Jay A. Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners

Posted on March 20, 2019 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918001-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-03-25
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	total
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$250.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jay A. Janicek	Counsel	Jake Kubert
Respondent	Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association	Counsel	Evan Thompson

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B); Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4; Association Bylaws Article VIII, Section 1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the petition, concluding that the HOA Board’s unilateral amendment of the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, was an invalid action taken without the required vote of the Association members and without statutory notice, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and the Association’s governing documents. The amendment was invalidated, and the Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's filing fee and pay a $250.00 civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.

The Board of Directors attempted a third amendment to the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, specifically changing the requirements for the Association's financial review (audit, review, or compilation). The ALJ concluded that this action was invalid because it was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the amendment, violating both the Bylaws and statutory notice requirements.

Orders: The petition was granted. The third amendment to the Association Bylaws taken on November 20, 2017, was invalidated. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 and pay a civil penalty of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $250.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)
Association Bylaws Article III

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Governance, Bylaws Amendment, Open Meeting Law, ARS 33-1804, Membership Vote, Filing Fee Refund

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Powell v. Washburn, 125 P.3d 373 (Ariz. 2006)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918001-REL-RHG Decision – 696205.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:25:44 (169.8 KB)

19F-H1918001-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918001-REL/661797.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:25:47 (143.2 KB)

Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG

Briefing Document: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from the administrative hearings regarding a dispute between Jay A. Janicek (“Petitioner”) and the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (“Respondent” or “the Association”). The central issue was whether the Association’s Board of Directors acted outside its authority by unilaterally amending the Association’s Bylaws during a Board meeting on November 20, 2017, without a vote from the general membership.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Board’s action violated both the Association’s governing documents and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1804). The ruling emphasized that the term “members” in the Bylaws refers specifically to the body of property owners, not the Board of Directors. Consequently, the third amendment to the Bylaws was invalidated, and the Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty and refund the Petitioner’s filing fees. A rehearing in March 2019 reconfirmed these findings, underscoring the necessity of transparency and membership participation in homeowners’ association governance.

Case Overview and Procedural History

Key Fact

Detail

Case Number

19F-H1918001-REL; 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG (Rehearing)

Petitioner

Jay A. Janicek (Sycamore Vista property owner)

Respondent

Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association

Initial Hearing Date

September 05, 2018

Initial Decision Date

September 24, 2018

Rehearing Date

March 05, 2019

Final Order Date

March 25, 2019

The Department of Real Estate referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) following a petition filed by Mr. Janicek on July 25, 2018. The Respondent initially declined to present witnesses or exhibits, choosing to rely on a dispute over textual interpretation. Following an initial ruling in favor of the Petitioner, the Respondent requested a rehearing, which was granted but ultimately resulted in the same conclusion.

The Core Dispute: Bylaw Amendment Authority

The conflict arose from a Board meeting held on November 20, 2017. During this meeting, the Board voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws.

The Specific Amendment

The Board modified Article VIII, Section 6(d). The original text required the Board to:

• “…cause an annual audit of the Association books to be made by a public accountant at the completion of each fiscal year.”

The Board replaced this with language allowing for:

• “…an annual audit, review, or compilation of the Associations financial records to be made by a public accountant within 180 days after the end of the HOA’s fiscal year.”

Conflicting Interpretations of “Members”

The primary legal dispute centered on the interpretation of Bylaws Article XIII, Section 1, which states:

“These Bylaws may be amended at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Association by a vote of a majority of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy.” (Emphasis added).

• Petitioner’s Position: “Members” refers to the general membership of the Association (property owners), as defined in Article II, Section 7 and the Declaration. Petitioner argued that the use of “proxy” in this section further proves it refers to members, as Board Directors are not permitted to vote by proxy.

• Respondent’s Position: “Members” refers to the members of the Board of Directors. The Association argued that because the word was not capitalized in Article XIII, it authorized the Board to amend Bylaws at their own meetings, provided a quorum of Directors was present.

Legal Analysis and Evidence

Governing Statutes and Case Law

The ALJ’s decision was informed by Arizona law and established legal principles:

• A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law): This statute requires that notice of any meeting where a bylaw amendment is proposed must be sent to all members 10 to 50 days in advance. It also mandates that meetings of the board and association be open to all members.

• A.R.S. § 33-1804(F): The legislative intent of the Open Meeting Law is to promote transparency. Petitioner cited a message from Governor Ducey stating that such laws “provide residents the opportunity to resolve issues as a community rather than seek government intervention.”

