On what grounds did the ALJ rule that the Association violated Article 10.9?

Answer: The Association failed to provide "specific steps" to cure the violations. Directives like "PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS" or "fix rock area" were deemed too vague to inform a person of ordinary prudence that they needed to cover irrigation lines or remove a specific plant.

6. What was the judge's finding regarding the Association's use of Article 4.5 in the violation letters?

Answer: The judge found Article 4.5 inapplicable because it pertains solely to construction activities. The Association should have cited Article 4.4.

III. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Requirement of Specificity in Administrative Notice:

Analyze the conflict between the Association’s use of broad "boilerplate" language in violation notices and the requirements of Article 10.9. How does the failure to provide specific curative steps (e.g., "cover irrigation lines" vs. "fix rock area") impact a homeowner's right to due process and their ability to reach compliance?

  1. Arbitrary and Capricious Enforcement:

During the hearing, Board Vice President Cynthia Ecker admitted she had exposed irrigation lines on her property but had never received a violation. Discuss the legal implications of this testimony in the context of the Petitioner’s claim of "arbitrary and capricious" enforcement. Why did the judge ultimately conclude the Petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof for this specific allegation (Article 10.10) despite this testimony?

  1. The Role of Settlement and Good Faith:

The Petitioner believed a "settlement" had been reached on March 18, 2021. Evaluate the Association's actions in issuing a fourth notice dated March 15 without mentioning it during the settlement negotiations. Discuss whether the Association’s behavior aligns with the "maintenance of harmony" typically intended by community governing documents.

IV. Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) A judge who trie cases and makes determinations for administrative agencies (in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings).
CC&Rs Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing legal documents that dictate the rules for a planned community.
Continuance A postponement of a hearing or trial to a later date.
Exigency An urgent need or demand; used in the text to describe the only condition under which further continuances would be granted.
Minute Entry A brief record of the proceedings of a court or the steps taken in a case.
Petitioner The party who presents a petition to a court or tribal (Wesley T. Chadwick).
Prima Facie Based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.
Respondent The party against whom a petition is filed (Entrada Mountainside HOA).
Soft Costs Costs mentioned by the Board (e.g., administrative fees) that the Association often waives as a "one-time courtesy" if a homeowner reaches compliance.
Subpoena Duces Tecum A court order requiring a witness to bring specific documents or evidence to a court or hearing.
Tribunal A court of justice or an administrative body with the authority to adjudicate disputes.
Vacate To cancel or render a previous legal proceeding or hearing void.

HOA Disputes: Lessons in Specificity and Fairness from Chadwick vs. Entrada Mountainside

1. Introduction: The Battle for the Front Yard

For many homeowners, few experiences are as universally frustrating as receiving a vague violation notice from their Homeowners Association (HOA). What begins as a simple directive to "remove weeds" can rapidly deteriorate into a cycle of escalating fines and administrative litigation. In the case of Wesley T. Chadwick vs. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association, a standard landscaping dispute became a crucial legal test: exactly how specific must an HOA be when demanding a homeowner perform repairs?

This conflict, which was ultimately decided by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, offers a masterclass in procedural due process. It examines whether generic commands like "fix rock area" meet the legal and contractual standards required of an association. As a community association advocate, I will break down the ALJ’s findings to show why specificity is not just a courtesy—it is a legal necessity.

2. The Paper Trail: A Timeline of Escalating Notices

The dispute between Mr. Chadwick and the Association spanned the first half of 2021. While the homeowner made significant efforts to comply, the Association continued to issue fines based on increasingly ambiguous requirements.

Date of Notice Alleged Violation/Directive Fine/Action Taken
January 25, 2021 Remove weeds and dead trees/plants (Article 4.5). Initial Warning Notice.
February 9, 2021 "Please remove weeds." $50.00 Fine.
February 25, 2021 "Please remove weeds." $100.00 Fine.
March 15, 2021 Added new directive: "fix rock area." $100.00 Fine.
March 30, 2021 "Remove weeds" and "fix rock area." $100.00 Fine; Legal action threatened.
June 16, 2021 "Please remove weeds" (targeting a specific vine). $100.00 Fine; Legal action threatened.

The turning point occurred in March 2021. As the Association transitioned from the specific issue of "weeds" to the subjective and vague command to "fix rock area," the homeowner was left guessing at the Association’s expectations.

3. The Resident's Defense: "Moving the Goalposts"

Petitioner Chadwick successfully dismantled the Association’s lack of procedural due process by highlighting a pattern of "moving the goalposts." His primary arguments included:

  • Failure of Specificity (Article 10.9): Chadwick argued the Association violated Article 10.9 of the CC&Rs, which mandates a "statement of the specific steps" required to cure a violation. He contended that "fix rock area" failed this contractual standard.
  • Good Faith Compliance and Bad Faith Negotiation: Chadwick spent $450 in February to remove dead cacti and weeds. On March 18, he reached a settlement with the Association to pay a $50 fine to resolve the matter. However, the Association acted in apparent bad faith by negotiating this settlement while already having mailed a new $100 fine on March 15—a fact the Association did not disclose during settlement talks.
  • Arbitrary Enforcement: In a "smoking gun" moment during the hearing, Chadwick pointed to the uneven application of the rules. Most notably, Cynthia Ecker, a Board member of 20 years and current Vice President, admitted under cross-examination that she had uncovered irrigation lines in her own yard but had never received a notice or a fine.

4. The Association’s Stance: Broad Authority and "Unsightly" Conditions

The Association, represented by Community Manager Danielle Miglio and the Board Vice President, justified their enforcement actions through the following arguments:

  • Broad Discretionary Power: They argued that Article 4.5 granted the Association the exclusive right to determine what constitutes an "unsightly" or "offensive" condition.
  • The "Incomplete Job" Theory: The Board contended that when Chadwick removed the dead cacti, he created a new "debris" issue by leaving holes and exposed irrigation lines. They argued this was an extension of the original maintenance failure.
  • Sufficiency of Notice: The Association maintained that "Remove Weeds" was a sufficient directive, asserting that it is the homeowner’s responsibility to cross-reference the CC&Rs or contact the office for further clarity.

5. The ALJ’s Verdict: Why Specificity Matters

The ALJ’s decision (No. 22F-H2221022-REL) provides a sharp critique of the Association's procedural failures. The Judge granted the petition in part, based on two critical legal errors:

The "Prudent Person" Standard The Judge ruled that a person of "ordinary prudence" could not be expected to be a mind-reader. A homeowner should not have to guess that the vague command to "fix rock area" actually meant they needed to "cover irrigation lines, fill holes, and remove a specific plant the Board labeled a vine." The fact that the Association eventually had to send a photo with circled areas to explain the violation proved that the written notices were insufficient.

The Procedural Failure: Article 4.4 vs. 4.5 In a significant blow to the Association’s legal standing, the ALJ found that the HOA cited the wrong Article in every notice. The Association relied on Article 4.5, which pertains solely to construction activities and nuisances. Landscaping issues fall under Article 4.4. Citing the wrong Article isn't a mere typo; it is a fundamental failure to provide proper notice, rendering the enforcement action contractually deficient.

6. Final Outcome and Financial Impact

While the Judge did not find the Association’s actions entirely arbitrary, the petition was granted regarding the violation of Article 10.9. The HOA was held accountable for the financial burden placed on the homeowner to seek justice.

### Final Order The Association was ordered to pay $500.00 to the Petitioner as a pro-rata portion of the filing fee, to be paid within 30 days of the order.

7. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and HOA Boards

For Homeowners
  • Demand Specificity: If a notice is vague, you have a contractual right to request "specific steps to cure." Reference your governing documents (like Article 10.9 in this case) to force the Board to define the violation.
  • Expose Inconsistency: Document other properties with similar "violations." As the Ecker testimony showed, proving that Board members are exempt from the rules they enforce is a powerful defense against arbitrary fines.
  • Appeal Early: Do not let fines accumulate while hoping the issue will disappear. Use the formal appeal process to create a paper trail of your compliance efforts.
For HOA Boards
  • Cite Correctly or Lose: Citing a "Nuisance" clause for a "Landscaping" issue is a procedural error that can void your fines in court. Ensure your management team is citing the exact, applicable section of the CC&Rs.
  • Eliminate Subjectivity: Phrases like "fix area" are legally unenforceable. Your notices must be descriptive (e.g., "Cover 4 inches of exposed black irrigation line near the front walkway with matching granite").
  • Negotiate in Good Faith: Settling past fines while a new notice is already in the mail is a fast track to being labeled a "bad faith" actor by a judge.

