Petitioner's petition was granted in part based on the violation of CC&Rs Article 10.9 (failure to provide specific steps to cure violations), resulting in a $500.00 payment to Petitioner. The petition was denied in part regarding alleged violations of CC&Rs Article 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10, as Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof on those issues.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof for the allegations concerning CC&Rs Article 4.5 (as it applies solely to construction activities), Article 10.1 (as subsequent letters stemmed from the same issues), and Article 10.10 (as Petitioner failed to allege or establish a violation of a specific law, ordinance or regulation).
Key Issues & Findings
The Association violated Article 10 Section 9 of the CC&Rs by failing to provide specific steps necessary to cure the violation with each violation notice that was sent as required under the CC&Rs
The Association violated Article 10.9 by issuing vague, overbroad, and nondescript violation warning letters that failed to provide the requisite specific steps Petitioner needed to take to satisfactorily remedy the alleged violation(s), such as covering exposed irrigation lines, removing a specific plant, or filling in holes.
Orders: Respondent is ORDERED to pay $500.00 to Petitioner, a pro rata portion of his filing fee, directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this ORDER.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
CC&Rs Article 10.9
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA enforcement, notice specificity, arbitrary and capricious, CC&R violation, landscaping, weeds
Additional Citations:
CC&Rs Article 4 Section 5
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 1
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 9
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 10
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 946305.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:41 (47.7 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 950368.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:45 (46.3 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 957992.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:50 (54.5 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 958039.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:55 (7.8 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 960467.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:00 (49.7 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 977411.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:03 (229.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 22F-H2221022-REL
Briefing Document: Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Wesley T Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association (No. 22F-H2221022-REL). The dispute centered on a series of six violation notices and associated fines issued by the Association to the Petitioner regarding the landscaping of his front yard between January and June 2021.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in partial favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Association violated its own governing documents. The core of the decision rested on the finding that the Association’s violation notices were “vague, overbroad, and nondescript,” failing to provide the specific steps necessary for the homeowner to cure the alleged violations as required by the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Critically, the ALJ also determined that the Association cited an inapplicable article of the CC&Rs (pertaining to construction activities) in all of its notices, when a different article (concerning landscaping maintenance) should have been used.
As a result, the Petitioner’s petition was granted in part, and the Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner $500.00, representing a pro rata portion of his filing fee. While the petition’s claims of improper fine progression and violations of state law were denied, the central finding regarding the insufficiency of the notices effectively invalidated the basis for the Association’s enforcement action.
Case Overview
Case Name
Wesley T Chadwick, Petitioner, vs. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association, Respondent
The conflict unfolded over approximately six months, followed by a period of appeals and the formal administrative hearing.
Jan 25, 2021
Petitioner receives 1st Notice citing Article 4.5 for weeds. Directive is “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS.”
Feb 09, 2021
Petitioner receives 2nd Notice, identical to the first, with an added $50.00 fine.
Feb 10, 2021
Petitioner hires contractors to remove dead cacti (350)andweeds(100).
Feb 25, 2021
Petitioner receives 3rd Notice, identical to the first two, with an added $100.00 fine.
Mar 18, 2021
Petitioner and the Association’s property management company (OPM) reach an agreement via email: the $100 fine is waived in exchange for payment of the $50 fine, provided no new weed violations occur within 90 days.
Mar 23, 2021
Petitioner receives 4th Notice (dated March 15), which now includes the directive “fix rock area” and a $100.00 fine.
Mar 30, 2021
Petitioner receives 5th Notice, identical to the fourth, with another $100.00 fine.
Apr 05, 2021
In an email exchange, OPM manager Danielle Miglio provides a photo with circled areas of concern, identifying exposed irrigation lines, holes, weeds, and an overgrown plant for the first time with specificity.
May 2021
Petitioner submits a formal request to the Board of Directors to review the case and waive fines.
June 2021
Petitioner is informed his request was denied by the Board.
June 16, 2021
Petitioner receives 6th Notice, which reverts to “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and adds a $100.00 fine.
June 22, 2021
OPM informs Petitioner the Board would not waive fees until the violation is closed, but could remove $75 after three months of compliance.
Sep 23, 2021
Petitioner appears at a Board meeting to appeal; his request is again denied.
Oct 14, 2021
Petitioner files his formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
May 25, 2022
An all-day evidentiary hearing is held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
June 14, 2022
The Administrative Law Judge issues a final decision.
Core Allegations and Arguments
The hearing addressed four specific issues raised in the Petitioner’s petition, which formed the basis of the legal arguments.
Petitioner’s Position (Wesley T Chadwick)
1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Lack of Specificity): The violation notices were fundamentally deficient because they failed to provide “specific steps which must be taken… to cure the violation.” Directives like “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were overly broad. The entire front yard consists of rock, making “fix rock area” ambiguous. The Association only provided clarity with a circled photograph after issuing multiple notices and fines.
2. Violation of CC&R Article 4.5 (Exceeding Authority): The Association exceeded its authority by issuing violations for issues not explicitly covered by the language it quoted in the notices, such as exposed irrigation lines or a specific plant which was not a weed. The notices selectively quoted the portion of Article 4.5 related to weeds and debris, omitting the broader “unsightly” language, which misled the Petitioner as to the nature of the violation.
3. Violation of CC&R Article 10.1 (Improper Fine Progression): The introduction of a new issue, “fix rock area,” in the fourth notice constituted a new violation. As such, it should have been preceded by a warning notice, not an immediate $100 fine as part of a continuing violation.
4. Violation of CC&R Article 10.10 (Arbitrary and Capricious Enforcement): The Association enforced its rules selectively and arbitrarily. This was evidenced during the hearing when the Board’s Vice President, Cynthia Ecker, admitted under oath that her own property had exposed irrigation lines visible from the yard, yet she had never received a violation notice.
Respondent’s Position (Entrada Mountainside HOA)
1. Broad Discretionary Authority: CC&R Article 4.5 grants the Association’s Architectural Committee the “exclusive right to determine the existence of any nuisance” and provides wide discretion to enforce against any condition deemed “unsanitary, unsightly, offensive, or detrimental.”
2. Continuing Nature of the Violation: The entire series of violations stemmed from a single, ongoing issue of poor landscape maintenance. The Petitioner created the “debris”—the hole and exposed irrigation lines—by failing to complete the remediation after removing the cacti. This was a continuation of the original violation, not a new one, and thus did not require a new warning notice.
3. Petitioner’s Responsibility: The Petitioner failed to use his right to appeal the initial notices and only engaged with the Association after three notices had been issued. He admitted to not having reviewed the Association’s official landscape guidelines. The onus was on him to seek clarification if he found the notices unclear.
4. Good Faith Efforts to Comply: The Association manager went “above and beyond” by sending a detailed photo with circled areas, a measure not typically taken. The Association also demonstrated a willingness to work with the Petitioner on fines by waiving the initial $100 fine and later offering a potential $75 reduction.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision focused on the procedural adequacy and legal foundation of the Association’s violation notices.
Final Ruling
The petition was GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
• Granted: The claim that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9 by failing to provide specific notice was upheld.
• Denied: The claims that the Association violated CC&R Articles 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10 were not sustained.
Key Findings and Rationale
1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Notice of Violation): This was the central finding in the Petitioner’s favor. The ALJ concluded the Association failed its contractual obligation to provide adequate notice.
◦ Direct Quote from Decision: “Here, what the Association did was essentially tell Petitioner to ‘fix this’ without telling him exactly what needed fixing and affording him a reasonable opportunity to comply.”
◦ The directives “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were deemed insufficient to inform a person of ordinary prudence of the specific actions required, such as covering irrigation lines or removing a particular plant.
◦ The fact that the Association later had to provide a photograph with “circled with specific areas of concern after issuing multiple warning letters” was cited as evidence that the initial notices were inadequate.
2. Misapplication of CC&R Article 4.5 (Nuisances): In a critical finding, the ALJ determined that the Association had cited the wrong governing article in all six of its notices.
◦ The decision states: “It is clear from the record that CC&Rs Article 4.5 is inapplicable as the regulation pertains solely to construction activities… CC&Rs Article 4.4 [Maintenance of Landscaping] should have been used by Respondent.”
◦ This finding invalidated the legal basis for every notice issued to the Petitioner.
3. Ruling on Other Allegations:
◦ Article 10.1 (Enforcement): The ALJ found no violation, concluding that notices 2-6 all “stemmed from the same issue(s)” raised in the first letter and were not new violations requiring a separate warning.
◦ Article 10.10 (Laws, Ordinances and Regulations): The ALJ found no violation because the “Petitioner failed to allege that Respondent violated a specific law, ordinance or regulation.” This indicates the claim of arbitrary enforcement was not sustained on a technical basis, despite the testimony from the Board’s Vice President.
Final Order
Based on the finding that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9:
• IT IS ORDERED that Respondent pay $500.00 to Petitioner; a pro rata portion of his filing fee, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the ORDER.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Wesley T Chadwick(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Nick Eicher(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Respondent
Petitioner's petition was granted in part based on the violation of CC&Rs Article 10.9 (failure to provide specific steps to cure violations), resulting in a $500.00 payment to Petitioner. The petition was denied in part regarding alleged violations of CC&Rs Article 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10, as Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof on those issues.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof for the allegations concerning CC&Rs Article 4.5 (as it applies solely to construction activities), Article 10.1 (as subsequent letters stemmed from the same issues), and Article 10.10 (as Petitioner failed to allege or establish a violation of a specific law, ordinance or regulation).
Key Issues & Findings
The Association violated Article 10 Section 9 of the CC&Rs by failing to provide specific steps necessary to cure the violation with each violation notice that was sent as required under the CC&Rs
The Association violated Article 10.9 by issuing vague, overbroad, and nondescript violation warning letters that failed to provide the requisite specific steps Petitioner needed to take to satisfactorily remedy the alleged violation(s), such as covering exposed irrigation lines, removing a specific plant, or filling in holes.
Orders: Respondent is ORDERED to pay $500.00 to Petitioner, a pro rata portion of his filing fee, directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this ORDER.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
CC&Rs Article 10.9
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA enforcement, notice specificity, arbitrary and capricious, CC&R violation, landscaping, weeds
Additional Citations:
CC&Rs Article 4 Section 5
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 1
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 9
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 10
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 946305.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:57 (47.7 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 950368.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:57 (46.3 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 957992.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:57 (54.5 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 958039.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:57 (7.8 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 960467.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:58 (49.7 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 977411.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:58 (229.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 22F-H2221022-REL
Briefing Document: Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Wesley T Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association (No. 22F-H2221022-REL). The dispute centered on a series of six violation notices and associated fines issued by the Association to the Petitioner regarding the landscaping of his front yard between January and June 2021.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in partial favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Association violated its own governing documents. The core of the decision rested on the finding that the Association’s violation notices were “vague, overbroad, and nondescript,” failing to provide the specific steps necessary for the homeowner to cure the alleged violations as required by the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Critically, the ALJ also determined that the Association cited an inapplicable article of the CC&Rs (pertaining to construction activities) in all of its notices, when a different article (concerning landscaping maintenance) should have been used.
As a result, the Petitioner’s petition was granted in part, and the Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner $500.00, representing a pro rata portion of his filing fee. While the petition’s claims of improper fine progression and violations of state law were denied, the central finding regarding the insufficiency of the notices effectively invalidated the basis for the Association’s enforcement action.
Case Overview
Case Name
Wesley T Chadwick, Petitioner, vs. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association, Respondent
The conflict unfolded over approximately six months, followed by a period of appeals and the formal administrative hearing.