• Powell v. Washburn (2006): The Arizona Supreme Court held that restrictive covenants (including Bylaws) must be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties based on the document in its entirety.

Findings of Fact regarding Authority

The ALJ identified several factors that invalidated the Board’s unilateral action:

1. Differentiated Terminology: The Bylaws consistently use “Directors” when referring to the Board and “Members” when referring to the homeowners. Article VI, Section 3 explicitly uses “Directors” to define a quorum for the Board, while Article XIII uses “members.”

2. Absence of Express Power: Article VII, which outlines the “Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors,” does not expressly grant the Board the authority to amend Bylaws. This power is reserved for the membership.

3. Lack of Notice: No Association members were present at the November 20, 2017, meeting, and no notice was provided to the general membership regarding a proposed amendment to the Bylaws as required by A.R.S. § 33-1804(B).

Conclusions of Law

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner sustained the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The final legal determinations were:

• Avoidance of Absurdity: Bylaws must be construed to avoid an absurdity. The ALJ stated, “The voices of few cannot speak for all, unless all have bestowed those few with the power and authority to speak on their behalf.”

• Violation of Statute: The Board’s action violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) due to the lack of transparency and failure to provide notice of a bylaw amendment.

• Violation of Governing Documents: The Board acted outside the authority granted to it by the Bylaws, specifically Article III and Article XIII.

Final Order and Penalties

The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:

1. Invalidation: The third amendment to the Association Bylaws, enacted on November 20, 2017, is null and void.

2. Restitution of Fees: The Respondent must pay the Petitioner the cost of his filing fee.

3. Civil Penalty: The Respondent was ordered to pay a sum of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund as a penalty for the violations.

4. Binding Nature: Following the rehearing, the order became binding, with the only further recourse being judicial review in the Superior Court within 35 days.

Study Guide – 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG

Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the legal proceedings between Jay A. Janicek and the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association. It examines the interpretation of governing documents, the application of Arizona Revised Statutes regarding homeowners’ associations, and the limits of a Board of Directors’ authority to amend bylaws.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what is their relationship?

2. What specific action taken by the Board of Directors on November 20, 2017, triggered this dispute?

3. How did the Petitioner define the term “member” according to the Association’s governing documents?

4. What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the interpretation of Article XIII, Section 1 of the Bylaws?

5. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), what must a notice of a membership meeting include if a bylaw amendment is proposed?

6. Why did the Petitioner argue that the use of the word “proxy” in the Bylaws supported his interpretation that only general members could amend the Bylaws?

7. What is the legal significance of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in the context of the relationship between an HOA and a property owner?

8. What was the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used by the Administrative Law Judge to reach a decision?

9. What specific penalties and orders were issued against the Respondent in the final decision?

10. What reason did the Administrative Law Judge give for concluding that the Board’s interpretation of the Bylaws was incorrect?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what is their relationship? The Petitioner is Jay A. Janicek, a property owner and member of the Sycamore Vista subdivision. The Respondent is the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association, the entity responsible for governing the residential development where the Petitioner’s property is located.

2. What specific action taken by the Board of Directors on November 20, 2017, triggered this dispute? The Board voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws during a regular meeting. This amendment replaced a requirement for a full annual audit by a public accountant with a choice of an audit, review, or compilation to be completed within 180 days of the fiscal year-end.

3. How did the Petitioner define the term “member” according to the Association’s governing documents? The Petitioner asserted that “Member” refers to those persons entitled to membership as defined in the Declaration, specifically every lot owner. He argued that this definition distinguishes general property owners from the “Directors” who serve on the Board.

4. What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the interpretation of Article XIII, Section 1 of the Bylaws? The Respondent argued that the term “members” in Article XIII referred specifically to members of the Board of Directors rather than the general membership. They contended that since the word was not capitalized, it authorized the Board to amend Bylaws at any meeting where a quorum of directors was present.

5. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), what must a notice of a membership meeting include if a bylaw amendment is proposed? The statute requires that notice be sent to every owner 10 to 50 days in advance of the meeting, stating the date, time, and place. Crucially, the notice must also state the purpose of the meeting, including the general nature of any proposed amendments to the declaration or bylaws.

6. Why did the Petitioner argue that the use of the word “proxy” in the Bylaws supported his interpretation that only general members could amend the Bylaws? The Petitioner noted that the Bylaws allow for voting by “proxy,” a mechanism defined in Article III as applying to votes of the general membership. He argued that because Board members are legally prohibited from voting by proxy, the inclusion of the term in the amendment section proved the section applied to general members.