8. Administrative Note

Administrative Law proceedings in these matters follow a strict statutory timeline. Following the hearing, the ALJ has 20 days to draft a recommendation for the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, who then has 30 days to finalize the order. Parties should be aware that while a "rehearing" can be requested within 30 days of the final order, it is not a "second bite at the apple." A rehearing is only granted under specific hurdles, such as proving the discovery of new evidence that was not available at the time of the original hearing.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Wesley Todd Chadwick (Petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Nick Eicher (Counsel for Respondent)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Eadie Rudder (Counsel for Respondent)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Danielle Christine Miglo (Witness and Manager)
    Oasis Community Management
  • Cynthia Marie Ecker (Witness and Board Vice President)
    Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association
  • Mara Jolie (Assistant Manager)
    Oasis Property Management

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    Office of Administrative Hearings

Rodney F Kirby v. Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121049-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-10-12
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rodney & Patricia Kirby Counsel —
Respondent Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Peirce Linsmeier and Kaylee Ivy

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article IV, Section 4.1.1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the Petitioners' petition, finding that the HOA violated CC&Rs Article IV section 4.1.1 by failing its duty to maintain common area landscaping (sissoo trees) in a state that did not cause damage or undue financial/health burden to the Petitioners' property. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioners' $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent) are in violation of CC&Rs Article IV, Sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 for failing to remove two (2) trees on community property, at the rear of Petitioners’ retaining wall, which have caused damage to Petitioners’ pool and patio slab.

Petitioners filed a single-issue petition alleging the Association violated CC&Rs Article IV sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 by refusing to remove two sissoo trees located on community property behind Petitioners’ residence, which caused debris, clogged pool pump, and caused complications with their retaining wall and back patio. The ALJ concluded the Association violated Article IV section 4.1.1 because the trees' condition caused damage and financial/health burden to Petitioners.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is granted. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. The Respondent is ordered to abide by the specified section of the planned community (Article IV section 4.1.1). No civil penalty shall be imposed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA maintenance duty, CC&R violation, sissoo trees, filing fee refund, common area landscaping, pool damage
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(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • 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

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 940829.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:35:22 (47.0 KB)

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 950132.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:35:29 (41.0 KB)

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 916848.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:35:33 (118.5 KB)

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 917026.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:35:36 (124.9 KB)

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 916848.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:48 (118.5 KB)

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 917026.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:51 (124.9 KB)

This summary details the hearing before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on September 22, 2021, concerning a dispute between homeowners and their association.

Key Facts and Parties

The Petitioners, Rodney and Patricia Kirby, are property owners and members of the Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association (HOA/Respondent). The Petitioners, who are retired and use their pool daily for exercise, filed a petition alleging the Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The dispute centered on the Association's refusal to remove two sissoo trees, approximately 35 feet high, located on Common Area property just behind the Petitioners’ residence.

The Petitioners testified that since around 2017, the trees caused substantial problems: debris, including leaves and small dead animals, fell into their pool, clogging the pump, which had to be replaced multiple times. Furthermore, roots from the trees caused damage to their retaining wall and back patio slab.

Main Issue and Arguments

The core issue was whether the Association was in violation of CC&Rs Article IV, Sections 4.1 and 4.1.1 for failing to remove the two sissoo trees. CC&R Article IV required the Association to maintain and keep in good condition and repair the Common Area, including the maintenance, repair, and replacement of all landscaping and structures situated upon it.

The Respondent (HOA) denied the complaint, arguing that its duty of maintenance was fulfilled through its landscaping contractor, ProQual Landscaping. The HOA contended that it reasonably relied on ProQual's expert advice; ProQual had inspected the trees in April 2021 and advised that removal was unnecessary, instead leaving them on a regular trimming schedule.

The Petitioners argued that the Association’s inadequate maintenance endangered their health and welfare due to the debris and financial burdens incurred from pool and pump repairs and increased cleaning costs. They asserted that the Association had not given their request proper consideration.

Legal Points and Outcome

The OAH determined it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute and interpret the CC&Rs, which form an enforceable contract between the Association and property owners. Petitioners bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ concluded that Petitioners sustained their burden of proof. The decision emphasized that the Association's duty to maintain the Common Area does not end at the boundary line. The evidence established that *but for* the sissoo trees being situated and maintained in their current state, the degree of debris causing damage or harm to Petitioners’ property would not exist.

Final Decision

The ALJ concluded that the Association had violated Article IV section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is granted. The Respondent was FURTHER ORDERED to pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days. The OAH clarified that while it lacked statutory authority to grant declaratory or injunctive relief, the decision acts to "Order Respondent to abide by the section of the planned community specified".

Questions

Question

Does the HOA's duty to maintain common areas end strictly at the property line?

Short Answer

No. The HOA is responsible if common area elements (like trees) cause damage to adjacent private property.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that the Association's responsibility for maintenance extends beyond the physical boundary if conditions on the common area negatively impact a homeowner's property. In this case, debris from common area trees caused damage to a private pool and patio.

Alj Quote

The Association’s duty to maintain the Common Area does not end at the boundary line of the Common Area.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article IV

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • common_area
  • liability

Question

Can the HOA avoid liability for damage by claiming they relied on a professional landscaping company's advice?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. Even if the HOA pays for regular maintenance and follows vendor advice, they may still be in violation if damage persists.

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued it was not in violation because it relied on its landscaper's (arborist's) recommendation not to remove the trees. The ALJ rejected this, ruling that despite the payments and advice, the damage caused to the homeowner proved a failure to maintain the common area properly under the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Despite the Association’s payment to ProQual for regular arbor maintenance, the sissoo trees still caused debris of all kinds to fill Petitioners’ pool and backyard… Petitioners established a violation of Article IV section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs

Legal Basis

Contract Law / CC&Rs

Topic Tags

  • vendor_reliance
  • negligence
  • defenses

Question

What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for providing enough evidence to show that their claim is more likely true than not. It is not based on the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence.

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
  • evidence
  • procedure

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge order the HOA to perform a specific act, like cutting down a tree?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The Tribunal lacks statutory authority to grant injunctive relief.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cannot issue an injunction or declaratory relief (specific orders to do or not do a specific act). Instead, the order generally directs the HOA to 'abide by' the specific section of the community documents, leaving the specific method of compliance somewhat open.

Alj Quote

Because this Tribunal has no statutory authority to grant Petitioners’ declaratory or injunctive relief, this decision is expressly issued to 'Order Respondent to abide by the section of the planned community specified.'

Legal Basis

Statutory Authority

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • injunctive_relief
  • alj_powers

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the ALJ ordered the Association to pay the $500.00 filing fee directly to the Petitioners within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioners within thirty (30) days of this ORDER.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

What kind of damage is required to prove the HOA failed to maintain the common area?

Short Answer

The homeowner must show actual damage, harm, or financial burden caused by the condition.

Detailed Answer

The decision noted that the debris caused a financial burden (cleaning costs, pump replacement) and potential health risks. The mere presence of trees wasn't the issue; it was the specific damage and harm resulting from them.

Alj Quote

The record does reflect that, but for the sissoo trees being situated where they are and in the state they are in, there would not be debris to a degree on Petitioners’ property that caused any amount of damage or harm.

Legal Basis

Evidence of Damages

Topic Tags

  • damages
  • nuisance
  • evidence

Question

Who has the authority to hear disputes between a homeowner and an HOA?

Short Answer

The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Detailed Answer

Statutes authorize the Department to receive petitions regarding violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

The Department is authorized by statute to receive and to decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and from homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • adre
  • oah

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121049-REL
Case Title
Rodney & Patricia Kirby vs. Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2021-10-12
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Does the HOA's duty to maintain common areas end strictly at the property line?

Short Answer

No. The HOA is responsible if common area elements (like trees) cause damage to adjacent private property.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that the Association's responsibility for maintenance extends beyond the physical boundary if conditions on the common area negatively impact a homeowner's property. In this case, debris from common area trees caused damage to a private pool and patio.

Alj Quote

The Association’s duty to maintain the Common Area does not end at the boundary line of the Common Area.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article IV

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • common_area
  • liability

Question

Can the HOA avoid liability for damage by claiming they relied on a professional landscaping company's advice?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. Even if the HOA pays for regular maintenance and follows vendor advice, they may still be in violation if damage persists.

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued it was not in violation because it relied on its landscaper's (arborist's) recommendation not to remove the trees. The ALJ rejected this, ruling that despite the payments and advice, the damage caused to the homeowner proved a failure to maintain the common area properly under the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Despite the Association’s payment to ProQual for regular arbor maintenance, the sissoo trees still caused debris of all kinds to fill Petitioners’ pool and backyard… Petitioners established a violation of Article IV section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs

Legal Basis

Contract Law / CC&Rs

Topic Tags

  • vendor_reliance
  • negligence
  • defenses

Question

What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for providing enough evidence to show that their claim is more likely true than not. It is not based on the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence.

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
  • evidence
  • procedure

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge order the HOA to perform a specific act, like cutting down a tree?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The Tribunal lacks statutory authority to grant injunctive relief.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cannot issue an injunction or declaratory relief (specific orders to do or not do a specific act). Instead, the order generally directs the HOA to 'abide by' the specific section of the community documents, leaving the specific method of compliance somewhat open.

Alj Quote

Because this Tribunal has no statutory authority to grant Petitioners’ declaratory or injunctive relief, this decision is expressly issued to 'Order Respondent to abide by the section of the planned community specified.'

Legal Basis

Statutory Authority

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • injunctive_relief
  • alj_powers

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the ALJ ordered the Association to pay the $500.00 filing fee directly to the Petitioners within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioners within thirty (30) days of this ORDER.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

What kind of damage is required to prove the HOA failed to maintain the common area?

Short Answer

The homeowner must show actual damage, harm, or financial burden caused by the condition.

Detailed Answer

The decision noted that the debris caused a financial burden (cleaning costs, pump replacement) and potential health risks. The mere presence of trees wasn't the issue; it was the specific damage and harm resulting from them.