Jan 25, 2021
Petitioner receives 1st Notice citing Article 4.5 for weeds. Directive is “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS.”
Feb 09, 2021
Petitioner receives 2nd Notice, identical to the first, with an added $50.00 fine.
Feb 10, 2021
Petitioner hires contractors to remove dead cacti (350)andweeds(100).
Feb 25, 2021
Petitioner receives 3rd Notice, identical to the first two, with an added $100.00 fine.
Mar 18, 2021
Petitioner and the Association’s property management company (OPM) reach an agreement via email: the $100 fine is waived in exchange for payment of the $50 fine, provided no new weed violations occur within 90 days.
Mar 23, 2021
Petitioner receives 4th Notice (dated March 15), which now includes the directive “fix rock area” and a $100.00 fine.
Mar 30, 2021
Petitioner receives 5th Notice, identical to the fourth, with another $100.00 fine.
Apr 05, 2021
In an email exchange, OPM manager Danielle Miglio provides a photo with circled areas of concern, identifying exposed irrigation lines, holes, weeds, and an overgrown plant for the first time with specificity.
May 2021
Petitioner submits a formal request to the Board of Directors to review the case and waive fines.
June 2021
Petitioner is informed his request was denied by the Board.
June 16, 2021
Petitioner receives 6th Notice, which reverts to “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and adds a $100.00 fine.
June 22, 2021
OPM informs Petitioner the Board would not waive fees until the violation is closed, but could remove $75 after three months of compliance.
Sep 23, 2021
Petitioner appears at a Board meeting to appeal; his request is again denied.
Oct 14, 2021
Petitioner files his formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
May 25, 2022
An all-day evidentiary hearing is held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
June 14, 2022
The Administrative Law Judge issues a final decision.
Core Allegations and Arguments
The hearing addressed four specific issues raised in the Petitioner’s petition, which formed the basis of the legal arguments.
Petitioner’s Position (Wesley T Chadwick)
1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Lack of Specificity): The violation notices were fundamentally deficient because they failed to provide “specific steps which must be taken… to cure the violation.” Directives like “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were overly broad. The entire front yard consists of rock, making “fix rock area” ambiguous. The Association only provided clarity with a circled photograph after issuing multiple notices and fines.
2. Violation of CC&R Article 4.5 (Exceeding Authority): The Association exceeded its authority by issuing violations for issues not explicitly covered by the language it quoted in the notices, such as exposed irrigation lines or a specific plant which was not a weed. The notices selectively quoted the portion of Article 4.5 related to weeds and debris, omitting the broader “unsightly” language, which misled the Petitioner as to the nature of the violation.
3. Violation of CC&R Article 10.1 (Improper Fine Progression): The introduction of a new issue, “fix rock area,” in the fourth notice constituted a new violation. As such, it should have been preceded by a warning notice, not an immediate $100 fine as part of a continuing violation.
4. Violation of CC&R Article 10.10 (Arbitrary and Capricious Enforcement): The Association enforced its rules selectively and arbitrarily. This was evidenced during the hearing when the Board’s Vice President, Cynthia Ecker, admitted under oath that her own property had exposed irrigation lines visible from the yard, yet she had never received a violation notice.
Respondent’s Position (Entrada Mountainside HOA)
1. Broad Discretionary Authority: CC&R Article 4.5 grants the Association’s Architectural Committee the “exclusive right to determine the existence of any nuisance” and provides wide discretion to enforce against any condition deemed “unsanitary, unsightly, offensive, or detrimental.”
2. Continuing Nature of the Violation: The entire series of violations stemmed from a single, ongoing issue of poor landscape maintenance. The Petitioner created the “debris”—the hole and exposed irrigation lines—by failing to complete the remediation after removing the cacti. This was a continuation of the original violation, not a new one, and thus did not require a new warning notice.
3. Petitioner’s Responsibility: The Petitioner failed to use his right to appeal the initial notices and only engaged with the Association after three notices had been issued. He admitted to not having reviewed the Association’s official landscape guidelines. The onus was on him to seek clarification if he found the notices unclear.
4. Good Faith Efforts to Comply: The Association manager went “above and beyond” by sending a detailed photo with circled areas, a measure not typically taken. The Association also demonstrated a willingness to work with the Petitioner on fines by waiving the initial $100 fine and later offering a potential $75 reduction.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision focused on the procedural adequacy and legal foundation of the Association’s violation notices.
Final Ruling
The petition was GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
• Granted: The claim that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9 by failing to provide specific notice was upheld.
• Denied: The claims that the Association violated CC&R Articles 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10 were not sustained.
Key Findings and Rationale
1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Notice of Violation): This was the central finding in the Petitioner’s favor. The ALJ concluded the Association failed its contractual obligation to provide adequate notice.
◦ Direct Quote from Decision: “Here, what the Association did was essentially tell Petitioner to ‘fix this’ without telling him exactly what needed fixing and affording him a reasonable opportunity to comply.”
◦ The directives “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were deemed insufficient to inform a person of ordinary prudence of the specific actions required, such as covering irrigation lines or removing a particular plant.
◦ The fact that the Association later had to provide a photograph with “circled with specific areas of concern after issuing multiple warning letters” was cited as evidence that the initial notices were inadequate.
2. Misapplication of CC&R Article 4.5 (Nuisances): In a critical finding, the ALJ determined that the Association had cited the wrong governing article in all six of its notices.
◦ The decision states: “It is clear from the record that CC&Rs Article 4.5 is inapplicable as the regulation pertains solely to construction activities… CC&Rs Article 4.4 [Maintenance of Landscaping] should have been used by Respondent.”
◦ This finding invalidated the legal basis for every notice issued to the Petitioner.
3. Ruling on Other Allegations:
◦ Article 10.1 (Enforcement): The ALJ found no violation, concluding that notices 2-6 all “stemmed from the same issue(s)” raised in the first letter and were not new violations requiring a separate warning.
◦ Article 10.10 (Laws, Ordinances and Regulations): The ALJ found no violation because the “Petitioner failed to allege that Respondent violated a specific law, ordinance or regulation.” This indicates the claim of arbitrary enforcement was not sustained on a technical basis, despite the testimony from the Board’s Vice President.
Final Order
Based on the finding that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9:
• IT IS ORDERED that Respondent pay $500.00 to Petitioner; a pro rata portion of his filing fee, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the ORDER.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Wesley T Chadwick(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Nick Eicher(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Respondent
The Petitioner's claim was denied because the ALJ concluded that the alleged violation of the 5th Amended Master Declaration Article 6.7 was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; the argument was premature as the action (substantial change in use) had not yet come to fruition.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the argument was not ripe and predicated on actions that have yet to occur.
Key Issues & Findings
Change in Use of Common Area
Petitioner alleged that the Association violated Article 6.7 by modifying renovation plans for the Activity Center's coffee bar to include the sale of alcoholic beverages (cafe wine bar) without the requisite 60% membership vote, arguing this converted common area into a restricted commercial bar.
Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 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
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
5th Amended Master Declaration Article 6.7
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, Master Declaration, Change of Use, Common Area, Liquor License, Renovation, Ripeness, Cafe Wine Bar
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221011-REL Decision – 935334.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:43 (49.3 KB)
22F-H2221011-REL Decision – 956246.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:48 (138.2 KB)
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner filing the petition to prove that a violation occurred. The HOA does not have to disprove the claim; the petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
procedure
Question
How much evidence is required to win a case against an HOA?
Short Answer
A preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The standard of proof is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means the evidence must show that the homeowner's claim is more likely true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than the quantity of witnesses.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standards
Question
Can I file a petition against my HOA for a violation that hasn't happened yet but is planned?
Short Answer
Generally, no. The dispute must be 'ripe' and not theoretical.
Detailed Answer
Administrative Law Judges generally cannot rule on grievances that are theoretical or based on actions that have not yet occurred. If a construction project or change has not physically started, a claim that it 'will' cause a violation may be dismissed as not ripe.
Alj Quote
The crux of Petitioner’s is theoretical and predicated on action(s) that have yet to occur… Therefore, it cannot reasonably be concluded that the Association substantially changed the use of a portion of a common area.
Legal Basis
Ripeness Doctrine
Topic Tags
ripeness
future violations
construction
Question
Can the Administrative Law Judge order an injunction to stop the HOA from doing something?
Short Answer
No, injunctive relief is unavailable in this administrative process.
Detailed Answer
The administrative hearing process in Arizona for HOA disputes does not grant the ALJ the authority to issue injunctions (orders to stop an action) or declaratory relief. The ALJ determines if a violation occurred based on past or present facts.
Alj Quote
Based on Petitioner’s arguments in closing, it is apparent that he is seeking injunctive and/or declaratory relief that is unavailable for litigants in the administrative hearing process in the State of Arizona.
Legal Basis
Administrative Hearing Limits
Topic Tags
injunctions
remedies
legal relief
Question
Does a renovation of a common area facility automatically count as a 'substantial change in use'?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, especially if the change hasn't occurred yet or doesn't alter the character of the area.
Detailed Answer
Whether a renovation is a 'substantial change in use' (which often requires a member vote) depends on if it changes the character and nature of the area. However, if the project is not yet built, an ALJ may be unable to determine if the change is substantial.
Alj Quote
Notably, the undersigned cannot make any determinations about whether the Association’s proposed voter-approved construction would alter the character and nature of the common area to such an extent that it would create a “substantial change of use” to the area.
Legal Basis
Master Declaration Article 6.7 (cited in decision)
Topic Tags
common areas
renovations
change of use
Question
Is the decision made by the Administrative Law Judge final and binding?
Short Answer
Yes, unless a rehearing is granted.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ's order is binding on both the homeowner and the HOA unless one party successfully files for a rehearing within 30 days of service of the order.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
Topic Tags
appeals
binding order
procedure
Case
Docket No
22F-H2221011-REL
Case Title
John J Balaco vs. Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-03-21
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner filing the petition to prove that a violation occurred. The HOA does not have to disprove the claim; the petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
procedure
Question
How much evidence is required to win a case against an HOA?
Short Answer
A preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The standard of proof is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means the evidence must show that the homeowner's claim is more likely true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than the quantity of witnesses.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standards
Question
Can I file a petition against my HOA for a violation that hasn't happened yet but is planned?
Short Answer
Generally, no. The dispute must be 'ripe' and not theoretical.
Detailed Answer
Administrative Law Judges generally cannot rule on grievances that are theoretical or based on actions that have not yet occurred. If a construction project or change has not physically started, a claim that it 'will' cause a violation may be dismissed as not ripe.
Alj Quote
The crux of Petitioner’s is theoretical and predicated on action(s) that have yet to occur… Therefore, it cannot reasonably be concluded that the Association substantially changed the use of a portion of a common area.
Legal Basis
Ripeness Doctrine
Topic Tags
ripeness
future violations
construction
Question
Can the Administrative Law Judge order an injunction to stop the HOA from doing something?
Short Answer
No, injunctive relief is unavailable in this administrative process.
Detailed Answer
The administrative hearing process in Arizona for HOA disputes does not grant the ALJ the authority to issue injunctions (orders to stop an action) or declaratory relief. The ALJ determines if a violation occurred based on past or present facts.
Alj Quote
Based on Petitioner’s arguments in closing, it is apparent that he is seeking injunctive and/or declaratory relief that is unavailable for litigants in the administrative hearing process in the State of Arizona.