7. What is the legal significance of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in the context of the relationship between an HOA and a property owner? The CC&Rs constitute an enforceable contract between the Association and each individual property owner. By purchasing a residential unit within the development, the buyer agrees to be bound by the terms, powers, and restrictions outlined in these recorded documents.

8. What was the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used by the Administrative Law Judge to reach a decision? This standard requires the Petitioner to prove that his contention is “more probably true than not.” It is defined as the greater weight of the evidence or evidence that possesses the most convincing force, rather than the absolute removal of all doubt.

9. What specific penalties and orders were issued against the Respondent in the final decision? The Administrative Law Judge invalidated the third amendment to the Bylaws and ordered the Respondent to pay a $250.00 civil penalty to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner for his initial filing fee.

10. What reason did the Administrative Law Judge give for concluding that the Board’s interpretation of the Bylaws was incorrect? The Judge ruled that bylaws must be construed to avoid “absurdity” and that the “voices of few cannot speak for all” without express authority. The governing documents clearly differentiated between “members” (owners) and “directors,” and the Board lacked the power to act where authority was reserved for the membership.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the provided source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Distinction Between “Members” and “Directors”: Analyze how the specific terminology used in the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Bylaws (Articles II, III, VI, and XIII) influenced the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. How does the consistent use of these terms throughout the document prevent the Board from claiming the powers of the general membership?

2. Statutory Compliance and Transparency: Discuss the importance of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (the Open Meeting Law) as it relates to this case. Use Governor Ducey’s message regarding H.B. 2411 to explain the legislative intent behind ensuring transparency and participation in HOA governance.

3. The Role of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH): Explain the procedural path of this dispute, from the initial petition to the Department of Real Estate to the final rehearing. What is the scope of the OAH’s authority in interpreting contracts between homeowners and associations?

4. Contractual Interpretation and the “Powell v. Washburn” Precedent: Discuss the significance of the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding in Powell v. Washburn regarding restrictive covenants. How does the requirement to give effect to the “intention of the parties” apply to the interpretation of HOA Bylaws?

5. Limits of Board Authority: Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, evaluate the boundaries of a Board of Directors’ power. Under what circumstances can a Board exercise “all powers, duties, and authority” of the Association, and what serves as the definitive limit to that power?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding officer who hears evidence and issues decisions in contested cases involving state agencies.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The Arizona statute governing open meetings, notice requirements, and transparency for planned community associations.

Bylaws

The internal rules and regulations that govern the administration and management of an association.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the recorded legal documents that establish the rules for a planned community and create a contract between owners and the HOA.

Civil Penalty

A financial fine imposed by a government agency or tribunal as a punishment for a violation of statutes or regulations.

Declarant

The original developer or entity that established the residential subdivision and its governing documents.

Declaration

The primary governing document that defines membership and property rights within a homeowners’ association.

Member

Defined in the source context as a property owner within the Sycamore Vista subdivision who is entitled to membership in the Association.

The Office of Administrative Hearings; an independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for contested cases.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, Jay A. Janicek).

Preponderance of the Evidence

The legal standard of proof required in this case, meaning a contention is “more probably true than not.”

A written authorization allowing one person to act or vote on behalf of another, specifically used by Association members.

Quorum

The minimum number of members or directors required to be present at a meeting to legally transact business.

Respondent

The party against whom a legal action or petition is filed (in this case, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA).

Restrictive Covenants

Provisions in a deed or other recorded document that limit the use of property and are interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties.

Blog Post – 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “19F-H1918001-REL”, “case_title”: “Jay A. Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2019-03-25”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “individuals”: [ { “name”: “Jay A. Janicek”, “role”: “petitioner”, “side”: “petitioner”, “affiliation”: null, “notes”: “Appeared on his own behalf at initial hearing; Observed rehearing” }, { “name”: “Jake Kubert”, “role”: “petitioner attorney”, “side”: “petitioner”, “affiliation”: “Dessaules Law Group”, “notes”: “Appeared at rehearing” }, { “name”: “Evan Thompson”, “role”: “HOA attorney”, “side”: “respondent”, “affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”, “notes”: null }, { “name”: “Maxwell T. Riddiough”, “role”: “HOA attorney”, “side”: “respondent”, “affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”, “notes”: null }, { “name”: “Andrew F. Vizcarra”, “role”: “property manager”, “side”: “respondent”, “affiliation”: “Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management”, “notes”: “Recipient of correspondence for Respondent HOA” }, { “name”: “Jenna Clark”, “role”: “ALJ”, “side”: “neutral”, “affiliation”: null, “notes”: null }, { “name”: “Judy Lowe”, “role”: “Commissioner”, “side”: “neutral”, “affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”, “notes”: null }, { “name”: “Dennis Legere”, “role”: “observer”, “side”: “unknown”, “affiliation”: null, “notes”: “Present at initial hearing” }, { “name”: “Becky Nutt”, “role”: “observer”, “side”: “unknown”, “affiliation”: null, “notes”: “Present at initial hearing” }, { “name”: “Caleb Rhodes”, “role”: “observer”, “side”: “unknown”, “affiliation”: null, “notes”: “Present at initial hearing” } ] }