Alj Quote

The record does reflect that, but for the sissoo trees being situated where they are and in the state they are in, there would not be debris to a degree on Petitioners’ property that caused any amount of damage or harm.

Legal Basis

Evidence of Damages

Topic Tags

  • damages
  • nuisance
  • evidence

Question

Who has the authority to hear disputes between a homeowner and an HOA?

Short Answer

The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Detailed Answer

Statutes authorize the Department to receive petitions regarding violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

The Department is authorized by statute to receive and to decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and from homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • adre
  • oah

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121049-REL
Case Title
Rodney & Patricia Kirby vs. Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2021-10-12
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Rodney Kirby (petitioner)
  • Patricia Kirby (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Lydia Peirce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Kaylee Ivy (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Regis Salazar (witness)

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Daniel J Coe v. Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120029-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-10-12
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Daniel J Coe Counsel —
Respondent Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association Counsel Edith Rudder

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Outcome Summary

The Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order vacating the scheduled hearing and remanding the matter to the Department of Real Estate, based on the Petitioner's motion to withdraw the rehearing petition.

Why this result: Petitioner withdrew the rehearing petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Motion to Withdraw Rehearing Petition

Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Rehearing Petition, advising that the scheduled hearing was not necessary.

Orders: Hearing vacated and matter remanded to the Department of Real Estate.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: procedural_closure

Analytics Highlights

Topics: withdrawal, procedural, remand

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120029-REL Decision – 916851.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-28T10:55:51 (51.8 KB)

21F-H2120029-REL Decision – 890760.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-28T10:56:07 (151.9 KB)

21F-H2120029-REL Decision – 916851.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:32:32 (51.8 KB)

21F-H2120029-REL Decision – 890760.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:32:40 (151.9 KB)

This summary details the administrative disposition of the legal matter between Daniel J Coe, Petitioner, and Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association, Respondent, identified as Case No. 21F-H2120029-REL-RHG, before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Key Facts and Proceedings:

The Petitioner, Daniel J Coe, was involved in a dispute with the Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association. A hearing concerning this matter was scheduled before the OAH for October 12, 2021. However, the proceedings were terminated before the scheduled date. On October 8, 2021, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Rehearing Petition with the OAH. In this motion, the Petitioner explicitly advised that the scheduled hearing was "not necessary".

Main Issues and Legal Points:

The central legal point addressed in the order was the disposition of the Petitioner’s request for a hearing. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Adam D. Stone, determined that there was sufficient cause to act on the Petitioner's motion to withdraw the petition.

Outcome and Final Decision:

On October 12, 2021, the ALJ issued an ORDER VACATING HEARING. The Order formally vacated the scheduled hearing from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings. Crucially, the Order FURTHER ORDERED remanding this matter to the Department of Real Estate for further action. This administrative decision concluded the OAH's involvement in the pending hearing request, shifting the responsibility for subsequent steps back to the Department of Real Estate.

Questions

Question

Does the number of homeowners ineligible to vote (due to delinquency) lower the number required for a quorum?

Short Answer

No. The quorum is generally calculated based on the total class of membership, and subtracting ineligible voters to lower the quorum threshold is not automatically accepted without specific support.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the homeowner's argument that the quorum threshold should be lowered by subtracting the 222 members who were ineligible to vote due to delinquent accounts. The quorum remained 10% of the total membership class (1,626), not 10% of the eligible voters.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s argument that because only 1,404 Members were eligible to vote, that quorum was established at 140 voting Members is erroneous. Moreover, Petitioner provided no statute, regulation, governing document, or other binding case law to support his contention.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Article III Section 3.6

Topic Tags

  • Elections
  • Quorum
  • Voting Rights

Question

What happens to the results of an election if the required quorum is not met?

Short Answer

The election is invalid and no candidates are elected, even if votes were cast.

Detailed Answer

In this case, candidates received over 100 votes each, but because the total number of ballots cast (147) did not meet the quorum requirement (163), no one was elected to the Board.

Alj Quote

Although Alicia Chin received 109 votes, Randy Eilts received 103 votes, Petitioner received 103 votes… none were elected to the Board of Directors because the Association determined that quorum had not been met.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Article III Section 3.6

Topic Tags

  • Elections
  • Quorum
  • Board of Directors

Question

Are CC&Rs considered a legally binding contract?

Short Answer

Yes, CC&Rs constitute an enforceable contract between the HOA and the homeowner.

Detailed Answer

When a person buys a property in an HOA, they agree to be bound by the CC&Rs, creating a contractual relationship.

Alj Quote

When a party buys a residential unit in the development, the party receives a copy of the CC&Rs and agrees to be bound by their terms. Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.

Legal Basis

Contract Law

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • Legal Standards
  • Contracts

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove that the HOA violated the statutes or documents by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Procedure
  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence

Question

What evidence is required to win a dispute about interpreting bylaws?

Short Answer

You generally need to provide statutes, regulations, governing documents, or binding case law that supports your interpretation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ denied the petition partly because the homeowner offered only an argument without supporting legal authority to counter the plain text of the bylaws.

Alj Quote

Petitioner provided no statute, regulation, governing document, or other binding case law to support his contention. Here, the clear authority lies within the plain text of Article III Section 3.6.

Legal Basis

Administrative Law

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Legal Interpretation
  • Bylaws

Question

Does the Administrative Law Judge have the power to interpret the HOA's contract/CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Detailed Answer

The tribunal is authorized to hear disputes and interpret the governing documents (the contract) to resolve the case.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)… OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH also has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • OAH Authority
  • Contracts

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

It is the greater weight of convincing evidence, enough to incline a fair mind to one side, even if doubts remain.

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

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Definitions
  • Evidence

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120029-REL
Case Title
Daniel J. Coe v. Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2021-06-24
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Does the number of homeowners ineligible to vote (due to delinquency) lower the number required for a quorum?

Short Answer

No. The quorum is generally calculated based on the total class of membership, and subtracting ineligible voters to lower the quorum threshold is not automatically accepted without specific support.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the homeowner's argument that the quorum threshold should be lowered by subtracting the 222 members who were ineligible to vote due to delinquent accounts. The quorum remained 10% of the total membership class (1,626), not 10% of the eligible voters.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s argument that because only 1,404 Members were eligible to vote, that quorum was established at 140 voting Members is erroneous. Moreover, Petitioner provided no statute, regulation, governing document, or other binding case law to support his contention.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Article III Section 3.6

Topic Tags

  • Elections
  • Quorum
  • Voting Rights

Question

What happens to the results of an election if the required quorum is not met?

Short Answer

The election is invalid and no candidates are elected, even if votes were cast.

Detailed Answer

In this case, candidates received over 100 votes each, but because the total number of ballots cast (147) did not meet the quorum requirement (163), no one was elected to the Board.

Alj Quote

Although Alicia Chin received 109 votes, Randy Eilts received 103 votes, Petitioner received 103 votes… none were elected to the Board of Directors because the Association determined that quorum had not been met.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Article III Section 3.6

Topic Tags

  • Elections
  • Quorum
  • Board of Directors

Question

Are CC&Rs considered a legally binding contract?

Short Answer

Yes, CC&Rs constitute an enforceable contract between the HOA and the homeowner.

Detailed Answer

When a person buys a property in an HOA, they agree to be bound by the CC&Rs, creating a contractual relationship.

Alj Quote

When a party buys a residential unit in the development, the party receives a copy of the CC&Rs and agrees to be bound by their terms. Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.

Legal Basis

Contract Law

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • Legal Standards
  • Contracts

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove that the HOA violated the statutes or documents by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Procedure
  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence

Question

What evidence is required to win a dispute about interpreting bylaws?

Short Answer

You generally need to provide statutes, regulations, governing documents, or binding case law that supports your interpretation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ denied the petition partly because the homeowner offered only an argument without supporting legal authority to counter the plain text of the bylaws.

Alj Quote

Petitioner provided no statute, regulation, governing document, or other binding case law to support his contention. Here, the clear authority lies within the plain text of Article III Section 3.6.

Legal Basis

Administrative Law

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Legal Interpretation
  • Bylaws

Question

Does the Administrative Law Judge have the power to interpret the HOA's contract/CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Detailed Answer

The tribunal is authorized to hear disputes and interpret the governing documents (the contract) to resolve the case.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)… OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH also has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • OAH Authority
  • Contracts

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

It is the greater weight of convincing evidence, enough to incline a fair mind to one side, even if doubts remain.