Legal Basis
Administrative Hearing Limits
Topic Tags
injunctions
remedies
legal relief
Question
Does a renovation of a common area facility automatically count as a 'substantial change in use'?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, especially if the change hasn't occurred yet or doesn't alter the character of the area.
Detailed Answer
Whether a renovation is a 'substantial change in use' (which often requires a member vote) depends on if it changes the character and nature of the area. However, if the project is not yet built, an ALJ may be unable to determine if the change is substantial.
Alj Quote
Notably, the undersigned cannot make any determinations about whether the Association’s proposed voter-approved construction would alter the character and nature of the common area to such an extent that it would create a “substantial change of use” to the area.
Legal Basis
Master Declaration Article 6.7 (cited in decision)
Topic Tags
common areas
renovations
change of use
Question
Is the decision made by the Administrative Law Judge final and binding?
Short Answer
Yes, unless a rehearing is granted.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ's order is binding on both the homeowner and the HOA unless one party successfully files for a rehearing within 30 days of service of the order.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
Topic Tags
appeals
binding order
procedure
Case
Docket No
22F-H2221011-REL
Case Title
John J Balaco vs. Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-03-21
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John J Balaco(petitioner)
Diane Paton(witness)
James Gearhart(helper / observer) Assisted Petitioner with documents; observed hearing
Respondent Side
Nicholas Nogami(attorney) Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP Counsel for Respondent
Sami Farhat(attorney) Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP Counsel for Respondent
Mark Wade(general manager / witness)
Randall Jean Trenary(controller / witness) Liquor license agent
James Henry Mitchell(witness) Also referred to as Jim Mitchell or Randall James Mitchell
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Contact for appeal procedure
c. serrano(OAH staff) OAH Transmitter of Minute Entry
Miranda Alvarez(OAH staff) OAH Transmitter of ALJ Decision
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1243(B) and Community Bylaws 3.1 and 3.6
Outcome Summary
The ALJ found the Board acted within its lawful authority because the governing documents and statute cited did not explicitly prohibit a Board Member from resigning and immediately being appointed to fill an unexpired term to elongate their service, and Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated ARS § 33-1243(B) and Bylaws 3.1 and 3.6. The Tribunal found the Board’s action, though potentially questionable, was not unlawful.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Association violated ARS § 33-1243(B) and Bylaws 3.1 and 3.6 by appointing an existing board member to fill a vacancy, effectively extending her term.
The Board appointed existing Board member Joan Robley to fill the unexpired term of Board Member Gallu (expiring Jan 2023) immediately after she resigned her own seat (expiring Jan 2021), which Petitioner alleged violated governing documents by extending her term and not genuinely filling a vacancy.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(B)
Community Bylaws 3.1
Community Bylaws 3.6
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Board Vacancy, Term Extension, Bylaw Interpretation, Resignation and Reappointment, ARS 33-1243(B)
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(B)
Community Bylaws 3.1
Community Bylaws 3.6
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)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221021-REL Decision – 948752.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:33 (130.2 KB)
Questions
Question
Can a board member resign and immediately be appointed to a different vacancy to get a longer term?
Short Answer
Yes, unless the governing documents specifically prohibit it.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that a board member can resign their current seat and be appointed to a vacancy with a longer unexpired term. As long as the member is eligible (e.g., a unit owner) and the bylaws or statutes do not explicitly forbid this practice, it is considered a lawful exercise of the board's authority to fill vacancies.
Alj Quote
Neither Bylaws Section 3.6 nor ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1243(B) implicitly or explicitly prohibit what occurred.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1243(B); Bylaws Section 3.6
Topic Tags
Board Vacancies
Term Limits
Board Appointments
Question
Does the HOA board have to choose a new person ('new blood') when filling a vacancy?
Short Answer
No, the board is not required to select a new person.
Detailed Answer
There is no legal requirement for a board to seek out new candidates or 'new blood' when filling a vacancy. The board may appoint a former or resigning director to a vacant seat as long as they meet the basic qualifications, such as being a unit owner.
Alj Quote
There is no presumption of 'new blood' as Petitioner argued. The sole requisite to fill the vacancy was that the choice be limited to unit owners, which Ms. Robley is.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Interpretation
Topic Tags
Board Qualifications
Vacancies
Question
Does the board have the authority to fill vacancies without holding a general membership election?
Short Answer
Yes, the board generally has the statutory authority to appoint members to fill vacancies.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute allows the board of directors to fill vacancies in its membership for the remainder of an unexpired term without holding a full election, provided the bylaws align with this authority.
Alj Quote
The statute does note, however, that the board of directors may 'fill vacancies in its membership for the unexpired portion of any term.'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1243(B)
Topic Tags
Elections
Board Authority
Question
Is a board decision illegal just because it is 'questionable' or unpopular?
Short Answer
No, a questionable choice is not necessarily unlawful.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ clarified that even if a board makes a decision that is questionable or if they could have made a different determination, the decision is not unlawful unless it specifically violates the statutes or governing documents.
Alj Quote
Just because the Association could have made any number of different determinations after Mr. Gallu resigned, does not mean that its questionable choice to appoint Ms. Robley to his seat was unlawful.
Legal Basis
Board Discretion
Topic Tags
Board Conduct
Decision Making
Question
What burden of proof does a homeowner have when challenging an HOA in a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Detailed Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for providing enough evidence to convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this standard, the petition will be denied.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Hearings
Question
Does the Administrative Law Judge have the power to interpret the HOA's CC&Rs and Bylaws?
Short Answer
Yes, the OAH tribunal can interpret the contract between the parties.
Detailed Answer
The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the specific authority to hear contested cases and interpret the contract (the CC&Rs and Bylaws) that exists between the homeowner and the association.
Alj Quote
OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
Topic Tags
Jurisdiction
Contract Interpretation
Question
If I pay for a single-issue petition, can the judge rule on other related issues?
Short Answer
No, the tribunal is limited to the specific issue paid for.
Detailed Answer
The tribunal's scope is limited to the specific issue(s) for which the filing fee was paid. They cannot adjudicate outside that scope even if related violations are alleged.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may only determine whether Respondent committed a violation… based on the same event or series of alleged conduct.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
Topic Tags
Procedure
Fees
Case
Docket No
22F-H2221021-REL
Case Title
Dean A Yelenik vs. Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-02-18
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can a board member resign and immediately be appointed to a different vacancy to get a longer term?
Short Answer
Yes, unless the governing documents specifically prohibit it.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that a board member can resign their current seat and be appointed to a vacancy with a longer unexpired term. As long as the member is eligible (e.g., a unit owner) and the bylaws or statutes do not explicitly forbid this practice, it is considered a lawful exercise of the board's authority to fill vacancies.
Alj Quote
Neither Bylaws Section 3.6 nor ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1243(B) implicitly or explicitly prohibit what occurred.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1243(B); Bylaws Section 3.6
Topic Tags
Board Vacancies
Term Limits
Board Appointments
Question
Does the HOA board have to choose a new person ('new blood') when filling a vacancy?
Short Answer
No, the board is not required to select a new person.
Detailed Answer
There is no legal requirement for a board to seek out new candidates or 'new blood' when filling a vacancy. The board may appoint a former or resigning director to a vacant seat as long as they meet the basic qualifications, such as being a unit owner.
Alj Quote
There is no presumption of 'new blood' as Petitioner argued. The sole requisite to fill the vacancy was that the choice be limited to unit owners, which Ms. Robley is.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Interpretation
Topic Tags
Board Qualifications
Vacancies
Question
Does the board have the authority to fill vacancies without holding a general membership election?
Short Answer
Yes, the board generally has the statutory authority to appoint members to fill vacancies.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute allows the board of directors to fill vacancies in its membership for the remainder of an unexpired term without holding a full election, provided the bylaws align with this authority.
Alj Quote
The statute does note, however, that the board of directors may 'fill vacancies in its membership for the unexpired portion of any term.'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1243(B)
Topic Tags
Elections
Board Authority
Question
Is a board decision illegal just because it is 'questionable' or unpopular?
Short Answer
No, a questionable choice is not necessarily unlawful.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ clarified that even if a board makes a decision that is questionable or if they could have made a different determination, the decision is not unlawful unless it specifically violates the statutes or governing documents.
Alj Quote
Just because the Association could have made any number of different determinations after Mr. Gallu resigned, does not mean that its questionable choice to appoint Ms. Robley to his seat was unlawful.
Legal Basis
Board Discretion
Topic Tags
Board Conduct
Decision Making
Question
What burden of proof does a homeowner have when challenging an HOA in a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Detailed Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for providing enough evidence to convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this standard, the petition will be denied.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Hearings
Question
Does the Administrative Law Judge have the power to interpret the HOA's CC&Rs and Bylaws?
Short Answer
Yes, the OAH tribunal can interpret the contract between the parties.
Detailed Answer
The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the specific authority to hear contested cases and interpret the contract (the CC&Rs and Bylaws) that exists between the homeowner and the association.
Alj Quote
OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
Topic Tags
Jurisdiction
Contract Interpretation
Question
If I pay for a single-issue petition, can the judge rule on other related issues?
Short Answer
No, the tribunal is limited to the specific issue paid for.
Detailed Answer
The tribunal's scope is limited to the specific issue(s) for which the filing fee was paid. They cannot adjudicate outside that scope even if related violations are alleged.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may only determine whether Respondent committed a violation… based on the same event or series of alleged conduct.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
Topic Tags
Procedure
Fees
Case
Docket No
22F-H2221021-REL
Case Title
Dean A Yelenik vs. Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-02-18
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Arthur Dean Yelenik(petitioner) Also goes by Dean Yelenik
Kristen Terry Beloo(homeowner/past board president) Part of petitioner's working group; Past president (6 years)
Kathleen Moles(homeowner/past board president) Part of petitioner's working group; Past president (3 years)
David Moles(homeowner) Part of petitioner's working group
Respondent Side
Eadie Rudder(respondent attorney)
Nick Eicher(respondent attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
Margo McInnis(board president/witness) Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association Testified for Respondent
Joan Robley(board member) Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association Appointment subject of dispute
Annette(property manager) Century Management Referred to as Community Manager
Quinton Phillips(HOA attorney) Attorney for the Association
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardner(HOA Coordinator) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Chris Gallu(former board member) Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association Resignation created the contested vacancy; referred to as Mr. Beloo/Blue in transcript
Fran McGovern(board member) Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association Elected to Robley's former seat in Jan 2021
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
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)
Briefing Document: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowners Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes (“Petitioners”) and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (“Respondent” or “HOA”). The core of the case, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), was the Petitioners’ allegation that the HOA violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805 by failing to properly fulfill a request to inspect voting records.
The conflict centered on the HOA’s response to the request. Citing concerns for member privacy and safety, the HOA initially required the Petitioners to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), which they refused. Subsequently, the HOA provided the requested records for inspection by separating them into two stacks: redacted ballots and unredacted envelopes. The Petitioners argued this method was an unlawful barrier that made it impossible to cross-reference voters with their votes, thus failing to make the records “reasonably available” as required by statute. The HOA contended its actions were a necessary and reasonable balance of its legal duties to provide access and protect its members.
Ultimately, Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark denied the petition. The Judge ruled that the Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof. The initial decision found that the NDA request was not a statutory violation, and the method of providing the documents, while “not ideal,” was reasonable under the circumstances. This decision was upheld in a final order following a rehearing, solidifying the finding that no violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 had occurred.