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “19F-H1918001-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Jay A. Janicek, Petitioner, vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (FKA New Tucson Unit No. 8 Homeowners Association, Inc.), Respondent.”,
“decision_date”: “March 25, 2019”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Jay A. Janicek”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Appeared on his own behalf at initial hearing; observed rehearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Jenna Clark”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Evan Thompson”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Dennis Legere”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Becky Nutt”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Caleb Rhodes”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Jake Kubert”,
“role”: “petitioner attorney”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Dessaules Law Group”,
“notes”: “Appeared on behalf of Petitioner at rehearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Andrew F. Vizcarra”,
“role”: “property manager”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management”,
“notes”: “Listed as representative for service of process for Respondent HOA.”
},
{
“name”: “Maxwell T. Riddiough”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”,
“notes”: null
}
]
}

{ “case”: { “agency”: “ADRE”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “docket_no”: “19F-H1918001-REL”, “case_title”: “Jay A. Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2019-03-25”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark” }, “parties”: [ { “party_id”: “P1”, “role”: “petitioner”, “name”: “Jay A. Janicek”, “party_type”: “homeowner”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “Jake Kubert”, “attorney_firm”: “Dessaules Law Group”, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null }, { “party_id”: “R1”, “role”: “respondent”, “name”: “Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association”, “party_type”: “HOA”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “Evan Thompson”, “attorney_firm”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null } ], “issues”: [ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “type”: “statute_and_bylaws”, “citation”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B); Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4; Association Bylaws Article VIII, Section 1”, “caption”: “Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.”, “violation(s)”: “Violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Association Bylaws Article III by amending the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, without proper notice and a vote of the Association membership.”, “summary”: “The Board of Directors attempted a third amendment to the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, specifically changing the requirements for the Association’s financial review (audit, review, or compilation)12. The ALJ concluded that this action was invalid because it was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the amendment, violating both the Bylaws and statutory notice requirements34.”, “outcome”: “petitioner_win”, “filing_fee_paid”: 500.0, “filing_fee_refunded”: true, “civil_penalty_amount”: 250.0, “orders_summary”: “The petition was granted. The third amendment to the Association Bylaws taken on November 20, 2017, was invalidated. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 and pay a civil penalty of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund56.”, “why_the_loss”: null, “cited”: [ “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)”, “Association Bylaws Article III” ] } ], “money_summary”: { “issues_count”: 1, “total_filing_fees_paid”: 500.0, “total_filing_fees_refunded”: 500.0, “total_civil_penalties”: 250.0 }, “outcomes”: { “petitioner_is_hoa”: false, “petitioner_win”: “total”, “summarize_judgement”: “The ALJ granted the petition, concluding that the HOA Board’s unilateral amendment of the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, was an invalid action taken without the required vote of the Association members and without statutory notice, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and the Association’s governing documents47. The amendment was invalidated, and the Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner’s filing fee and pay a $250.00 civil penalty56.”, “why_the_loss”: null }, “analytics”: { “cited”: [ “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)”, “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05”, “Powell v. Washburn, 125 P.3d 373 (Ariz. 2006)”, “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)” ], “tags”: [ “HOA Governance”, “Bylaws Amendment”, “Open Meeting Law”, “ARS 33-1804”, “Membership Vote”, “Filing Fee Refund” ] } }