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

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Definitions
  • Evidence

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120029-REL
Case Title
Daniel J. Coe v. Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2021-06-24
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Daniel J. Coe (petitioner)
    Also a candidate for Board Member Elect
  • Randy Eilts (board member candidate)
    Also listed as an observer
  • Summer Wierth (board member candidate)
    Also listed as an observer
  • Alicia Chin (board member candidate)
  • Albert Barnes (board member candidate)

Respondent Side

  • Ed O’Brien (attorney)
    Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association
  • Michael LaPoint (witness)
  • Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Edith Rudder (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Counsel for Respondent in later filing

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
    Issued Administrative Law Judge Decision
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
    Issued Order Vacating Hearing
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (OAH staff)
    OAH
    Transmitting staff

Other Participants

  • Andrea Chin (observer)

Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-02-02
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes Counsel Kristin Roebuck Bethell, Esq.
Respondent Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association Counsel Samantha Cote, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 regarding the availability of voting records.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the HOA violated the statute through its NDA request or its method of providing the records (redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes) and failed to prove the records were not made reasonably available within the required statutory time frame.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to comply with voting records request (regarding assessment and cumulative voting records)

Petitioners alleged the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by requiring an NDA and providing redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes, which prevented Petitioners from cross-referencing votes with voters. Respondent argued it timely provided the totality of the requested information and that the manner of delivery did not violate the statute.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Governance, Statute Violation, Voting Records, Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 944169.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:09 (184.1 KB)

21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 944171.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:17 (184.1 KB)

21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 881665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:20 (167.3 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG, a dispute between homeowners Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes (“Petitioners”) and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was whether the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805 by its handling of the Petitioners’ request for voting records.

The final order, issued on February 2, 2022, denied the petition. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that a statutory violation occurred. The decision found that the Association’s method of providing the requested documents—redacted ballots in one stack and unredacted envelopes in another—was a “reasonable” approach that balanced the Petitioners’ right to examination with the Association’s duty to protect member privacy. While acknowledging this methodology was “not ideal,” the ALJ determined it made the totality of the requested information “reasonably available” as required by law and was not a violation. The ruling also established that the Association’s initial request for the Petitioners to sign a non-disclosure agreement did not constitute a statutory violation.

Case Overview

Entity

Details

Case Number

21F-H2120020-REL-RHG

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Administrative Law Judge

Jenna Clark

Petitioners

Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes

Respondent

Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association

Central Allegation

Respondent failed to comply with a January 16, 2020, voting records request, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Final Order Date

February 2, 2022

Outcome

Petition Denied.

Chronology of Key Events

• October 4, 2017: The Association’s Board of Directors adopts the “Rule Requiring Secret Ballots” for votes on special assessments.

• October 28, 2019 (approx.): A vote occurs regarding an increase in association dues.

• December 2019: A vote occurs regarding a proposed CC&R amendment to prohibit cumulative voting.

• January 6, 2020: Petitioners submit a written request to view the votes for the cumulative voting amendment.

• January 13, 2020: The Association’s Board votes 8:1 to require Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the ballots, citing member privacy concerns. Petitioners decline to sign the NDA.

• January 16, 2020: Counsel for Petitioners submits a formal written request for all ballots and related documents for both the dues increase vote and the cumulative voting amendment.

• January 30, 2020: The Association’s counsel responds, stating the Association must “balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners” and that the records will be made available for inspection.

• February 7, 2020: Petitioners inspect documents at the office of the Association’s counsel. They are provided with two stacks of documents: redacted ballots and unredacted envelopes. They review the cumulative voting records for approximately 3.5 hours but cannot match specific ballots to specific voter envelopes.

• August 5, 2020: Petitioners issue a new demand for “unredacted ballots” and all related documents. No additional documentation is provided.

• September 22, 2020: Petitioners file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initiating the formal dispute process.

• May 17, 2021: An initial ALJ Decision is issued.

• June 22, 2021: Petitioners file a request for a rehearing on the grounds that the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”

• July 15, 2021: The rehearing request is granted.

• January 13, 2022: The evidentiary rehearing is held before the OAH.

• February 2, 2022: The final ALJ Decision is issued, again denying the Petitioners’ petition.

Central Legal Arguments

The rehearing focused on oral arguments from both parties regarding the interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, which mandates that association records be made “reasonably available” for member examination.

Petitioners’ Position

• Unredacted Records Required: The statute requires the production of unredacted copies of requested documents, and the Association’s failure to provide original, unaltered documents was a violation.

• Methodology Impeded Access: By providing redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes, the Respondent prevented the Petitioners from cross-referencing votes with voters. This action meant the documents were not made “reasonably available.”

• NDA Was an Unlawful Barrier: The Association’s demand for an NDA was not supported by any enumerated exception in the statute and constituted an unlawful barrier to accessing records.

• No Expectation of Privacy: Petitioners argued that the ballots were not truly “secret ballots” because some had names or signatures on them, meaning voters “could not have reasonably held an expectation of privacy.”

Respondent’s Position

• Statute is Silent on Method: The statute does not specify how records must be made available, only that they must be. Respondent argued it had complied by providing the “totality of records” requested in a timely fashion.

• Balancing of Duties: The Association devised a method to satisfy its dual obligations: complying with the records request and protecting its members’ privacy and safety. This concern was heightened by complaints from other homeowners about “harassing” behaviors by the Petitioners.

• Information Was Provided: The two sets of documents (redacted ballots, unredacted envelopes) amounted to one complete set of unredacted records, allowing Petitioners to “cross reference and discern the information they sought.”

• NDA Was Reasonable: The NDA was proposed to protect member privacy regarding their secret ballot votes. Respondent argued it was ultimately irrelevant to the case, as the records were provided even after Petitioners declined to sign it.

Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Final Order

The ALJ’s decision rested on a direct interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 and a finding that the Petitioners did not meet their evidentiary burden.

Key Rulings and Conclusions of Law

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association violated the statute. The ALJ concluded they failed to do so.

2. On the NDA: The Judge explicitly held that “Respondent’s request that Petitioners sign an NDA does not constitute a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

3. On Timeliness: The Association’s response on January 30, 2020, to the January 16, 2020, request was within the 10-business-day statutory deadline (which ended January 31, 2020). The Petitioners did not establish that the documents were unavailable for review prior to the February 7 inspection date.

4. On the Method of Disclosure: This was the central finding. The decision states that the manner in which the documents were provided did not violate the statute. The ALJ found that the record reflected that “Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s).” Because there was no evidence that the documents were not made “reasonably available,” a violation could not be concluded.

5. Reasonableness of Association’s Actions: The ALJ offered a final assessment of the Association’s methodology: “While Respondent’s methodology of document delivery to Petitioners may have not been ideal, under the totality of underlying circumstances the decision reasonable and within the requirements of the applicable statute(s).”

Final Order

Based on the finding that the Petitioners did not sustain their burden of proof, the final order was unambiguous: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”

The order is binding on the parties, who were notified of their right to seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the Superior Court within 35 days from the date of service.

Study Guide: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG. It is designed to test and reinforce understanding of the key parties, events, arguments, and legal principles outlined in the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what are their respective roles?

2. What specific statute did the Petitioners allege the Respondent violated, and what is the core requirement of that statute?

3. What two specific sets of voting records did the Petitioners request from the Association in their January 16, 2020 letter?

4. What action did the Association’s Board of Directors take on January 13, 2020, in response to the Petitioners’ initial request, and what was their stated reason for doing so?

5. Describe the method the Association used to provide the requested voting records to the Petitioners on February 7, 2020.

6. What was the Petitioners’ main argument for why the Association’s method of providing the documents failed to comply with the law?

7. What was the Association’s primary defense for the way it provided the records and for its overall actions?

8. According to the “Conclusions of Law,” who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, and what is the standard required to meet that burden?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the Association’s request that the Petitioners sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA)?

10. What was the ultimate outcome of the case as determined by the Administrative Law Judge in the final order issued on February 2, 2022?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes, who are the “Petitioners,” and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association, which is the “Respondent.” The Petitioners are property owners and members of the Association who filed a complaint against it. The Association is the governing body for the residential development, managed by Vision Community Management, LLC.

2. The Petitioners alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805. The core requirement of this statute is that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association must be made “reasonably available” for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.

3. The January 16, 2020 letter requested all ballots and related documents from the vote regarding the increase in dues that occurred around October 28, 2019. It also requested all written consent forms and ballots for the Proposed Declaration Amendment regarding cumulative voting, which occurred in December 2019.

4. On January 13, 2020, the Board of Directors voted 8 to 1 to require the Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the ballots. Their stated reason was a concern for members’ expectation of privacy regarding non-public information and a fear that members could be harassed based on their votes.

5. The Association provided the Petitioners with two separate stacks of documents. One stack contained redacted ballots, and the other stack contained unredacted envelopes that the ballots had been mailed in. This method separated the vote from the identity of the voter.

6. The Petitioners argued that by providing redacted copies and separate envelopes, the Respondent had not made the documents “reasonably available” as required by statute. They contended this method created an unlawful barrier because they were unable to cross-reference the ballots with the purported voters to verify the vote.

7. The Association defended its actions by arguing that the statute does not specify the how records should be produced, only that they be made available. It contended that it provided the totality of the information requested in a timely manner while also fulfilling its duty to protect the privacy and safety of its members from potential harassment.

8. The Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent’s request for the Petitioners to sign an NDA did not constitute a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. The judge also noted the NDA was ultimately irrelevant to the outcome because the Association provided the documents even though the Petitioners declined to sign it.

10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners’ petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioners did not sustain their burden of proof to show that the Association had committed a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, finding the Association’s actions to be reasonable under the circumstances.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each prompt, citing specific facts and arguments from the case documents.

1. Analyze the central legal conflict over the interpretation of the phrase “reasonably available” in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Contrast the arguments made by the Petitioners and the Respondent, and explain how the Administrative Law Judge ultimately resolved this conflict in the decision.