I. Case Overview
• Case Name: Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes vs. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
• Case Number: 21F-H2120020-REL (Initial); 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG (Rehearing)
• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
• Core Legal Issue: Whether the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, which mandates that association records be made “reasonably available for examination” by a member, in its handling of the Petitioners’ request for voting records.
Jeremy Johnson, Esq. & Sam Cote, Esq. (later Samantha Cote, Esq.) of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
II. Factual Background and Chronology of Events
The dispute arose from requests to inspect records related to two separate votes conducted by the HOA.
Oct 4, 2017
The HOA Board adopts the “Rule Requiring Secret Ballots” for votes on special assessments.
Oct 28, 2019
Approximate date of a vote regarding an increase in HOA dues.
Dec 2019
A vote occurs on a proposed Declaration amendment to prohibit cumulative voting.
Jan 2, 2020
Petitioners make a verbal request to the HOA’s management company, Vision, to “view the votes” on the cumulative voting amendment.
Jan 6, 2020
Petitioners formalize their verbal request in a letter to Vision’s attorney, Clint Goodman.
Jan 13, 2020
The HOA Board votes 8:1 to require Petitioners to sign an NDA before viewing the ballots, citing member privacy and prior complaints of “harassing” behavior by Petitioners. Petitioners decline to sign.
Jan 16, 2020
Petitioners’ counsel sends a formal written request for all ballots and related documents for both the dues increase and the cumulative voting amendment.
Jan 30, 2020
The HOA’s counsel responds, stating the HOA must “balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners” and confirming the records will be made available for inspection.
Feb 7, 2020
Petitioners inspect records at the attorney’s office for 3.5 hours. They are provided with two separate stacks: redacted ballots and unredacted envelopes, which they are unable to match. They review only the cumulative voting records (approx. 122 pages).
Aug 5, 2020
Petitioners’ attorney sends a new demand for “unredacted ballots” and all related documents for an in-person inspection. No additional documents are provided.
Sep 22, 2020
Petitioners file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging a violation of statute.
III. The Central Dispute: Access to Voting Records
The conflict revolved around the interpretation of the “reasonably available” standard in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
The HOA’s Response and Justification
Faced with the records request, the HOA’s Board expressed concern for member privacy. This was based on a general fear of retaliation against members based on their votes and specific complaints from homeowners labeling past behaviors by the Petitioners as “harassing.” The HOA’s attorney, Clint Goodman, articulated this position in a January 30, 2020, letter:
“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.”
To manage these competing interests, the HOA took two primary actions:
1. NDA Requirement: An 8:1 Board vote mandated an NDA, which the Petitioners refused to sign.
2. Document Separation: During the February 7, 2020, inspection, the HOA provided two sets of documents: ballots with member information redacted and the corresponding unredacted envelopes. This method physically separated a voter’s identity from their specific vote, preventing direct correlation.
The HOA maintained that this process provided the totality of the requested information while protecting members.
IV. Legal Proceedings and Arguments
The dispute proceeded to an evidentiary hearing and a subsequent rehearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A. Petitioners’ Position
The Petitioners argued that the HOA committed three distinct violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by:
1. Requiring an NDA: This was an unlawful prerequisite not supported by any statutory exception.
2. Providing Redacted Records: The statute requires access to original records, not redacted versions.
3. Failing to Provide Unredacted Copies: The records were never made “reasonably available” because the format prevented a meaningful review.
During the rehearing, the Petitioners’ counsel argued that the document separation method “erected an unlawful barrier” and that they “were unable to cross reference (i.e. match) the votes with the purported voters.” They also contended that because some ballots contained names or signatures, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy, rendering the ballots not truly “secret.”
B. Respondent’s (HOA) Position
The HOA’s defense rested on the argument that it had fulfilled its statutory obligations. Key points included:
• “Reasonably Available”: The HOA met its obligation by providing all requested records for a 3.5-hour inspection.
• No Prescribed Method: The statute dictates what must be provided but not how. The HOA devised a method to comply with the law while also fulfilling its duty to protect member safety and privacy.
• Totality of Information: All information was provided, even if in two separate stacks. The HOA argued it was possible for the Petitioners to “cross reference and discern the information they sought.”
• Irrelevance of NDA: The NDA was a moot point because the inspection proceeded even after the Petitioners declined to sign it.
V. Administrative Law Judge’s Decisions and Rationale
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Petitioners’ petition in both the initial decision and the final order after rehearing, concluding that they failed to meet their burden of proof.
A. Initial Decision (May 17, 2021)
The ALJ’s initial findings were:
• The HOA’s request that Petitioners sign an NDA did not constitute a statutory violation.
• The Petitioners failed to prove the HOA did not make the documents available within the 10-day statutory timeframe. It was unclear if the records were available for inspection prior to the February 7, 2020, date chosen by the Petitioners.
• The statutory provision for purchasing copies was inapplicable, as Petitioners only requested to examine the records and never requested to pay for copies.
• The Petitioners did not provide binding authority compelling an HOA to make unredacted voting records available where privacy is a concern.
B. Rehearing and Final Order (February 2, 2022)
The Petitioners were granted a rehearing on the grounds that the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” No new evidence was introduced; the parties presented oral arguments reiterating their positions. The ALJ’s final order affirmed the original decision, elaborating on the core issue:
• Reasonableness of Methodology: The ALJ concluded that the HOA’s method of document delivery did not violate the statute. The record reflected that the “Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s).”
• Final Conclusion: The order stated that while the HOA’s method “may have not been ideal, under the totality of underlying circumstances the decision [was] reasonable and within the requirements of the applicable statute(s).”
The final order denied the petition, making the decision binding unless appealed to the Superior Court.
VI. Key Statutory Language
The entire case hinged on the interpretation of a single statute.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(A):
“Except as provided in subsection B of this section, all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member’s representative. The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review. The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records by any member… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records. An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.” (Emphasis added)
Study Guide – 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA
This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative legal case involving homeowners Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association, focusing on the dispute over access to voting records under Arizona law.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties (the Petitioners and the Respondent) in case number 21F-H2120020-REL?
2. What specific Arizona statute was the central subject of the legal dispute?
3. What two distinct sets of voting records did the Petitioners request in their formal letter dated January 16, 2020?
4. What condition did the Respondent’s Board of Directors initially try to impose on the Petitioners before they would be permitted to view the voting records?
5. Describe the format in which the Respondent provided the cumulative voting records to the Petitioners on February 7, 2020.
6. What was the Respondent’s primary justification for its actions, including the initial request for an NDA and the eventual provision of redacted documents?
7. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and which party was assigned this burden of proof?
8. According to the Administrative Law Judge, why was the statutory 10-day provision for providing copies of records deemed inapplicable in this case?
9. What was the ultimate outcome of the initial Administrative Law Judge Decision on May 17, 2021, and the Final Order after the rehearing on February 2, 2022?
10. On what grounds did the Petitioners file their request for a rehearing on June 22, 2021?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioners were Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes, who were property owners and members of the homeowners’ association. The Respondent was the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (“the Association”).
2. The central subject of the dispute was Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805. This statute governs the access of association members to the financial and other records of a homeowners’ association.
3. In their letter, the Petitioners requested all ballots and related documents from the vote on an increase in dues that occurred around October 28, 2019. They also requested the written consent forms and ballots for a proposed Declaration Amendment regarding cumulative voting from December 2019.
4. The Respondent’s Board of Directors voted 8-to-1 to require the Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before they could view the ballots. The Petitioners declined to sign the NDA.
5. On February 7, 2020, the Respondent provided the records as two separate stacks of documents. One stack contained redacted ballots, and the other contained unredacted envelopes, making it impossible for the Petitioners to discern which ballot belonged to which envelope.
6. The Respondent’s stated justification was the need to balance the Petitioners’ request against the privacy and safety of all owners. The Board expressed concern that personal information on the documents could lead to individual members being harassed or retaliated against based on their vote.
7. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the burden of proof required in this case, defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioners bore this burden to prove the Respondent had violated the statute.
8. The judge found the 10-day copy provision inapplicable because the Petitioners had requested to examine the records, not to purchase copies of them. The statute has separate provisions for examination (which is free) and purchasing copies (for which a fee can be charged).
9. In both the initial decision and the Final Order after the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners’ petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that the Respondent had committed a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
10. The Petitioners filed their DISPUTE REHEARING REQUEST on the grounds that the initial decision’s “findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a comprehensive understanding of the case. Formulate detailed essay responses that synthesize facts, legal arguments, and procedural history from the provided documents.
1. Analyze the core conflict between a homeowner’s right to access association records under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 and the association’s duty to protect member privacy. How did the Respondent attempt to balance these competing interests, and why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately find their method acceptable under the law?
2. Discuss the Petitioners’ multi-faceted argument that the Respondent violated the statute. Detail their specific claims regarding the NDA, the redaction of records, and the failure to provide unredacted copies, and explain the judge’s legal reasoning for rejecting each one.
3. Trace the complete procedural history of this case, from the initial records request in January 2020 to the Final Order in February 2022. Include key dates, specific requests, filings, hearings, and the progression from the initial decision to the rehearing and final judgment.
4. The concept of making records “reasonably available” is central to this case. Based on the arguments from both parties and the judge’s decision, construct a detailed definition of what “reasonably available” means in the context of this dispute, addressing both the timeliness and the format of the records provided.
5. Examine the legal standards and principles of statutory construction cited by the Administrative Law Judge. How were concepts like “preponderance of the evidence” and giving statutory words their “natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning” applied to the facts of this case to reach the final decision?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, and makes legal findings and decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
The Arizona statute at the heart of the case, which mandates that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association be made “reasonably available” for examination by any member.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The governing body that oversees the Homeowners Association. The Board voted to require an NDA and was concerned about member privacy.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioners had the burden of proof.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community or subdivision. The Circle G Ranches 4 HOA is governed by its CC&Rs.
Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings regarding disputes within homeowners’ associations.
Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA)
A legal contract creating a confidential relationship. The Respondent’s Board requested the Petitioners sign an NDA before viewing voting records, which they declined.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent Arizona state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. The Department referred this case to the OAH.
Petitioners
The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition. In this case, Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes, homeowners in the Circle G Ranches 4 subdivision.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning that the evidence presented is more likely to be true than not. This was the evidentiary burden placed on the Petitioners.
Redacted
Edited to remove or black out confidential information. The Respondent provided redacted ballots to the Petitioners.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association.
Secret Ballot
A voting method in which a voter’s choices are anonymous. The HOA had a “Rule Requiring Secret Ballots” for special assessments, which became relevant to the privacy arguments.
Tribunal
A general term for a body established to settle a dispute. In these documents, it refers to the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Vision Community Management, LLC (Vision)
The management company for the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association. The initial records requests were submitted to Vision.
Blog Post – 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG
5 Surprising Lessons from a Homeowner’s Fight to See HOA Records
For many homeowners, transparency from their Homeowners Association (HOA) is the bedrock of fair governance. But what happens when one member’s right to scrutinize the board collides with the board’s duty to protect the entire community from potential harm? The Arizona legal case of Swanson & Barnes vs. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association offers a fascinating and cautionary answer. A seemingly straightforward request to inspect voting records escalated into a legal battle that reveals surprising truths about the balance between a homeowner’s right to know and an association’s responsibility to keep its members safe. This article breaks down the key lessons from this dispute, offering sharp, practical insights for any homeowner seeking clarity from their board.
The Letter of the Law: “Reasonably Available” Doesn’t Mean Convenient
The central conflict hinged on the interpretation of Arizona law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805), which mandates that an HOA’s records be made “reasonably available” for examination. When homeowners Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes requested to see ballots for a dues increase and a voting amendment, their HOA complied—but not in the way they expected.