{ “rehearing”:{ “is_rehearing”:true, “base_case_id”:”19F-H1918001-REL”, “original_decision_status”:”affirmed”, “original_decision_summary”:”The original ALJ decision, issued on September 25, 2018, granted the Petitioner’s request, finding that the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Association Bylaws by unilaterally amending the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, without first calling for a vote by the Association members1,2,3. The order invalidated the amendment, required the Respondent to refund the Petitioner’s filing fee, and imposed a civil penalty of $250.004,5.”, “rehearing_decision_summary”:”The Department granted Respondent’s request for a rehearing, which was held on March 5, 20196,7. The ALJ affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Board’s action on November 20, 2017, violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Article III of the Association Bylaws because the action was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the proposed amendment8. The rehearing order re-granted the petition, invalidated the third amendment, and reaffirmed the orders for the filing fee refund and the $250.00 civil penalty8,9.”, “issues_challenged”:[ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “summary”: “Whether the HOA Board violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1, and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) in an action taken to amend the Bylaws on November 20, 201710.”, “outcome”: “affirmed_petitioner_win” } ] } }

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “19F-H1918001-REL”,
“case_title”: “Jay A. Janicek, Petitioner, vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (FKA New Tucson Unit No. 8 Homeowners Association, Inc.), Respondent.”,
“decision_date”: “2019-03-25”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Jay A. Janicek”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Appeared on own behalf at initial hearing; Observed at rehearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Jenna Clark”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Evan Thompson”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Jake Kubert”,
“role”: “petitioner attorney”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Dessaules Law Group”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Maxwell T. Riddiough”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Andrew F. Vizcarra”,
“role”: “property manager”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management”,
“notes”: “Listed as contact for Respondent HOA”
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Dennis Legere”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Becky Nutt”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Caleb Rhodes”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
}
]
}

The matter, Jay A. Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG), involves a dispute over the validity of a Bylaw amendment passed by the homeowners’ association (HOA) Board of Directors12. The inclusion of ‘RHG’ in the case number confirms that the final decision resulted from a rehearing requested by the Respondent Association23.

Procedural History: The initial evidentiary hearing was held on September 5, 201824. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on September 24, 2018, granting the Petitioner’s request35. The Respondent requested and was granted a rehearing by the Department of Real Estate on November 7, 201836. The rehearing was held on March 5, 2019, where no new evidence was introduced, and the parties presented legal briefs and closing arguments2….

Key Facts and Core Issue: The dispute centered on the validity of the Board’s third amendment to the Association Bylaws, approved on November 20, 2017910. This amendment changed the financial oversight requirement from an annual audit by a public accountant to an annual audit, review, or compilation of financial records1112.

The main legal issue was whether the Board had the authority to unilaterally amend the Bylaws without a vote of the general membership and whether the Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), concerning notice requirements for member meetings3…. The determination hinged on the interpretation of Bylaws Article XIII, Section 1, which permits amendments “by a vote of a majority of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy”1617.

Key Arguments: Petitioner Jay Janicek argued that the term “members” in Article XIII referred exclusively to the Association owners, as supported by the Bylaws’ definition of “Member” and the use of the term “proxy” (which applies to owners, not directors)14…. Petitioner asserted that since the Board acted without calling for a member vote and without statutory notice of the proposed amendment, the action was invalid and violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)14….

The Association argued that, based on reading the Bylaws in their entirety, the term “members” in Article XIII referred to the Board of Directors, particularly since the amendment was to occur at a meeting of the Board of Directors24….

Rehearing Decision and Outcome: In both the original decision and the rehearing decision, the ALJ reached the same conclusion, finding that the Petitioner sustained the burden of proof2728. The ALJ determined that the Association’s governing documents clearly differentiate between “members” (the body of owners) and “directors” (the elected Board)28…. The Board lacked the power to amend the Bylaws when that authority was delegated to the membership2930.

The ALJ concluded that the Board’s action on November 20, 2017, violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Article III of the Association Bylaws because the amendment was adopted in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor3132.

The final outcome of the rehearing was that the Petitioner’s petition was granted32. The Board’s third amendment to the Bylaws was invalidated532. Additionally, the Respondent Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee and a civil penalty of $250.00 for the violation533.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jay A. Janicek (petitioner)
Appeared on own behalf at initial hearing; Observed at rehearing.
Jake Kubert (petitioner attorney)
Dessaules Law Group

Respondent Side

Evan Thompson (HOA attorney)
Thompson Krone, P.L.C.
Maxwell T. Riddiough (HOA attorney)
Thompson Krone, P.L.C.
Andrew F. Vizcarra (property manager)
Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management
Listed as contact for Respondent HOA

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

Dennis Legere (observer)
Becky Nutt (observer)
Caleb Rhodes (observer)

Jay A. Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista NO. 8 Homeowners Association

Posted on September 25, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918001-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-03-25
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	full
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$250.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jay A. Janicek	Counsel	Jake Kubert, Esq.
Respondent	Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association	Counsel	Evan Thompson, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the petition, finding that the HOA Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and the Association Bylaws by amending the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, without a quorum of Association members voting in favor and without proper notice. The amendment was invalidated, and the HOA was fined $250.00 and ordered to refund the Petitioner's filing fee.