2. Discuss the competing interests the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association attempted to balance in its response to the records request. Evaluate the measures it took, including the proposed NDA and the method of document delivery, in light of its duties to both the Petitioners and its general membership.

3. Trace the procedural history of the case from the initial petition filing on September 22, 2020, to the final order on February 2, 2022. What does this timeline reveal about the administrative hearing and appeals process for HOA disputes in Arizona?

4. The Petitioners argued that the ballots in question were not truly “secret ballots” and that voters could not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Based on the evidence presented, construct an argument supporting this position and a counter-argument defending the Association’s stance on member privacy.

5. Examine the legal reasoning employed by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Conclusions of Law.” How did principles of statutory construction and the “preponderance of the evidence” standard directly influence the final order denying the Petitioners’ petition?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition in the Context of the Document

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision based on findings of fact and conclusions of law.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

The specific Arizona statute at the heart of the dispute, which mandates that a homeowners’ association’s records be made “reasonably available” for member examination within ten business days of a request.

Association / Respondent

The Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association, the governing body for the residential development and the party against whom the petition was filed.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The group that oversees the Association and is responsible for its governance. The Board voted to require an NDA before releasing voting records.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a trial (in this case, the Petitioners) to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents for the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings involving homeowners’ associations.

Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA)

A legal contract proposed by the Association’s Board that would have required the Petitioners to keep the voting information confidential. The Petitioners declined to sign it.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency to which the Department refers HOA dispute cases for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

Petitioners

Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes, members of the Association who filed the petition alleging a violation of state law by the Association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioners to win their case. It is defined as proof that convinces the judge that a contention is more probably true than not.

Redacted

Edited to remove or black out confidential or private information. The Association provided redacted ballots to the Petitioners to protect member privacy.

Vision Community Management, LLC (Vision)

The management company hired by and acting on behalf of the Association.

Your HOA Can Legally Keep Secrets From You. Here’s How.

Introduction: The Fight for Transparency

As a homeowner in an association, you assume a right to see the records. Transparency, after all, is the bedrock of accountability. But a recent legal dispute in Arizona offers a masterclass in how the gap between a right to information and the reality of obtaining it can be vast. The case demonstrates how a determined HOA, armed with a nuanced legal strategy and a literal interpretation of the law, can fulfill its obligation to provide records while ensuring they reveal almost nothing. It’s a story of escalation that began not with redacted documents, but with a demand for a nondisclosure agreement, setting the stage for a battle over what it truly means for records to be “available.”

1. The Two-Pile Shuffle: How “Access” Doesn’t Always Mean “Answers”

The conflict began with a standard request from a group of homeowners (the Petitioners) to examine their HOA’s voting records. The Board’s response, however, was anything but standard. Citing privacy concerns, the Board voted 8-to-1 on a crucial first move: it would require the homeowners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before they could view the ballots. The homeowners refused, creating a standoff.

Forced to provide access but unwilling to yield on its privacy stance, the HOA (the Respondent) devised a clever workaround. When the homeowners arrived to inspect the approximately 122 pages of records, they weren’t handed a coherent set of documents. Instead, after spending roughly three and a half hours sifting through the materials, they discovered they had been given two separate stacks: one containing redacted ballots with the votes visible but the names blacked out, and another containing the unredacted envelopes they arrived in.

This “two-pile shuffle” made it impossible to match a ballot to a voter, effectively neutralizing the homeowners’ ability to verify the vote. They argued that this method failed to make the documents “reasonably available” as required by Arizona statute. The HOA’s strategy proved legally astute, leading to a court case that hinged on the very definition of access.

2. The Privacy Shield: A Proactive Defense

The HOA’s justification for its actions was a proactive and layered defense rooted in protecting its members. The Board’s initial demand for an NDA was not a retroactive excuse, but its opening move, signaling a deep-seated concern that releasing the voting information could lead to conflict within the community.

This concern was not merely abstract. Faced with multiple homeowner complaints labeling the Petitioners’ behavior as “harassing,” the Board first attempted to manage the information release by requiring the nondisclosure agreement. When that failed, it developed the two-pile system. The HOA’s legal position was that it had a duty to balance the homeowners’ request against the “privacy and safety of all Owners.” In a letter, the association’s counsel articulated this position clearly:

The Association’s position is that it has to balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners within the Association. The Board is concerned with the personal information contained on the written consent forms or other documents and fears that individual members will be retaliated against or harassed based on a member’s decision to support, or not support, the matters up for a decision.

This defense, framed as a duty to protect the community from internal strife, became the cornerstone of the HOA’s successful legal argument.

3. The “Reasonably Available” Loophole

The entire legal battle was ultimately decided by the interpretation of a single phrase in Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, which requires an association to make its records “reasonably available.” The case exposed a critical ambiguity in the law.

• The Homeowners’ View: They argued that “reasonably available” implies usability. To be meaningful, the records had to be provided in a way that allowed them to cross-reference votes with voters. A deliberately disorganized release, they contended, was not reasonable.

• The HOA’s View: The association countered with a brilliant legal distinction: the statute dictates what records must be produced, not how they must be presented. By providing all the components—the ballots and the envelopes—they had fulfilled their duty, even if they were separated.

In a decision that highlights the judiciary’s deference to the literal text of a statute, the Administrative Law Judge sided with the HOA. The judge’s ruling found no violation because, in the end, the homeowners had received everything they asked for. The legal linchpin of the decision was the finding that “the record reflects that Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s).” This interpretation effectively created a loophole, allowing the HOA to comply with the letter of the law while completely withholding the context the homeowners sought.

Conclusion: When “Legal” Isn’t the Whole Story

This case is a stark reminder that a legally defensible action can still feel like an affront to the spirit of community governance. The HOA’s victory demonstrates that in a dispute over transparency, the side with the more precise reading of the law, rather than the more open approach, may prevail. It reveals the profound tension between a homeowner’s right to know, an association’s duty to protect its members from potential harassment, and the powerful ambiguities hidden in legal statutes. An HOA can, with careful legal maneuvering, use privacy as a shield to deliver information in a way that obscures more than it reveals—and do so without breaking the law.

In a community governed by rules, what’s more important: absolute transparency, or the protection of every member’s privacy?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Sandra Swanson (petitioner)
  • Robert Barnes (petitioner)
  • Kristin Roebuck Bethell (petitioner attorney)
    Horne Siaton, PLLC
    Also listed as Kristin Roebuck, Esq.,

Respondent Side

  • Jeremy Johnson (respondent attorney)
    Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
  • Samantha Cote (respondent attorney)
    Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
    Also listed as Sam Cote, Esq.,
  • Patricia Ahler (witness)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
  • Amanda Stewart (witness)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
  • Jennifer Amundson (witness)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
  • Regis Salazar (witness)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
  • Clint Goodman (HOA attorney)
    Vision Community Management, LLC
    Attorney for Vision, the HOA's property manager,

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner during initial decision phase
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner during final/rehearing decision phase,
  • Dan Gardner (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    ADRE contact c/o Commissioner,,

Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-08-09
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford Burnes and Maria Burnes Counsel Cynthia F. Burnes, Esq.
Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel John Crotty, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 5
Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The final decision affirmed the denial of Issues 1, 2, and 3, and the granting of Issue 4. The Association was found to have violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for failing to provide complete records in a timely manner, resulting in the reimbursement of 1/4 of the filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to sustain the burden of proof regarding alleged violations of CC&Rs Section 5, Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0, and A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs Section 5

Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), Section 5, by allowing construction on Lot 7 without prior ARC approval of required documents.

Orders: Petition denied.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 5

Alleged violation of Community Agricultural Design Guidelines Section 4.0

Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Architectural Design Guidelines, Section 4.0, by failing to require the required $5,000.00 Construction Compliance Deposit for Lot 7.

Orders: Petition denied.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821

Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E)

Petitioners alleged that the Board conducted an unnoticed closed meeting in violation of Arizona open meeting statutes.

Orders: Petition denied.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT § 10-3821

Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805

Petitioners alleged that the HOA failed to timely and completely fulfill a records request submitted on June 04, 2020, specifically by failing to provide missing email attachments.

Orders: Respondent must reimburse 1/4 of Petitioners' filing fee ($125.00). Respondent must henceforth comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 and provide the missing email attachments within 10-business days.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Statute Violation, Records Request, Filing Fee Refund, Architectural Review, Open Meetings
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821
  • CC&Rs Section 5
  • Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120002-REL Decision – 902726.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:28:59 (239.9 KB)

21F-H2120002-REL Decision – 866263.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:29:03 (268.5 KB)

Briefing Document: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Final Decision

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the Final Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Clifford and Maria Burnes (“Petitioners”) versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association (“Respondent”), case number 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG. The dispute centered on a four-issue petition alleging violations by the Association related to new construction on a neighboring property (Lot 7), an unnoticed Board meeting, and the fulfillment of a records request.

Following an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) largely affirmed the original decision. The Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on three of the four issues, with the judge finding no violations by the Association regarding architectural controls, the waiver of a construction deposit, or the conduct of a Board meeting.

However, the Petitioners successfully proved that the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 by failing to timely and completely fulfill a comprehensive records request. The final order requires the Association to reimburse the Petitioners for a portion of their filing fee ($500), comply with the records statute moving forward, and provide the specific missing documents (email attachments) from the original request. The rehearing was granted on the basis of “newly discovered evidence,” but the Petitioners conceded during the proceeding that they possessed no new evidence, leading the ALJ to rely solely on the record from the first hearing.