They were presented with two separate stacks of documents: one of anonymous, redacted ballots and another of unredacted envelopes bearing member names and addresses. This separation made it impossible to match a specific vote to a specific homeowner without significant effort. The homeowners argued this was an “unlawful barrier.” The HOA countered that the statute doesn’t dictate the methodology of delivery, only that the information be provided.
The judge affirmed the HOA’s interpretation, ruling that the statute governs what must be provided but grants the association discretion in the methodology of its delivery. Because the homeowners “timely received the totality of the documents,” the HOA had met its legal obligation. In the final rehearing decision, the judge reflected on this point, noting that, “While Respondent’s methodology of document delivery to Petitioners may have not been ideal, under the totality of underlying circumstances the decision [was] reasonable…” The ruling underscores a critical distinction for homeowners: the legal standard of “reasonably available” focuses on the completeness of the information, not the convenience of its format. The lesson for homeowners is to be precise in your records request and prepared for the possibility that the HOA will provide the data in a format that requires you to do the analytical work of connecting the dots.
Privacy vs. Transparency: Why Your HOA Can Protect Its Members
The HOA’s core defense for its cumbersome delivery method was its duty to balance the homeowners’ request against the privacy and safety of all its members. This was not a theoretical concern. The case file reveals a complex community dynamic, noting, “While it has never been Petitioners’ intention to harass other Members of the Association, many homeowners have complained to Vision [the management company] regarding behaviors they have labeled ‘harassing’ by Petitioners.”
This context illuminates the difficult position of the board. The HOA’s attorney, Clint Goodman, articulated this balancing act in a letter to the homeowners’ counsel:
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.
The court’s validation of this approach signals that an HOA’s right to take proactive steps to protect member privacy can outweigh an individual member’s demand for perfectly convenient access, especially when there are documented concerns about potential harassment.
An NDA Isn’t an Automatic Red Flag: Why HOAs Can Request Confidentiality
Early in the dispute, the HOA Board took a step that many homeowners would assume is illegal: citing privacy concerns, it voted 8-to-1 to require the homeowners to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the ballots. The homeowners refused.
While an NDA might seem like an unlawful impediment to a statutory right, the Administrative Law Judge found otherwise. The decision explicitly states that the HOA’s request for the homeowners to sign an NDA did not constitute a violation of the statute. Though the homeowners ultimately viewed the records without signing the agreement, the ruling is clear. It affirms that an HOA’s attempt to use an NDA as a tool to protect sensitive member information is not, in and of itself, an illegal act. This stands as a counter-intuitive but vital lesson: a request for confidentiality is a legally permissible option for a board concerned about its duty to protect member data.
Feeling Wronged Isn’t Enough: The High Bar of Proving an HOA Violation
This case is a potent reminder of the legal realities facing homeowners. The petitioners had the “burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence” that the HOA violated the statute. The court defines this standard as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Despite their persistence through an initial hearing and a rehearing, the judge concluded in both decisions that the homeowners “did not sustain their burden of proof.” A critical insider detail from the judge reveals one reason why: the case was “skewed, as Petitioners only paid to have 1 issue adjudicated” despite splicing their complaint into three subparts. This suggests that procedural missteps or a narrowly defined petition can weaken a homeowner’s case from the start.
This legal standard means that a successful petition requires more than a feeling of being wronged; it demands a well-documented case proving a specific statutory violation with clear evidence. Simply showing that an HOA’s actions were inconvenient, frustrating, or fell short of personal expectations is not enough to win in court.
Conclusion: Drawing the Line Between Scrutiny and Safety
The case of Swanson & Barnes vs. Circle G Ranches 4 illuminates the inherent tension between a homeowner’s right to scrutinize their association and an HOA’s duty to protect the entire community. While the law provides for access, this ruling demonstrates that it also grants HOAs significant and reasonable discretion in how they provide it, particularly when member safety is a documented concern. The court’s decision prioritizes protecting members from potential harassment over providing perfect, convenient transparency.
It leaves every community member with a thought-provoking question: In your own community, how do you think the balance should be struck between total transparency and protecting your neighbors from potential harassment?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Sandra Swanson(petitioner) Also listed as a witness
Robert Barnes(petitioner) Also listed as a witness
Kristin Roebuck(attorney) Horne Siaton, PLLC Appeared as Kristin Roebuck Bethell, Esq. in rehearing,
Respondent Side
Jeremy Johnson(attorney) Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
Samantha Cote(attorney) Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC Also referred to as Sam Cote, Esq.,,,
Patricia Ahler(witness)
Amanda Stewart(witness)
Jennifer Amundson(witness)
Regis Salazar(witness)
Clint Goodman(HOA attorney) Vision Community Management, LLC Attorney for Vision, the Association's property manager,,
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner listed on original decision transmission
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner listed on rehearing decision transmission,
Dan Gardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Transmission recipient c/o Commissioner,,
Bylaws Article 4 Section 2, and Article 8 Sections 2 and 3
Outcome Summary
Petitioner's petition was granted in part and denied in part. The ALJ found the Respondent Association violated its Bylaws regarding the election and terms of Board members. Respondent was ordered to comply with the relevant Bylaw sections and reimburse $375.00 of the filing fee. Petitioner's prayer to remove the current Board from office was denied.
Why this result: Petitioner’s prayer to remove the Association’s current Board from office was denied.
Key Issues & Findings
Unlawful transfer of Board positions and Association bank account
Petitioner alleged the Association violated Bylaws when the former President/Treasurer unlawfully transferred his Board positions and the bank account to new individuals without proper election procedures. The ALJ found the Association was in violation of Bylaws requiring a minimum of five directors and regular annual elections for those positions.
Orders: Respondent must henceforth comply with Bylaws Article 4 Section 2, and Article 8 Sections 2 and 3, and reimburse $375.00 of the filing fee.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Bylaws Article 4 Section 2
Bylaws Article 8 Section 2
Bylaws Article 8 Section 3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Board Election, Bylaws Violation, Director Appointment, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221006-REL Decision – 927006.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:02 (152.9 KB)
Study Guide – 22F-H2221006-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2221006-REL”, “case_title”: “Raymond M Uyleman vs. Casita Royale Townhomes Association”, “decision_date”: “2021-11-22”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”, “agency”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can a Board member unilaterally appoint their own successor and transfer HOA assets without an election?”, “short_answer”: “No. Board positions must be filled through elections or selection by remaining Board members as outlined in the Bylaws, not by the departing member alone.”, “detailed_answer”: “A Board member cannot simply ‘bestow’ their position or the HOA’s bank account to a successor upon selling their home. The Bylaws generally require directors to be elected by members at annual meetings. Even in the event of a resignation, the successor usually must be selected by the remaining members of the Board, not the outgoing individual.”, “alj_quote”: “Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the Board positions Mr. Knutson bestowed on Ms. Terry and Ms. Ogle were done in accordance with the community’s governing documents.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article 4 Sections 2 and 3; Article 8 Sections 2 and 3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Board Elections”, “Transfer of Power”, “Bylaws Compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Is it a violation if the HOA fails to maintain the minimum number of directors required by the Bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the Bylaws stipulate a minimum number of directors (e.g., five), the HOA must maintain that number through regular elections.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that allowing a single individual to hold all Board positions violated the Bylaws, which explicitly required a Board of not less than five directors. The Association is obligated to hold annual meetings to elect the requisite number of members.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association’s Bylaws clearly indicate that there must be no less than five (5) Board members, and that elections for those positions must be held at annual meetings every 1-3 years.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article 4 Section 1”, “topic_tags”: [ “Board Composition”, “Bylaws Compliance”, “Governance” ] }, { “question”: “Can I prevent someone with a criminal record from serving on the HOA Board?”, “short_answer”: “Generally, no, unless the specific governing documents require background checks or prohibit those with criminal records from serving.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ dismissed the homeowner’s complaint regarding the Board members’ criminal backgrounds (felonies) as a ‘red herring.’ Since the petitioner could not provide evidence that the governing documents required background checks for Board candidates, the argument was not grounds for a violation.”, “alj_quote”: “As are Ms. Terry’s and Ms. Ogle’s criminal backgrounds, as no evidence in the record supports Petitioner’s contention that they should have been subjected to background checks.”, “legal_basis”: “Evidentiary Standard / Governing Documents”, “topic_tags”: [ “Board Eligibility”, “Criminal Background”, “Discrimination” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove their claims by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.'”, “detailed_answer”: “The burden lies with the person bringing the complaint to show that their claims are more likely true than not. This does not require removing all doubt, but the evidence must have ‘superior evidentiary weight’ to incline an impartial mind to one side.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 4 sections 2 and 3, and Article 8 sections 2 and 3 of the Association’s Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “Arizona Law of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Procedure”, “Burden of Proof”, “Hearing Process” ] }, { “question”: “Does the ADRE have jurisdiction to hear disputes about violations of CC&Rs and Bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The Department has the authority to hear disputes between owners and associations regarding violations of community documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ confirmed that the dispute was within the Department’s jurisdiction, citing statutes that allow owners to petition for hearings concerning violations of community documents (like CC&Rs and Bylaws) or statutes regulating planned communities.”, “alj_quote”: “The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department and paid a filing fee…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “ADRE Authority”, “Dispute Resolution” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ has the discretion to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee, often proportional to the success of the petition.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, because the petitioner’s petition was ‘granted in part,’ the ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse 3/4 of the 500filingfee(375).”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse ¾ of Petitioner’s filing fee (e.g. $375.00) in certified funds.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Fees”, “Financial Reimbursement” ] }, { “question”: “Will the ALJ automatically remove Board members from office if they find a violation in how they were appointed?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The ALJ may find a violation and order future compliance without granting a request to immediately remove the current Board.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the ALJ found the Board members were not appointed in accordance with the Bylaws, the specific request to remove them from office was denied. The order focused on ensuring the HOA complies with Bylaws moving forward (presumably by holding the required elections).”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s prayer to remove the Association’s current Board from office is denied.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Remedy”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Board Removal”, “Enforcement” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 22F-H2221006-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2221006-REL”, “case_title”: “Raymond M Uyleman vs. Casita Royale Townhomes Association”, “decision_date”: “2021-11-22”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”, “agency”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can a Board member unilaterally appoint their own successor and transfer HOA assets without an election?”, “short_answer”: “No. Board positions must be filled through elections or selection by remaining Board members as outlined in the Bylaws, not by the departing member alone.”, “detailed_answer”: “A Board member cannot simply ‘bestow’ their position or the HOA’s bank account to a successor upon selling their home. The Bylaws generally require directors to be elected by members at annual meetings. Even in the event of a resignation, the successor usually must be selected by the remaining members of the Board, not the outgoing individual.”, “alj_quote”: “Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the Board positions Mr. Knutson bestowed on Ms. Terry and Ms. Ogle were done in accordance with the community’s governing documents.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article 4 Sections 2 and 3; Article 8 Sections 2 and 3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Board Elections”, “Transfer of Power”, “Bylaws Compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Is it a violation if the HOA fails to maintain the minimum number of directors required by the Bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the Bylaws stipulate a minimum number of directors (e.g., five), the HOA must maintain that number through regular elections.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that allowing a single individual to hold all Board positions violated the Bylaws, which explicitly required a Board of not less than five directors. The Association is obligated to hold annual meetings to elect the requisite number of members.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association’s Bylaws clearly indicate that there must be no less than five (5) Board members, and that elections for those positions must be held at annual meetings every 1-3 years.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article 4 Section 1”, “topic_tags”: [ “Board Composition”, “Bylaws Compliance”, “Governance” ] }, { “question”: “Can I prevent someone with a criminal record from serving on the HOA Board?”, “short_answer”: “Generally, no, unless the specific governing documents require background checks or prohibit those with criminal records from serving.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ dismissed the homeowner’s complaint regarding the Board members’ criminal backgrounds (felonies) as a ‘red herring.’ Since the petitioner could not provide evidence that the governing documents required background checks for Board candidates, the argument was not grounds for a violation.”, “alj_quote”: “As are Ms. Terry’s and Ms. Ogle’s criminal backgrounds, as no evidence in the record supports Petitioner’s contention that they should have been subjected to background checks.”, “legal_basis”: “Evidentiary Standard / Governing Documents”, “topic_tags”: [ “Board Eligibility”, “Criminal Background”, “Discrimination” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove their claims by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.'”, “detailed_answer”: “The burden lies with the person bringing the complaint to show that their claims are more likely true than not. This does not require removing all doubt, but the evidence must have ‘superior evidentiary weight’ to incline an impartial mind to one side.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 4 sections 2 and 3, and Article 8 sections 2 and 3 of the Association’s Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “Arizona Law of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Procedure”, “Burden of Proof”, “Hearing Process” ] }, { “question”: “Does the ADRE have jurisdiction to hear disputes about violations of CC&Rs and Bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The Department has the authority to hear disputes between owners and associations regarding violations of community documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ confirmed that the dispute was within the Department’s jurisdiction, citing statutes that allow owners to petition for hearings concerning violations of community documents (like CC&Rs and Bylaws) or statutes regulating planned communities.”, “alj_quote”: “The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department and paid a filing fee…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “ADRE Authority”, “Dispute Resolution” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ has the discretion to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee, often proportional to the success of the petition.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, because the petitioner’s petition was ‘granted in part,’ the ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse 3/4 of the 500filingfee(375).”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse ¾ of Petitioner’s filing fee (e.g. $375.00) in certified funds.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Fees”, “Financial Reimbursement” ] }, { “question”: “Will the ALJ automatically remove Board members from office if they find a violation in how they were appointed?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The ALJ may find a violation and order future compliance without granting a request to immediately remove the current Board.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the ALJ found the Board members were not appointed in accordance with the Bylaws, the specific request to remove them from office was denied. The order focused on ensuring the HOA complies with Bylaws moving forward (presumably by holding the required elections).”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s prayer to remove the Association’s current Board from office is denied.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Remedy”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Board Removal”, “Enforcement” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Raymond M Uyleman(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Natalie Terry(respondent representative/HOA president) Casita Royale Townhomes Association Appeared on behalf of Respondent; current HOA President
Carmel Ogle(witness/HOA secretary) Casita Royale Townhomes Association Witness for Respondent; current HOA Secretary
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Gary Knutson(former board member) Casita Royale Townhomes Association Former President/Treasurer who transferred positions leading to dispute
John Paquin(former board member) Casita Royale Townhomes Association Former Vice President (resigned 2014)
Carol Paquin(former board member) Casita Royale Townhomes Association Former Secretary (passed away 2011)
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 – 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)
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
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petition, finding that Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that the Association violated state statute or community documents. The Association's Architectural Review Committee (ARC) refusal to approve the wall modification request was deemed reasonable because Petitioners failed to provide the supplemental information requested by the ARC.