Why this result: The Board lacked the authority to amend the Bylaws without the vote of the Association membership, and failed to provide required notice for the proposed amendment, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and the Association Bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.

The Respondent HOA Board amended Association Bylaws on November 20, 2017, without proper notice to the members and without a vote by a majority of Association members, which violated the statutory notice requirement and the Bylaws. The Board action was consequently invalidated.

Orders: The Petitioner's petition was granted. The Respondent's third amendment to the Association Bylaws, dated November 20, 2017, was invalidated. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fee and pay a civil penalty of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $250.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 125 P.3d 373, 374 (Ariz. 2006)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Mail Boxes v. Indus. Comm’n of Ariz., 181 Ariz. 119, 122, 888 P.2d 777, 780 (1995)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Open Meeting Law, Bylaw Amendment, Notice Violation, Membership Vote, HOA Governance

Additional Citations:

Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 125 P.3d 373, 374 (Ariz. 2006)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Mail Boxes v. Indus. Comm’n of Ariz., 181 Ariz. 119, 122, 888 P.2d 777, 780 (1995)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918001-REL Decision – 661797.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:04:41 (143.2 KB)

19F-H1918001-REL Decision – 696205.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:14 (169.8 KB)

Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918001-REL

Briefing Document: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Jay A. Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG). The central issue was the validity of a bylaw amendment enacted by the Association’s Board of Directors on November 20, 2017, without a vote of the general homeowner membership.

The ALJ ruled decisively in favor of the Petitioner, Jay Janicek, finding that the Board’s action was invalid. The decision hinged on a critical interpretation of the Association’s governing documents, concluding that the term “members” in the context of bylaw amendments unambiguously refers to the homeowner membership, not the Board of Directors. The ruling established that the Board does not have the authority to amend bylaws where that power is reserved for the membership.

Furthermore, the ALJ concluded that the Board’s action violated Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) by failing to provide the required notice to homeowners for a meeting concerning a proposed bylaw amendment. As a result, the amendment was invalidated, and the Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee and a civil penalty of $250.

Case Background and Procedural History

Parties and Jurisdiction

• Petitioner: Jay A. Janicek, a property owner within the Sycamore Vista subdivision and a member of the Respondent Association.

• Respondent: Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (“the Association”), a homeowners’ association in Tucson, Arizona, governed by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and overseen by a Board of Directors.

• Adjudicating Body: The Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an independent state agency, which received the case on referral from the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

The Central Dispute

The core of the dispute was an action taken by the Association’s Board of Directors during a regular meeting on November 20, 2017. At this meeting, the Board, with three of five directors present, voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws. The amendment altered Article VIII Section 6(d), changing the requirement for an annual financial check from:

“cause an annual audit of the Association books to be made by a public accountant at the completion of each fiscal year”

“cause an annual audit, review, or compilation of the Associations financial records to be made by a public accountant within 180 days after the end of the HOA’s fiscal year.”

The Petitioner contended this action was invalid because it was undertaken without a vote of the general Association membership, as he believed the governing documents required.

Timeline of Adjudication

1. July 25, 2018: Petitioner files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

2. September 05, 2018: An initial evidentiary hearing is held before the OAH.

3. September 25, 2018: The OAH issues an ALJ Decision in the Petitioner’s favor.

4. October 23, 2018: The Respondent submits a Request for Rehearing.

5. November 07, 2018: The Department grants the rehearing request and refers the matter back to the OAH.

6. March 05, 2019: A rehearing is conducted, based on legal briefs and closing arguments without new evidence.

7. March 25, 2019: The final ALJ Decision is issued, reaffirming the initial ruling in favor of the Petitioner.

Analysis of Governing Documents and Statutes

The case decision rested on the interpretation of specific articles within the Association’s Bylaws and relevant Arizona state statutes.

Key Bylaw Provisions

Article

Section

Description

Article IV

Section 1

States that the “affairs of this Association shall be managed by a Board of not less than three (3) nor more than five (5) directors.”

Article VI

Section 1

Establishes that regular meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held monthly without notice.

Article VI

Section 2

Governs special meetings of the Board, requiring not less than three days’ notice to each Director.