I. Background and Procedural History

The case involves a dispute between property owners Clifford and Maria Burnes and their homeowners’ association, Saguaro Crest, located in Tucson, Arizona. The Association is governed by Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) recorded in 2006 and Architectural Design Guidelines adopted in 2018.

Procedural Timeline

July 17, 2020

Petitioners file a 4-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

August 11, 2020

Respondent (HOA) denies all claims in its answer.

Dec 11, 2020 & Mar 1-2, 2021

An evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

March 22, 2021

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues the initial decision.

April 28, 2021

Petitioners file a dispute rehearing request, alleging newly discovered evidence.

May 21, 2021

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

July 20, 2021

The rehearing is held. Petitioners concede they have no “new” evidence.

August 09, 2021

The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued, affirming the initial ruling.

Key Parties

Name / Entity

Clifford & Maria Burnes

Petitioners; owners of Lot 6.

Cynthia F. Burnes, Esq.

Counsel for Petitioners.

Saguaro Crest HOA, Inc.

Respondent.

John Crotty, Esq.

Counsel for Respondent.

Norm Burnes

Petitioner; appointed to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) in 2017.

Raul & Ramona Martinez

Owners of Lot 7, the property under construction.

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

II. Analysis of Allegations and Findings

The petition presented four distinct issues for adjudication. The Petitioners bore the burden of proving each violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Issue 1: Alleged Violation of CC&Rs Section 5 (Architectural Control)

• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association improperly allowed construction on Lot 7 to proceed without required documents being submitted to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for approval.

• Factual Record:

◦ The ARC, which included Petitioner Norm Burnes, unanimously approved construction plans for Lot 7 on January 3, 2018.

◦ Construction began sometime in 2018. Pima County approved the plans on May 4, 2018.

◦ On April 14, 2020, Petitioner Burnes sent a formal letter of concern to the Board, stating the placement of the home on Lot 7 was not per the approved plan and had destroyed their view and privacy. The letter included the following statement:

• Conclusion of Law: No violation found. The ALJ determined that while the construction on Lot 7 was not per the plans the ARC approved on January 3, 2018, no subsequent or modified plans were ever submitted to the ARC for review. The decision states, “The ARC cannot approve or deny proposed plans unless they are submitted for review.” Furthermore, the record shows the construction complies with the local government’s building authority.

Issue 2: Alleged Violation of Design Guidelines Section 4.0 (Construction Deposit)

• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association allowed construction on Lot 7 without collecting the required $5,000.00 Construction Compliance Deposit.

• Factual Record:

◦ On May 3, 2020, the Board of Directors decided to honor a Construction Compliance Deposit waiver that had been previously granted to the Martinez family.

◦ This discretionary waiver was reportedly granted during an economic downturn to incentivize property purchases.

◦ Critically, the Association “does not possess a corporate record that any such Construction Compliance Deposit Waiver was previously granted to the Martinez family.”

• Conclusion of Law: No violation found. The ALJ concluded it was “clear that Lot 7 was granted a construction compliance deposit waiver.” The lack of a documented record was noted, but the inquiry was deemed moot as it was not a noticed issue in the petition.

Issue 3: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Unnoticed Meeting)

• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Board of Directors conducted an unnoticed meeting on or about May 20, 2020, to consider matters relevant to Petitioner Norm Burnes.

• Factual Record:

◦ On April 18, 2020, Petitioner requested an urgent meeting with the Board, which was held the next day.

◦ On May 20, 2020, the Board acted with unanimous consent (obtained via individual signatures) to restrict Petitioner Burnes’s participation as an ARC member “regarding all issued related to the construction of Lot 7.”

◦ The Board’s notes state: “[T]he Board of Directors hereby unanimously agree that [Petitioner] be removed as an ARC Member for all ARC related matters concerning Lot 7.”

• Conclusion of Law: No violation found. The judge ruled that the Board’s failure to notice the April 19 meeting was excused as an exception because the Petitioner himself had requested it on an urgent basis. Regarding the May 20 action, the record shows Mr. Burnes was not removed from the ARC entirely, but only recused from matters concerning the Lot 7 dispute in which he had a direct conflict of interest.

Issue 4: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Request)

• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association failed to properly fulfill a records request.

• Factual Record:

◦ On June 4, 2020, Petitioners submitted a comprehensive, 17-point records request and demanded fulfillment within the statutory 10-day period.

◦ On June 16, 2020, the Association made 342 pages of documents available for in-person review but prohibited Petitioners from using their own scanning equipment.

◦ The statutory deadline for compliance was June 18, 2020.

◦ On June 24, 2020, after Petitioners paid a $51.30 fee, the Association provided copies of the documents.

◦ Later that day, Petitioners notified the Association that the document package was incomplete, as “attachments for some emails are not included.”

• Conclusion of Law: Violation established. The ALJ found that the Association failed to comply with the statute. The documents were made available for review within the 10-day window, but the copies were not provided until June 24, after the deadline. More importantly, the copies provided were incomplete. The judge rejected the Association’s argument that a clarification from the Petitioner reset the statutory clock.

III. Final Order and Directives

The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision, issued after the rehearing, affirmed the conclusions of the initial March 22, 2021 decision.

• Petition Status: The petition was granted in part (on Issue 4) and denied in part (on Issues 1, 2, and 3).

• Financial Reimbursement: The Respondent (Saguaro Crest HOA) is ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for one-quarter of their filing fee, amounting to $500.00.

• Statutory Compliance: The Respondent is ordered to henceforth comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding records requests.

• Document Production: The Respondent is ordered to provide the Petitioners with the missing email attachments related to the June 4, 2020 records request within 10 business days of the final order’s effective date.

Study Guide: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a detailed review of the Final Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Clifford and Maria Burnes versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG). The guide includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms used in the legal proceedings.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who are the Petitioners and the Respondent in this case, and what is their fundamental relationship?

2. List the four distinct issues the Petitioners alleged against the Respondent in their initial petition.

3. On what grounds did the Petitioners request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued on March 22, 2021?

4. What was the outcome of the Petitioners’ attempt to present new witnesses and exhibits during the rehearing on July 20, 2021?

5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the Respondent had not violated Section 5 of the CC&Rs regarding the construction on Lot 7?

6. Explain the controversy surrounding the $5,000 Construction Compliance Deposit and the court’s ultimate finding on the matter.

7. What action did the Board of Directors take against Petitioner Norm Burnes on May 20, 2020, and why was this action not considered a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804?

8. Which of the four allegations was ultimately successful for the Petitioners, and what specific failures by the Respondent led to this finding?

9. What were the four key orders issued by the Administrative Law Judge in the Final Order?

10. What was Petitioner Norm Burnes’s official role within the Saguaro Crest community, and how did this position create a conflict of interest in the dispute?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The Petitioners are Clifford and Maria Burnes, who are property owners in the Saguaro Crest subdivision and members of the homeowners’ association. The Respondent is the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (HOA), which is the governing body for the subdivision.

2. The four issues were: (1) The HOA allowed construction on Lot 7 without required ARC document submission in violation of CC&Rs Section 5; (2) The HOA allowed construction without a required Construction Compliance Deposit; (3) The Board conducted an unnoticed meeting in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804; (4) The HOA failed to fulfill a records request in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.

3. The Petitioners requested a rehearing on the grounds of having “Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” They also alleged that the original decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”

4. At the rehearing, the Petitioners conceded they possessed no “newly discovered” evidence, but rather evidence they had strategically chosen not to present previously. Because they did not provide a satisfactory offer of proof for new evidence, they were precluded from recalling witnesses or offering additional exhibits.

5. The Judge found that while the construction on Lot 7 was not per the plans approved by the ARC on January 3, 2018, no additional plans had been submitted for the ARC’s consideration. The Judge reasoned that the ARC cannot approve or deny plans that are not submitted, and the build complied with the local government’s building authority.

6. The Architectural Design Guidelines required a $5,000 deposit, but the owners of Lot 7 had been granted a waiver. Although the HOA did not possess a corporate record of the waiver, the Board voted to honor it. The court found no violation because the waiver had been granted, and the lack of documentation was not the specific issue being litigated.

7. On May 20, 2020, the Board held an unnoticed meeting and, via unanimous consent, restricted Petitioner Burnes’s participation as an ARC member for all matters related to Lot 7. This was not a violation because the failure to notice was excused as an exception, and the Board only removed him from matters concerning Lot 7, not from the ARC entirely.

8. Issue #4, the records request violation, was successful for the Petitioners. The Respondent failed to provide copies of the requested documents within the statutory 10-day deadline, providing them on June 24, 2020, when the deadline was June 18, 2020. Furthermore, the documents provided were incomplete, as they were missing email attachments.

9. The Final Order affirmed the previous decision, ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioners for 1/4 of their filing fee ($500.00), ordered the Respondent to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 going forward, and ordered the Respondent to provide the missing email attachments within 10 business days.

10. Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member of the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC). This created a conflict of interest because he was part of the committee that initially approved the Lot 7 construction plans, but he later raised formal complaints against that same construction project due to its impact on his own property (Lot 6).