Why this result: The record did not establish violation(s) of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3) or CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2 by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners did not provide sufficient and/or requisite information necessary for the ARC to make a reasonably objective determination, nor did they attempt to cure the deficient application.
Key Issues & Findings
Arbitrary and capricious denial of architectural request to move garage-side yard block wall and install a double-wide gate.
Petitioners alleged the Association (ARC) arbitrarily and capriciously rejected their request to move their garage-side yard wall eight (8) feet forward on their property, using the same materials as the existing wall, except replacing the single-wide gate with a double-wide gate previously approved by Respondent.
This administrative law decision outlines a legal dispute between homeowners Arthur and Viktoriya Fisenko and the Bellvue Homeowners Association regarding property modifications. The petitioners alleged that the association’s Architectural Committee unfairly rejected their request to extend a boundary wall and install a double-wide gate. While the parties resolved disagreements over landscaping materials like artificial grass and pavers before the hearing, the conflict regarding the wall remained. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the Homeowners Association, finding that the residents failed to provide the specific plans and technical data required for approval. Consequently, the court determined the association did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its refusal, leading to the formal denial of the petition.
What was the core legal dispute between the Fisenkos and the HOA?
Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule against the homeowners?
How do Arizona statutes regulate the architectural approval process for HOAs?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 11:01 AM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 21F-H2121046-REL
Select all sources
912007.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
21F-H2121046-REL
1 source
This administrative law decision outlines a legal dispute between homeowners Arthur and Viktoriya Fisenko and the Bellvue Homeowners Association regarding property modifications. The petitioners alleged that the association’s Architectural Committee unfairly rejected their request to extend a boundary wall and install a double-wide gate. While the parties resolved disagreements over landscaping materials like artificial grass and pavers before the hearing, the conflict regarding the wall remained. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the Homeowners Association, finding that the residents failed to provide the specific plans and technical data required for approval. Consequently, the court determined the association did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its refusal, leading to the formal denial of the petition.
What was the core legal dispute between the Fisenkos and the HOA?
Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule against the homeowners?
How do Arizona statutes regulate the architectural approval process for HOAs?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 11:01 AM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Arthur Fisenko(petitioner) Testified on behalf of Petitioners
Viktoriya Tkach-Fisenko(petitioner)
Laurence Stevens(petitioner attorney) Stevens & Van Cott, PLLC
Respondent Side
Jamie Palfai(HOA attorney) O’Hagan Meyer LLC
Samuel Truett(witness) Bellvue Homeowners Association Witness for Bellvue Homeowners Association
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The petition was denied because Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof that the Association violated Community Bylaws 3.03, as the issue regarding a special meeting was found to be unripe. Other alleged statutory violations were inapplicable.
Why this result: Petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on the Bylaws violation because the condition precedent (requesting or holding a special meeting) had not occurred, rendering the issue unripe. The statutory violations cited were inapplicable to the Association.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc. violated Community Bylaws 3.03 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A), 33-1248(B), and 33-1261(D).
Petitioner alleged the Association violated Community Bylaws 3.03 when it drafted and posted a letter directed to Petitioner on its online platform, in response to private correspondence (a draft special meeting request) that had not yet been submitted to the Board, which Petitioner perceived as an attempt to dismantle a platform for discussion and retaliate against her.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Community Bylaws 3.03
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1261(D)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Dispute, Planned Community, Bylaws Violation, Jurisdiction, Unripe Issue, Special Meeting, Filing Fee Paid
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1261(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
Community Bylaws 3.03
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2121048-REL Decision – 906190.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:43 (117.4 KB)
Questions
Question
If I pay for a single-issue petition, can the judge rule on other grievances I mention during the hearing?
Short Answer
No. The tribunal is limited to the specific issue paid for and filed.
Detailed Answer
If a petitioner only pays the filing fee for the adjudication of one issue, the Administrative Law Judge cannot address other issues raised in the petition or during testimony.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the issues Petitioner raised in her petition or during her testimony.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Topic Tags
procedure
jurisdiction
filing fees
Question
What happens if I cite Condominium statutes in a dispute regarding a Planned Community?
Short Answer
The claims will likely be dismissed as moot or inapplicable.
Detailed Answer
Different statutes regulate Condominiums (Title 33, Chapter 9) and Planned Communities (Title 33, Chapter 16). If a homeowner alleges violations of statutes that do not govern their specific type of association, the burden of proof is not met and the concerns are rendered moot.
Alj Quote
However, because Petitioner’s amended petition specifically alleges violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A), 33-1248(B) and 33-1261(D), which are inapplicable as the Association is not subject to governance or regulation by these statutes, the concerns are rendered moot.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9 vs. Chapter 16
Topic Tags
legal standards
statutes
planned communities
Question
Does the HOA posting my private correspondence on the community website violate bylaws regarding special meetings?
Short Answer
No. Public dissemination of private letters does not violate bylaws strictly governing the calling of meetings.
Detailed Answer
While a homeowner may feel that publishing private correspondence is retaliatory or malicious, it does not constitute a violation of bylaws specifically designed to regulate the calling and holding of special meetings.
Alj Quote
Instead, Petitioner’s grievance is the Association’s public dissemination and address of her private correspondence; which is not a violation of Bylaws Section 3.03.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Section 3.03
Topic Tags
privacy
bylaws
communications
Question
Can the ADRE hear claims regarding my constitutional rights or general 'rights as a homeowner'?
Short Answer
No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to violations of community documents and specific statutes.
Detailed Answer
The Department lacks jurisdiction over broad claims such as constitutional rights, general homeowner rights, or fiduciary responsibilities unless they are framed as specific violations of the community documents or relevant statutes.
Alj Quote
Petitioner also alleged no less than four (4) additional violations in her Amended Petition that the Department has no jurisdiction over or she lacked standing to bring, such as (1) 'my rights as a homeowner,' (2) 'my constitutional rights as an American citizen'…
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
constitutional rights
adre authority
Question
Can I claim the HOA violated the rules for calling a special meeting if I never formally requested one?
Short Answer
No. The issue is considered 'unripe' if no meeting was actually requested or held.
Detailed Answer
A violation regarding the calling of a special meeting cannot be established if the homeowner never submitted the request for the meeting prior to filing the petition. The tribunal cannot rule on a hypothetical refusal.
Alj Quote
No violation of Bylaws Section 3.03 exists because the issue is unripe. Here, the record reflects that a special meeting was not held, nor had Petitioner requested one prior to the filing of her petition in this matter.
Legal Basis
ripeness doctrine
Topic Tags
meetings
procedural requirements
violations
Question
What is the standard of proof required for a homeowner to win an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that their contention is 'more probably true than not.' It requires superior evidentiary weight, not necessarily a greater number of witnesses.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
evidence
Question
Are the CC&Rs considered a legal contract between me and the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes. CC&Rs form an enforceable contract that binds the owner upon purchase.
Detailed Answer
When a party purchases a property within the development, they agree to be bound by the terms of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, creating a contractual relationship.
Alj Quote
Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, and the Bylaws outline how the Association is permitted to operate.
Legal Basis
Contract Law Principles
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
contracts
enforcement
Case
Docket No
21F-H2121048-REL
Case Title
Nancy Bender vs. Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-08-23
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If I pay for a single-issue petition, can the judge rule on other grievances I mention during the hearing?
Short Answer
No. The tribunal is limited to the specific issue paid for and filed.
Detailed Answer
If a petitioner only pays the filing fee for the adjudication of one issue, the Administrative Law Judge cannot address other issues raised in the petition or during testimony.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the issues Petitioner raised in her petition or during her testimony.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Topic Tags
procedure
jurisdiction
filing fees
Question
What happens if I cite Condominium statutes in a dispute regarding a Planned Community?
Short Answer
The claims will likely be dismissed as moot or inapplicable.
Detailed Answer
Different statutes regulate Condominiums (Title 33, Chapter 9) and Planned Communities (Title 33, Chapter 16). If a homeowner alleges violations of statutes that do not govern their specific type of association, the burden of proof is not met and the concerns are rendered moot.