Article VI

Section 3

Defines a quorum for Board meetings as “a majority of the number of Directors.”

Article VII

Section 1

Outlines the Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors. This section does not explicitly grant the Board the power to amend the Bylaws.

Article XIII

Section 1

(The central provision in the dispute) States: “These Bylaws may be amended at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Association by a vote of a majority of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy.”

Relevant Arizona Statutes

• A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law): This statute was central to the Petitioner’s argument and the ALJ’s final decision.

◦ Subsection (A): Requires that all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors be open to all members of the association.

◦ Subsection (B): Mandates specific notice requirements for any meeting of the members, stating that notice “shall also state the purpose for which the meeting is called, including the general nature of any proposed amendment to the declaration or bylaws.”

◦ Subsection (F): The ALJ noted that this section codifies the legislative intent of the statute, which, as cited from a Governor’s message, is to “promote transparency and participation for all residents in homeowners’ association governance.”

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Position (Jay Janicek)

The Petitioner’s case was built on a textual interpretation of the Bylaws and adherence to state law.

• Interpretation of “Members”: The Petitioner argued that the word “members” in Article XIII, Section 1 refers to the general homeowner membership of the Association, not the members of the Board of Directors.

• Textual Differentiation: The drafters of the Bylaws intentionally used the words “members” and “directors” distinctly throughout the document. Where the intent was to refer to the Board, the word “Director” was specifically used (e.g., Article VI).

• Proxy Voting: The inclusion of the term “proxy” in Article XIII supports the argument that the vote is for the general membership, as Board members are not permitted to vote by proxy.

• Lack of Explicit Power: Article VII, which details the Board’s powers, does not grant the authority to amend the Bylaws, implying such power is reserved for the membership.

• Statutory Violation: The Board’s action violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 because the required notice for a meeting concerning a bylaw amendment was not provided to the general membership.

• Legal Precedent: The Petitioner cited Powell v. Washburn, an Arizona Supreme Court case holding that restrictive covenants (which he argued include the Bylaws) should be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties as determined from the entire document.

Respondent’s Position (Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA)

The Association argued that its actions were a valid exercise of the Board’s authority.

• Broad Authority: The Respondent cited Article IV, which states the “affairs of this Association shall be managed by a Board,” to assert its general authority.

• Valid Board Meeting: The amendment occurred at a regular monthly Board meeting as allowed by Article VI. The meeting had three directors present, which constituted a valid quorum for transacting business.

• Interpretation of Article XIII: The Respondent argued that the phrase “at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors” in Article XIII indicates that the Board is the body empowered to make the amendment, and the word “members” in that context refers to the members of the Board.

• No Open Meeting Law Violation: The Respondent contended its conduct was not a violation because the action occurred during a regular Board meeting with a proper quorum of directors.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s conclusions were unequivocal, fully adopting the Petitioner’s interpretation of the governing documents and state law.

Conclusions of Law

• Burden of Proof: The ALJ found that the Petitioner successfully sustained his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.

• Interpretation of “Members” vs. “Directors”: The decision states that the governing documents are clear: “‘members’ refers to the body of owners who make up the membership of the Association, and ‘directors’ refers to the few who are elected to the membership’s Board.” The ALJ found the differentiation to be intentional by the drafters.

• Avoiding Absurdity: The decision holds that construing the Bylaws to allow the Board to amend them would create an absurdity. The ALJ wrote, “The voices of few cannot speak for all, unless all have bestowed those few with the power and authority to speak on their behalf.”

• Violation of Statute and Bylaws: The ALJ concluded that the Board’s action on November 20, 2017, violated both A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) due to a lack of notice and Article III of the Association Bylaws.

• Rejection of Respondent’s Argument: The decision explicitly states, “The Tribunal is not swayed by Respondent’s closing arguments.”

Final Order

Based on the findings and conclusions, the ALJ issued the following binding order:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was officially granted.

2. Amendment Invalidated: The third amendment to the Association Bylaws, as enacted on November 20, 2017, was invalidated.

3. Fees and Penalties: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee and a civil penalty of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund.

Study Guide – 19F-H1918001-REL

Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association

Short-Answer Quiz

1. Who were the primary parties in the case No. 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG, and what were their respective roles?

2. What specific action taken by the Respondent on November 20, 2017, prompted the Petitioner to file a complaint?

3. According to the Petitioner, what was the crucial difference in meaning between the terms “members” and “directors” as used in the Association’s Bylaws?