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” by a “preponderance of the evidence” as it applies to this case. How did the Petitioners succeed in meeting this burden for Issue #4 but fail for the other three issues?

2. Discuss the powers and limitations of a Homeowners’ Association Board and its Architectural Review Committee as illustrated in this case, specifically concerning construction approval, enforcement authority, and the management of member conflicts of interest.

3. The Petitioners’ request for a rehearing was based on “newly discovered material evidence.” Explain why this request ultimately failed to change the outcome and discuss the strategic decisions made by the Petitioners regarding the presentation of evidence.

4. Examine the conflict between a homeowner’s desire for privacy and unobstructed views (as expressed by the Petitioners) and the rights of a neighboring property owner to develop their land. How did the community’s governing documents and the final legal decision address this conflict?

5. Trace the timeline of the records request dispute (Issue #4). What were the specific actions and inactions by the Respondent that led to a finding of a statutory violation, and what does this illustrate about an HOA’s administrative and statutory responsibilities to its members?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

A committee charged by an HOA’s CC&Rs with implementing architectural guidelines to maintain aesthetic standards and preserve property values. Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member of this committee.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

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

Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT. or A.R.S.)

The codified laws of the State of Arizona. Specific statutes cited include § 33-1804 (regarding open meetings) and § 33-1805 (regarding association records).

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this proceeding, the Petitioners bore the burden of proving their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community. They form an enforceable contract between the HOA and each property owner.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The organization that makes and enforces rules for a subdivision or planned community. In this case, the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. is the Respondent.

Offer of Proof

A presentation of evidence made to a judge to demonstrate the substance and relevance of evidence that a party seeks to introduce. The Petitioners’ offer of proof regarding new evidence was found to be unsatisfactory.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This matter was referred to the OAH by the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioners

The party that initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, Clifford and Maria Burnes are the Petitioners.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It means that the evidence presented is sufficient to convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. is the Respondent.

🧑‍⚖️

21F-H2120002-REL-RHG

1 source

The provided text is a Final Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings in Arizona, detailing a dispute between petitioners Clifford and Maria Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. The case involved four specific allegations of violations by the Association, including allowing unapproved construction on Lot 7, failing to collect a required construction deposit, conducting an unnoticed meeting, and failing to fulfill a records request. This document affirms an earlier decision, concluding that the Petitioners failed to sustain the burden of proof for the first three issues but succeeded on the fourth issue regarding the violation of Arizona law concerning records requests. Consequently, the Association was ordered to comply with the relevant statute, provide missing email attachments, and reimburse a portion of the Petitioners’ filing fee.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes (petitioner)
    Saguaro Crest subdivision property owner; ARC Member
  • Maria Burnes (petitioner)
    Saguaro Crest subdivision property owner
  • Jacob A. Kubert (attorney)
  • Cynthia F. Burnes (attorney)
  • Debora Brown (witness)

Respondent Side

  • John Crotty (attorney)
    Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
  • Kelsea Dressen (attorney)
    Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
  • Esmerelda Martinez (board president; witness)
    Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors
    President of the Board
  • Dave Madill (board member)
    Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors
    Vice President of the Board
  • Julie Stevens (board member)
    Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors
    Treasurer of the Board
  • Raul Martinez (property owner)
    Owner of Lot 7 and 13
    Construction on his property (Lot 7) is subject of the dispute
  • Ramona Martinez (property owner)
    Owner of Lot 7

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Sadot Negreté (observer)
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Dan Gardener (ADRE contact)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Also listed as DGardner
  • c. serrano (administrative staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings

Other Participants

  • Jamie Argueta (ARC member; property seller)
    Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee
    Sold Lots 7 and 13 to Martinez family
  • Joseph Martinez (ARC member)
    Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee
  • Jesus Carranza (substitute ARC member)
    Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee
    Substitute for Petitioner during Lot 7 discussion

Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-03-08
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael J Stoltenberg Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Counsel Nicole Payne, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 14.8

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Section 14.8. The provision was determined to be inapplicable, governing the Association’s obligation to provide notice, not the methods homeowners must use to send payments.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. CC&Rs Section 14.8 was inapplicable, and Petitioner's chosen restricted delivery method for assessment payments caused delays, which were not the responsibility of the Respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 concerning notice obligations.

Petitioner alleged the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 by improperly handling or failing to receive his monthly assessment payments, which he sent via restricted delivery to a board member despite receiving instructions to mail payments to the Association's designated P.O. Box address.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied because he failed to sustain his burden of proof that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • CC&Rs 14.8

Analytics Highlights

Topics: homeowner assessments, CC&Rs interpretation, restricted delivery, jurisdiction, notice provision, rehearing
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. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842
  • CC&Rs 14.8
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020049-REL Decision – 861466.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:25:54 (145.6 KB)

20F-H2020049-REL Decision – 811290.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:25:59 (131.7 KB)

Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro HOA: Case Analysis and Legal Findings

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative legal case Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Case No. 20F-H2020049-REL). The central dispute arose when Mr. Stoltenberg, a homeowner, was assessed late fees on his monthly dues after unilaterally altering his payment method. He began sending payments via restricted U.S. Postal Service delivery to a specific volunteer board member, which resulted in significant processing delays and non-deliveries.

The petitioner alleged the Association was acting in “bad faith” and violating Section 14.8 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclusively found that Section 14.8, which governs notices sent from the Association to its members, was entirely inapplicable to payments sent by a member to the Association. The ALJ determined that the petitioner’s own “volitionally took” actions were the direct cause of the payment delays and subsequent late fees.

The petitioner’s initial petition was denied. A subsequent request for rehearing was granted, but the rehearing affirmed the original decision. The ALJ reiterated that the cited CC&R section was inapplicable, noted a lack of jurisdiction over other statutes the petitioner raised, and concluded that the petitioner had failed to meet his burden of proof in either proceeding.

Case Background and Procedural History

Parties and Governing Documents

• Petitioner: Michael J. Stoltenberg, a condominium owner within the Rancho Del Oro development and a member of the homeowners’ association.

• Respondent: Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (“the Association”), a condominium association in Yuma, Arizona, governed by its CC&Rs and overseen by a Board of Directors.

• Governing Authority: The CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner. The specific provision at the center of the dispute is Section 14.8 of the Bylaws, titled “Notices.” This section has remained unamended since the original CC&Rs were recorded on August 30, 1985.

Initial Petition and Jurisdictional Scope

On March 2, 2020, Mr. Stoltenberg filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.” The petition cited violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, as well as Section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. Mr. Stoltenberg sought an order compelling the Association to comply with these regulations and the issuance of a civil penalty.

Upon filing, the Department advised the petitioner that the HOA Dispute Process lacks jurisdiction over disputes arising from Title 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Consequently, the case was narrowed to a single issue, and the petitioner was assessed a $500 filing fee. The sole issue for the hearing was formally defined as: “Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8.”

Chronology of Legal Proceedings

Outcome

March 2, 2020

Petition filed by Michael Stoltenberg.

The case is initiated.

July 14, 2020

Initial evidentiary hearing is held.

Both parties present arguments.

August 3, 2020

Amended ALJ Decision is issued.

The petitioner’s petition is denied.

August 28, 2020

Petitioner submits a rehearing request.

Grounds cited: errors of law and an arbitrary decision.

September 9, 2020

Rehearing request is granted.

A new hearing is scheduled.

February 16, 2021

Rehearing is held.

The same issue is re-examined.

March 8, 2021

Final ALJ Decision is issued.

The petitioner’s petition is denied again; the order is binding.

Factual Analysis of the Dispute

Payment Instructions and Petitioner’s Actions

On January 4, 2016, the petitioner was advised that the Association’s “primary address for receiving all correspondence and all assessment payments from its members” was PO Box 4333, Yuma, Arizona 85366. The correspondence explicitly stated, “Please send your payments to the above address.”

Despite these clear instructions, beginning in November 2019, the petitioner began sending his monthly assessment payments to this P.O. Box via restricted delivery through the United States Postal Service (USPS), designated for pickup by board member Rhea Carlisle only.

The petitioner’s stated rationale for this change was a belief that an agent of the Association’s property management company (PMC) had previously thrown away one of his mailed payments. However, the petitioner was aware of several key facts:

• The Association employed a PMC to pick up its mail.

• Ms. Carlisle was an unpaid volunteer board member, not an employee of the PMC.

• Diana Crites was the Association’s listed Statutory Agent for 2019 and 2020.

Consequences of Restricted Delivery

The petitioner’s unilateral decision to restrict delivery caused significant disruption to the receipt of his payments. This led to his assessments being recorded as untimely, which in turn resulted in the Association assessing late fees against his account. Additionally, each late payment occurrence placed his residence “in danger of foreclosure by the Association.”

A timeline of payment delivery issues presented as evidence includes:

Payment Period

USPS Action

December 2019

Picked up.

January 25, 2020

Returned to petitioner by USPS.

January 30, 2020

Picked up.

February 26, 2020

Picked up.

April 17, 2020

Picked up.

June 8, 2020

Returned to petitioner by USPS.