Alj Quote
However, because Petitioner’s amended petition specifically alleges violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A), 33-1248(B) and 33-1261(D), which are inapplicable as the Association is not subject to governance or regulation by these statutes, the concerns are rendered moot.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9 vs. Chapter 16
Topic Tags
legal standards
statutes
planned communities
Question
Does the HOA posting my private correspondence on the community website violate bylaws regarding special meetings?
Short Answer
No. Public dissemination of private letters does not violate bylaws strictly governing the calling of meetings.
Detailed Answer
While a homeowner may feel that publishing private correspondence is retaliatory or malicious, it does not constitute a violation of bylaws specifically designed to regulate the calling and holding of special meetings.
Alj Quote
Instead, Petitioner’s grievance is the Association’s public dissemination and address of her private correspondence; which is not a violation of Bylaws Section 3.03.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Section 3.03
Topic Tags
privacy
bylaws
communications
Question
Can the ADRE hear claims regarding my constitutional rights or general 'rights as a homeowner'?
Short Answer
No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to violations of community documents and specific statutes.
Detailed Answer
The Department lacks jurisdiction over broad claims such as constitutional rights, general homeowner rights, or fiduciary responsibilities unless they are framed as specific violations of the community documents or relevant statutes.
Alj Quote
Petitioner also alleged no less than four (4) additional violations in her Amended Petition that the Department has no jurisdiction over or she lacked standing to bring, such as (1) 'my rights as a homeowner,' (2) 'my constitutional rights as an American citizen'…
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
constitutional rights
adre authority
Question
Can I claim the HOA violated the rules for calling a special meeting if I never formally requested one?
Short Answer
No. The issue is considered 'unripe' if no meeting was actually requested or held.
Detailed Answer
A violation regarding the calling of a special meeting cannot be established if the homeowner never submitted the request for the meeting prior to filing the petition. The tribunal cannot rule on a hypothetical refusal.
Alj Quote
No violation of Bylaws Section 3.03 exists because the issue is unripe. Here, the record reflects that a special meeting was not held, nor had Petitioner requested one prior to the filing of her petition in this matter.
Legal Basis
ripeness doctrine
Topic Tags
meetings
procedural requirements
violations
Question
What is the standard of proof required for a homeowner to win an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that their contention is 'more probably true than not.' It requires superior evidentiary weight, not necessarily a greater number of witnesses.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
evidence
Question
Are the CC&Rs considered a legal contract between me and the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes. CC&Rs form an enforceable contract that binds the owner upon purchase.
Detailed Answer
When a party purchases a property within the development, they agree to be bound by the terms of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, creating a contractual relationship.
Alj Quote
Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, and the Bylaws outline how the Association is permitted to operate.
Legal Basis
Contract Law Principles
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
contracts
enforcement
Case
Docket No
21F-H2121048-REL
Case Title
Nancy Bender vs. Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc.
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
Briefing Document: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and legal proceedings in the case of Clifford (Norm) and Maria Burnes (“Petitioners”) versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The dispute, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), centered on a four-issue petition filed by the Burnes on July 17, 2020. The allegations concerned construction on a neighboring property (Lot 7), specifically violations of architectural rules, failure to collect a construction deposit, violations of open meeting laws, and failure to fulfill a records request.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found in favor of the Respondent on the first three issues, concluding that the association had not violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding architectural control, had properly honored a waiver for the construction deposit, and had not violated state open meeting laws. However, the ALJ found that the Respondent did violate Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 by failing to provide copies of requested records within the statutory 10-day deadline and by providing an incomplete set of documents.
Following the initial decision, the Petitioners were granted a rehearing on the grounds of newly discovered evidence and an allegedly arbitrary decision. The rehearing affirmed the original findings, as the Petitioners conceded they possessed no new evidence that could not have been produced at the original hearing.
The final order requires the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioners for a portion of their filing fee, to comply with the records request statute moving forward, and to provide the specific missing documents from the original request.
Case Background and Procedural History
The case involves property owners Clifford (Norm) and Maria Burnes, who own Lot 6 in the Saguaro Crest subdivision in Tucson, Arizona, and their homeowners’ association. The dispute arose from the construction of a new home on the adjacent Lot 7.
• July 17, 2020: The Petitioners filed a four-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• August 11, 2020: The Respondent HOA filed its answer, denying all four claims.
• August 19, 2020: The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.
• December 2020 & March 2021: Hearings were conducted before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark.
• March 22, 2021: The initial ALJ Decision was issued, denying the Petitioners’ claims on three issues but granting their petition on the fourth issue concerning the records request.
• April 28, 2021: The Petitioners filed a Dispute Rehearing Request on the grounds of “Newly discovered material evidence” and that the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
• May 21, 2021: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing request.
• July 20, 2021: The rehearing was conducted.
• August 09, 2021: A Final Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued, affirming the original decision in its entirety.
Analysis of Allegations and Findings
The petition presented four distinct issues for adjudication. The findings for each are detailed below, based on the evidence presented in the hearings.
Issue 1: Alleged Violation of CC&Rs Section 5 (Architectural Control)
• Allegation: The Petitioners claimed the HOA allowed construction on Lot 7 to proceed without the required submission of documents to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for approval, specifically concerning modifications to the originally approved plans.
• Key Evidence:
◦ Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member of the ARC that unanimously approved the initial construction plans for Lot 7 on January 3, 2018.
◦ On October 21, 2018, and again on April 14, 2020, Mr. Burnes expressed concerns to the HOA Board that the placement of the home on Lot 7 deviated from the approved plans, negatively impacting the view and privacy of his own home on Lot 6.
◦ In a letter, Mr. Burnes stated, “Mr. Martinez did not honer the approved plan and has placed the house in the original position,” which he claimed was disharmonious and destroyed his view.
◦ The evidence showed that no additional or modified plans were ever submitted to the ARC for review after the initial January 2018 approval.
◦ The construction plans for Lot 7 were approved by Pima County on May 4, 2018.
• Conclusion:No violation found. The ALJ concluded that the “ARC cannot approve or deny proposed plans unless they are submitted for review.” Since no modified plans were ever presented, the ARC did not violate the CC&Rs. The decision also noted that the construction complied with the local government’s building authority.
• Allegation: The Petitioners claimed the HOA allowed construction on Lot 7 without collecting the required $5,000 refundable Construction Compliance Deposit.
• Key Evidence:
◦ In a meeting on May 3, 2020, the HOA Board of Directors decided to honor a Construction Compliance Deposit Waiver that had been previously granted to the Martinez family (owners of Lot 7).
◦ The rationale for such waivers was that they were granted during an economic downturn to incentivize property purchases in the subdivision.
◦ Crucially, the HOA “does not possess a corporate record that any such Construction Compliance Deposit Waiver was previously granted to the Martinez family.”
• Conclusion:No violation found. The ALJ determined that it was “clear that Lot 7 was granted a construction compliance deposit waiver.” The lack of a documented record explaining the details of the waiver was acknowledged but considered moot because it was not a specifically “noticed issue” in the petition.
• Allegation: The Petitioners claimed the HOA Board conducted an unnoticed meeting on or about May 20, 2020, to consider matters relevant to Petitioner Norm Burnes, violating state open meeting laws.
• Key Evidence:
◦ On April 18, 2020, Mr. Burnes requested an urgent meeting with the Board, which was held the following day.
◦ On May 20, 2020, the Board acted via unanimous written consent, as permitted under A.R.S § 10-3821, to restrict Mr. Burnes’s participation as an ARC member only on matters related to Lot 7.
◦ The Board’s written consent stated, “[T]he Board of Directors hereby unanimously agree that [Petitioner] be removed as an ARC Member for all ARC related matters concerning Lot 7.” This action was taken due to Mr. Burnes’s personal complaints against the Lot 7 owner, creating a conflict of interest.
• Conclusion:No violation found. The ALJ found that the Board’s failure to notice the April 19 meeting was an excused exception because the Petitioner himself had requested it as an urgent matter. The action on May 20 was not an illegal meeting but a permissible action taken via written consent without a meeting. Furthermore, the Board did not remove Mr. Burnes from the ARC entirely, but only restricted his involvement on the specific issue where he had a conflict.
Issue 4: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Request)
• Allegation: The Petitioners claimed the HOA failed to fulfill a records request in accordance with state law.
• Key Evidence:
◦ On June 4, 2020, the Petitioners submitted a comprehensive request to review “ALL of the documents of the HOA” and for copies of documents falling into 17 specific categories, demanding fulfillment within 10 days.
◦ The statutory deadline for the HOA to comply with both the review and copy requests was June 18, 2020.
◦ The HOA made the documents available for review on June 16, 2020 (within the deadline).
◦ However, the HOA provided copies of the documents only on June 24, 2020, six days past the statutory deadline.
◦ Upon receiving the copies, Mr. Burnes notified the HOA the same day that “[S]ome of the attachments for some emails are not included within in this package from this documentation.” [sic]
• Conclusion:Violation found. The ALJ determined that the HOA violated the statute, which requires copies of requested records to be provided within ten business days. The Respondent’s argument that the Petitioner’s clarification on June 16 reset the deadline was explicitly rejected. The decision also noted that the documents provided were incomplete.
The Rehearing
The Petitioners’ request for a rehearing was granted, but it did not alter the case’s outcome.
• Grounds for Rehearing: The request was based on claims of newly discovered evidence and that the original findings on issues 1-3 were arbitrary or capricious.
• Rehearing Proceedings: During the rehearing, the “Petitioners offered no ‘new’ evidence and instead conceded that they wished to present evidence which they had in their possession during the prior hearing, that they markedly had decided not to present.”
• Outcome: Because no new evidence was presented, the Petitioners were precluded from recalling witnesses or offering additional exhibits. The ALJ found no basis to alter the original findings and affirmed the March 22, 2021, decision.
Final Order
The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision, dated August 9, 2021, affirmed the original order. The Respondent, Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, is mandated to perform the following actions:
1. Denial and Granting of Petitions: The Petitioners’ petition is denied for Issues 1, 2, and 3. The petition is granted for Issue 4.
2. Reimbursement: The Respondent must reimburse the Petitioners for one-quarter of their filing fee, amounting to $500.00, to be paid in certified funds.
3. Future Compliance: The Respondent must henceforth comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding member access to association records.
4. Provision of Documents: The Respondent must 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 – 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following ten questions based on the provided source documents. Each answer should be approximately two to three sentences.
1. Identify the primary parties in this legal dispute and describe their relationship within the Saguaro Crest community.
2. What were the four specific allegations the Petitioners filed against the Respondent on July 17, 2020?
3. Explain Petitioner Norm Burnes’s initial role with the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and how the Board of Directors later altered his participation.
4. Describe the controversy surrounding the $5,000 Construction Compliance Deposit for the construction on Lot 7.
5. What was the central grievance expressed by the Petitioners regarding the placement and construction of the new home on Lot 7?
6. What action did the Board of Directors take on May 20, 2020, without a formal, noticed meeting, and under what legal authority did they act?
7. Summarize the timeline and outcome of the Petitioners’ June 4, 2020, records request to the Association.
8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule in favor of the Petitioners on Issue 4, regarding the violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805?
9. On what grounds did the Petitioners request a rehearing, and what was the judge’s finding regarding the “new evidence” they wished to present?
10. What was the final, affirmed order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Clifford (Norm) S. and Maria Burnes (the “Petitioners”) and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (the “Respondent”). The Petitioners are property owners in the Saguaro Crest subdivision, making them members of the Association, which is the governing body for the community.