Legal Rulings and Core Arguments

Central Legal Text: CC&Rs Section 14.8 (“Notices”)

The entire case hinged on the interpretation of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Bylaws. The text reads:

“Any notice permitted or required by this Declaration or the Bylaws may be delivered either personally or by mail. If delivery is by mail, it shall be deemed to have been delivered seventy-two (72) hours after a copy of the same has been deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each person at the current address given by such person to the secretary of the Board or addressed to the Unit of such person if no address has been given to the secretary.”

ALJ’s Interpretation: In both the initial decision and the rehearing decision, the ALJ found the language of Section 14.8 to be clear, “neither vague nor ambiguous,” and definitively inapplicable to the case. The ruling stated that the “language of Section 14.8 speaks specifically to the Association’s notice obligation to its members when mailing them information. Section 14.8 has no binding authority or control over homeowners sending mail to the Association.”

Arguments Presented

• He had always technically mailed his monthly payments on time to the correct P.O. Box.

• He filed the petition out of concern over incurring late fees and the potential loss of his home.

• During the rehearing, he argued that the initial decision failed to properly interpret Section 14.8 and should have also applied ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842 (concerning standards of conduct for nonprofit officers).

• Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs was entirely inapplicable to the facts presented, as it governs the Association’s outbound notice obligations, not a member’s inbound payments.

• The Department and the Office of Administrative Hearings lack jurisdiction under Title 10 of the ARIZ. REV. STAT.

• The petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show a violation.

Final Conclusions and Order

The Administrative Law Judge’s decisions in both the initial hearing and the rehearing were definitive. The core conclusions of law were as follows:

1. Burden of Proof: The petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the CC&Rs and failed to meet this burden.

2. Inapplicability of CC&Rs Section 14.8: The provision cited by the petitioner was found to be wholly irrelevant to the matter of a homeowner mailing payments to the Association.

3. Assignment of Responsibility: The ALJ concluded that the petitioner’s own choices were the cause of the issue. The decision states, “By restricting the delivery of his monthly assessment payments, Petitioner inadvertently caused delay in their ability to be picked up by the Association.” There was “no credible evidence in the record to suggest that the action(s) Petitioner volitionally took are Respondent’s responsibility.”

4. Rehearing Findings: In the final decision, the ALJ noted that the petitioner “did not introduce any evidence tending to suggest that there was an ‘error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law…'” or that the prior decision was arbitrary or capricious.

Final Order: Based on the foregoing, the ALJ ordered that the petitioner’s petition be denied. The order issued on March 8, 2021, was binding on the parties, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in superior court within 35 days.

Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, Case No. 20F-H2020049-REL, including the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the facts, legal arguments, procedures, and outcomes presented in the official decisions.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Please answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing information exclusively from the provided legal documents.

1. Who were the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what was their relationship to one another?

2. What was the specific allegation Michael Stoltenberg made against the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association in his petition?

3. What specific action did the Petitioner take regarding his monthly assessment payments starting in November 2019?

4. According to the Association, why was Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs not applicable to the Petitioner’s complaint?

5. What were the negative consequences the Petitioner faced as a result of his payments being received late by the Association?

6. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and did the judge find he had met it?

7. What were the two grounds upon which the Petitioner requested a rehearing after the initial decision?

8. Why was the Petitioner’s citation of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 10-3842 dismissed during the proceedings?

9. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on March 08, 2021, following the rehearing?

10. After the final order was issued, what was the Petitioner’s sole remaining avenue for appeal?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Michael J Stoltenberg, the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the Respondent. Mr. Stoltenberg was a condominium owner and a member of the Association, which governed the residential development where he lived.

2. In his petition filed on March 2, 2020, Stoltenberg alleged the Association violated Section 14.8 of its CC&Rs and Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 10-3842 and 10-801. He specifically claimed the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.”

3. Beginning in November 2019, the Petitioner began sending his monthly assessment payments to the Association’s P.O. Box via restricted delivery from the United States Postal Service. He specified that the mail was for board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only, despite knowing she was a volunteer and not an employee of the property management company that handled mail.

4. The Association argued that Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs was inapplicable because it governs the Association’s notice obligations to its members. The judge agreed, stating the section has no binding authority over how homeowners send mail to the Association.

5. Each time the Petitioner’s monthly assessment was received late, he was assessed a late fee by the Association. Additionally, each late payment occurrence placed his residence in danger of foreclosure.

6. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving his case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means showing the contention is more probably true than not. The judge concluded in both decisions that the Petitioner failed to sustain this burden of proof.

7. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that there was an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding” and because “[t]he findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”

8. The citation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers of nonprofit corporations, was dismissed because it falls outside the jurisdiction of the Arizona Department of Real Estate’s HOA Dispute Process. The Petitioner was advised of these jurisdictional limitations when he filed his petition.

9. The final ruling issued on March 8, 2021, denied the Petitioner’s petition once again. The judge affirmed the original findings, concluding there was no violation of Section 14.8 and that the Petitioner had not introduced any evidence to support his grounds for a rehearing.

10. After the final order resulting from the rehearing, the Petitioner’s only remaining recourse was to seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the superior court. This appeal had to be filed within thirty-five days from the date the order was served upon the parties.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis. Formulate a comprehensive essay response for each prompt, using specific evidence and details from the source documents to support your arguments.

1. Analyze the legal reasoning of Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark in her interpretation of Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs. Explain why this section was deemed inapplicable to the Petitioner’s situation and how this interpretation was central to the case’s outcome in both the hearing and rehearing.

2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain who held the burden, what the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required, and why the Petitioner ultimately failed to meet this standard in the judgment of the court.

3. Trace the complete procedural history of this case, starting from the initial petition. Detail the key dates, filings (petition, answer, rehearing request), hearings, and decisions, explaining the significance of each step in the administrative legal process from March 2020 to March 2021.

4. Examine the actions of the Petitioner, Michael Stoltenberg, beginning in November 2019. Evaluate his rationale for unilaterally changing his payment method, the specific steps he took, and how his choices directly led to the late fees and risk of foreclosure he sought to avoid.

5. Explain the roles and jurisdictional limitations of the Arizona Department of Real Estate (the Department) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in this dispute. Why were certain statutes cited by the Petitioner, such as those under Title 10 of the ARIZ. REV. STAT., dismissed by the court as being outside its purview?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, and issues decisions for state agencies.

Answer

The formal written response filed by the Respondent (the Association) on March 24, 2020, denying all items in the Petitioner’s complaint.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

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

Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.)

The collection of laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature. Specific statutes were cited by the Petitioner and referenced by the court.

Association

The Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, a condominium association responsible for governing the real estate development and enforcing its CC&Rs.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The governing body that oversees the Homeowners Association.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a trial (in this case, the Petitioner) to produce evidence that proves the claims they have made against the other party.

An acronym for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.

Conclusions of Law

The section of the judge’s decision that applies legal principles and statutes to the established facts of the case to reach a final judgment.

Findings of Fact

The section of the judge’s decision that details the factual background, procedural history, and evidence presented during the hearing.

Hearing

A formal proceeding before an administrative law judge where parties present evidence and arguments. In this case, hearings were held on July 14, 2020, and February 16, 2021.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Department’s jurisdiction was limited and did not extend to disputes arising from Title 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency that provides administrative law judges to conduct hearings for other state agencies, ensuring impartiality.

The final, binding command issued by the judge at the conclusion of the decision. In this case, the order was to deny the Petitioner’s petition.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Michael J Stoltenberg.

Petition

The formal legal document filed by the Petitioner on March 2, 2020, to initiate the hearing process with the Department.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to a party to re-examine the issues of a case, typically requested on grounds of legal error or an unjust decision. The Petitioner’s request for a rehearing was granted.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.

Restricted Delivery

A service offered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) that ensures mail is delivered only to a specific addressee or their authorized agent.

Statutory Agent

An individual or entity designated to receive legal notices and service of process on behalf of a corporation or association. For the Association, this was Diana Crites.

Select all sources
811290.pdf
861466.pdf

No emoji found

Loading

20F-H2020049-REL-RHG

2 sources

These documents contain the Administrative Law Judge Decisions stemming from a dispute between a homeowner, Michael J. Stoltenberg, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association regarding the timely delivery of monthly assessment payments. The initial decision in August 2020 denied the homeowner’s petition, finding that the Association did not violate Section 14.8 of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), as that provision governs the Association’s notice obligation to members, not homeowners’ mail to the Association. Following a granted request for rehearing due to alleged errors of law, the subsequent March 2021 decision affirmed the original ruling, concluding that the homeowner’s self-imposed restriction on mail delivery caused the delays and that the relevant CC&R section was inapplicable to the petitioner’s complaint. Both decisions noted that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction over one of the statutes cited by the petitioner.

2 sources

What were the legal and procedural reasons for granting the rehearing request?
How did the interpretation of CC&R Section 14.8 resolve the core dispute?
What was the Petitioner’s basis for claiming a violation against the Association?

Based on 2 sources

00:00
00:00

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael J Stoltenberg (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
    Appeared telephonically for Respondent
  • Rhea Carlisle (board member)
    Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
    Unpaid volunteer board member
  • Diana Crites (statutory agent)
    Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
    Statutory Agent for 2019 and 2020
  • Lydia Peirce Linsmeier (attorney contact)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
    Recipient of electronic transmission for Respondent in initial decision

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Dan Gardner (HOA coordinator)
    ADRE
    Transmitted decision electronically (c/o Commissioner Judy Lowe)