2. The Petitioners alleged that the Association (1) improperly allowed construction on Lot 7 without required ARC approval in violation of CC&Rs Section 5; (2) allowed this construction without the required Construction Compliance Deposit; (3) conducted an unnoticed meeting in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804; and (4) failed to fulfill a records request in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
3. Petitioner Norm Burnes was named to serve as an Architecture Review Committee (ARC) member effective December 5, 2017, and he participated in the unanimous approval of the Lot 7 construction plans. On May 20, 2020, the Board of Directors restricted his participation as an ARC member for all matters concerning Lot 7 due to his personal complaints, which created a conflict of interest.
4. The Association’s Architectural Design Guidelines require a refundable $5,000 Construction Compliance Deposit. The Board decided to honor a discretionary waiver for Lot 7, which was said to have been granted during an economic downturn to incentivize purchases, though the Association possessed no corporate record of the waiver being granted.
5. The Petitioners’ central grievance was that the house on Lot 7 was placed too close to their backyard (on Lot 6), destroying their views, violating their privacy, and causing stress. They contended that the owner of Lot 7 did not honor the approved plan and built the house in its original, unapproved position.
6. On May 20, 2020, the Board of Directors acted without a noticed meeting to restrict Petitioner Norm Burnes’s participation on the ARC for matters related to Lot 7. They acted under the authority of ARIZ. REV. STAT § 10-3821, which permits action without a meeting if all directors provide written consent, which they obtained via individual signatures.
7. On June 4, 2020, Petitioners requested to review all Association records and receive copies of documents from 17 specific categories. The Association offered a review on June 16 (within the 10-day limit), but did not provide the requested copies until June 24, which was after the statutory deadline of June 18. Furthermore, the copies provided were incomplete, missing some email attachments.
8. The Judge ruled a violation occurred because the Association failed to provide copies of the requested records within the ten business days mandated by the statute. The Judge rejected the Association’s argument that the Petitioner’s clarification on June 16 reset the deadline, stating the Association was obligated to timely clarify and provide the documents.
9. The Petitioners requested a rehearing on the grounds of “Newly discovered material evidence” and that the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” The judge found that the Petitioners offered no new evidence, but rather wished to present evidence they had possessed but strategically chose not to use in the original hearing.
10. The final, affirmed order granted the Petitioners’ petition regarding Issue 4 and denied it for Issues 1-3. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for ¼ of their filing fee ($500.00), comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 going forward, and provide the missing email attachments from the records request within 10 business days.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-style response. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal concept of “burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence” as it was applied in this case. Explain why the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioners successfully met this burden for the records request violation but failed to do so for their allegations concerning the CC&Rs, the construction deposit, and the open meeting laws.
2. Discuss the role, authority, and limitations of a Homeowners’ Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) as depicted in the source documents. Evaluate the Saguaro Crest ARC’s actions and failures to act regarding the construction on Lot 7, and explain why the Judge determined that no violation of CC&Rs Section 5 had occurred.
3. Examine the conflict of interest involving Petitioner Norm Burnes’s dual roles as an aggrieved neighbor and a member of the ARC. Detail how this conflict emerged, the specific actions the Board of Directors took to address it, and the legal justification for those actions.
4. Trace the full timeline of events related to the Board of Directors’ meetings in April and May 2020. Analyze the Petitioners’ claim that these constituted a violation of Arizona’s open meeting laws (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804) and the Judge’s legal reasoning for concluding that no violation was established.
5. Evaluate the Petitioners’ request for a rehearing. Based on the Final Administrative Law Judge Decision, explain the legal standard for granting a rehearing based on “newly discovered material evidence” and why the Petitioners’ offer of proof failed to meet this standard.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The presiding official (Jenna Clark) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who hears evidence, makes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues orders in the case.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
A committee established by the Association’s CC&Rs, charged with implementing Architectural Guidelines to maintain aesthetic standards within the community. In this case, Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. Specific statutes, such as § 33-1804 (open meeting laws) and § 33-1805 (records access), were central to this case.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The overseeing body of the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, comprised of a President, Vice President, and Treasurer.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding (in this case, the Petitioners) to produce evidence that proves the claims they have made against the other party.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents for the Saguaro Crest community that form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, controlling aspects of property use.
Construction Compliance Deposit (CCD)
A refundable $5,000.00 deposit required by Section 4.0 of the Association’s Architectural Design Guidelines, which became a point of contention regarding Lot 7.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona where the evidentiary hearings for this case were held.
Petitioners
Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes and Maria Burnes, the property owners of Lot 6 who filed the petition against the Homeowners Association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, making it more probable that a contention is true than not true.
Respondent
The Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc., the non-profit corporation governing the subdivision and the party against whom the petition was filed.
Blog Post – 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG
He Sued His HOA and Won… Sort Of. 4 Shocking Lessons from a Neighbor vs. HOA Showdown
Introduction: The Neighbor’s Nightmare
It’s a scenario that sparks anxiety for any homeowner: you look out your window and see the first signs of a new construction project on the property next door. The questions immediately flood your mind. Will it block my view? Will I lose my privacy? Will this new structure change the character of the neighborhood I love?
When a decision by a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) feels threatening, the impulse to fight back is strong. But what does that fight actually look like, and what does it mean to “win”?
The real-life case of the Burnes family versus the Saguaro Crest HOA in Arizona provides a masterclass in the unexpected realities of neighbor-versus-HOA disputes. They took their fight to an administrative hearing, and the official legal decision reveals surprising and counter-intuitive lessons for any homeowner. Here are the four most impactful takeaways from that legal showdown—critical warnings for anyone who thinks going to battle with their HOA is a straightforward affair.
1. He Helped Approve the Plans He Grew to Hate
In a turn of profound irony, the petitioner leading the charge against the HOA, Mr. Norm Burnes, was a serving member of the very committee that set the entire conflict in motion: the HOA’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC).
On January 3, 2018, the ARC, including Mr. Burnes, unanimously approved the construction plans for the neighboring home on Lot 7. At the time, they were just plans on paper. But more than two years would pass before Mr. Burnes raised an alarm—long after the abstract lines on a page had become concrete and steel next door. On April 14, 2020, with construction underway, the reality of the new build became a personal grievance. Mr. Burnes wrote to the board, explaining that the new house was a “constant source of stress” for his family, that his privacy was “violated / gone,” and that his cherished views were “destroyed.”
In his own words, the impact was devastating:
“A large part of the value to me for my house was the view from the back patio. That’s gone now. The view from my kitchen and bedroom windows are destroyed.”
This is a powerful lesson in unintended consequences. It reveals how abstract plans can become deeply personal issues once construction begins. More importantly, it highlights the inherent conflict that can arise when a homeowner acts in an official capacity for the community while also trying to protect their own personal interests.
2. The HOA Won on Substance, But Lost on a Technicality
The Burnes family filed a formal petition with four distinct allegations against their HOA. In a striking outcome, the judge sided with the HOA on the three major, substantive issues at the heart of the dispute.
• Construction Plans: The judge found the HOA was not at fault for the final build. No modified plans were ever submitted for the ARC to review after the initial approval, and the construction itself complied with the local government’s authority.
• $5,000 Deposit: The judge concluded that the Lot 7 owner had been granted a waiver for the required construction deposit, even though the HOA lacked a formal record of it—a stroke of luck for the board that highlights the critical importance of meticulous record-keeping.
• Improper Meeting: The judge determined that the Board had not improperly removed Mr. Burnes from the ARC; they had only “removed [him] as an ARC Member for all ARC related matters concerning Lot 7,” a targeted recusal due to his direct conflict of interest, not a full removal from the committee. Furthermore, the meeting Mr. Burnes complained about was deemed a valid emergency meeting held at his own request.
Despite winning on these core points, the HOA was found in violation of the law on the fourth issue: a simple procedural error. The HOA had violated Arizona statute ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide copies of requested records within the legally mandated 10-business day deadline. While the HOA allowed the Burnes family to review the documents on time (on June 16, within the June 18 deadline), they failed to provide the physical copies until June 24, four business days past the legal deadline.
This demonstrates a critical lesson for any organization. An entity can win the arguments on major issues but still be found in violation of the law for a minor administrative slip-up. Procedural diligence isn’t just good practice; it’s a legal requirement that can define the outcome of a case.
3. A Legal “Victory” Doesn’t Always Solve the Real Problem
So, what did the Burnes family “win” after their long and stressful legal battle? The judge’s final order was clear and specific. They received:
• A reimbursement of 1/4 of their filing fee ($500).
• An order for the HOA to provide the missing email attachments from their records request.
• An order for the HOA to comply with the records-request law in the future.
This outcome stands in stark contrast to Mr. Burnes’s original, deeply personal complaint. His fight began because the new house was a “constant source of stress” and had destroyed his backyard view. The legal ruling, however, did nothing to halt or alter the construction on Lot 7. The neighbor’s house, the very source of the entire conflict, remained exactly where it was.
This is a sobering look at the difference between a legal remedy and a practical solution. Winning in an administrative hearing is defined strictly by the letter of the law. The legal system addresses violations of statutes and governing documents, which may not align with—or offer any solution for—the personal grievance that ignited the conflict in the first place.
4. You Don’t Get a Do-Over for a Bad Strategy
Unhappy with the initial decision, the petitioners filed for a rehearing. The official grounds they cited were serious: they claimed to have “Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.”
But when the rehearing began, the reality was quite different. As stated in the final decision, the petitioners conceded that they possessed no new evidence at all. Instead, they admitted they had strategically chosen not to present certain evidence during the first hearing and were now asking for a second chance to do so.
The judge’s response was swift and decisive. The petitioners were “precluded from recalling… witnesses, or offering additional exhibits,” and the original decision was affirmed.
This serves as a stark reminder that legal proceedings are formal and final. A trial or administrative hearing is not a practice run. The petitioners’ admission that they deliberately withheld evidence was a fatal strategic error, turning their request for a second chance into a confirmation of their first failure.
Conclusion: The Letter vs. The Spirit of the Law
The showdown between the Burnes family and the Saguaro Crest HOA is a compelling story of unintended consequences, procedural missteps, and strategic blunders. But taken together, the lessons reveal a single, powerful truth: the legal system is designed to correct violations of law, not to soothe personal grievances. The family won on a paperwork technicality but lost on every issue that mattered to their quality of life. The HOA won on the substance of the dispute but was penalized for failing to follow administrative rules.
The case leaves us with a critical question to consider. When you find yourself in a dispute, is it more important to be legally ‘right,’ or to find a practical resolution? As the Burnes family discovered, the two are not always the same thing.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford Burnes(petitioner/ARC member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Also known as Norm S. Burnes
Maria Burnes(petitioner) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Cynthia F. Burnes(petitioner attorney) Counsel for Petitioners
Jacob A. Kubert(petitioner attorney) Counsel for Petitioners
Debora Brown(witness) Witness for Petitioners
Respondent Side
John Crotty(respondent attorney) Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood Counsel for Respondent
Kelsea Dressen(respondent attorney) Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood Counsel for Respondent (also listed as Kelsey P. Dressen)
Esmerelda Martinez(board member/witness) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Board President
Dave Madill(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Board Vice President
Julie Stevens(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Board Treasurer
Raul Martinez(lot owner) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Owner of Lot 7
Ramona Martinez(lot owner) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Owner of Lot 7
Joseph Martinez(ARC member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Jamie Argueta(ARC member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Jesus Carranza(substitute ARC member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardener(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order transmission (listed as DGardner)
c. serrano(administrative staff) Transmitted decision/order