4. What was the Respondent’s central argument for why the Board of Directors had the authority to amend the Bylaws at its regular meeting?

5. What is Arizona’s Open Meeting Law, and how did the Petitioner argue that the Respondent violated it?

6. What was the financial concern that the Petitioner argued could potentially impact him as a homeowner due to the Board’s amendment?

7. Describe the procedural history of this case after the initial Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision on September 25, 2018.

8. What case did the Petitioner cite regarding the interpretation of restrictive covenants, and what principle did it establish?

9. What is the legal standard of proof required in this proceeding, and how is it defined in the document?

10. What was the final outcome of the case, including the specific orders issued by the Administrative Law Judge?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Jay A. Janicek, the Petitioner, and the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association, the Respondent. The Petitioner is a property owner and member of the Association who brought the legal action, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association governed by a Board of Directors.

2. On November 20, 2017, the Respondent’s Board of Directors held a regular meeting where they voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws. This amendment changed the requirement for an “annual audit…by a public accountant” to an “annual audit, review, or compilation” of financial records.

3. The Petitioner argued that the term “members” in Article XIII of the Bylaws refers to the entire body of property owners in the Association, not the Board of Directors. He contended that if the drafter had intended to give amendment power to the Board, the specific word “directors” would have been used, as it was in other sections of the Bylaws.

4. The Respondent argued that its actions were proper because the Bylaws empower the Board to manage the Association’s affairs at regular monthly meetings. They contended that since a quorum of three directors was present at the November 20, 2017 meeting, the Board was empowered to transact business, which they interpreted to include amending the bylaws as described in Article XIII.

5. Arizona’s Open Meeting Law is ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804, which requires meetings of a homeowners’ association’s board and members to be open to all members. The Petitioner argued the Respondent violated this by amending a bylaw without proper notice to the full membership, which is required for any proposed bylaw amendment, thus undermining the law’s legislative intent of transparency.

6. The Petitioner was concerned that the amendment weakened the financial oversight of the Association. It modified a requirement for a third-party audit to a less stringent “review, or compilation,” creating a risk that the Association could perform its own financial checks, and as a homeowner, he had an interest in ensuring the Association’s financials were correct.

7. After the initial decision in the Petitioner’s favor on September 25, 2018, the Respondent submitted a Request for Rehearing on October 23, 2018. The Department of Real Estate granted this request on November 7, 2018, and the matter was referred back to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a rehearing, which ultimately took place on March 5, 2019.

8. The Petitioner cited Powell v. Washburn. This case established the principle that restrictive covenants should be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties, as determined from the language of the entire document and the purpose for which the covenants were created.

9. The legal standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The document defines this as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with the most “convincing force” that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue.

10. The final outcome was a ruling in favor of the Petitioner. The ALJ granted the petition, invalidated the third amendment to the Bylaws that was passed on November 20, 2017, and ordered the Respondent to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee and a civil penalty of $250.00.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning in differentiating between the terms “members” and “directors.” How did the principle of avoiding absurdity and considering the drafter’s intent, as seen throughout the Bylaws, contribute to the final decision?

2. Discuss the interplay between the Association’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws) and state law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804). Explain which authority took precedence in this case and why the Board’s actions were found to violate both.

3. Evaluate the legal strategy employed by the Petitioner, Jay A. Janicek. Consider his use of specific Bylaw articles, the citation of Powell v. Washburn, and his argument regarding the legislative intent of the Open Meeting Law.

4. Examine the arguments presented by the Respondent, Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association. Why did the Judge find their interpretation of the Bylaws unconvincing, despite their claims that the Board was empowered to transact business with a quorum present?

5. Based on the text, discuss the broader implications of this ruling for homeowners’ associations in Arizona. How does this decision reinforce the principles of transparency and the limitations of a Board’s power relative to the association’s general membership?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over administrative hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

A section of the Arizona Revised Statutes, also known as Arizona’s Open Meeting Law, which mandates that meetings of an HOA’s members and board of directors must be open to all members and requires specific notice for meetings where bylaw amendments will be considered.

Bylaws

A set of rules that govern the internal operations of the homeowners’ association. In this case, key articles discussed include Article VI (Meeting of Directors), Article VII (Powers of the Board), and Article XIII (Amendments).

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are governing documents that form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, empowering the Association to control certain aspects of property use.

Member

As defined in the Association’s documents, a person entitled to membership by virtue of being a property owner within the Sycamore Vista subdivision. The Judge concluded this term refers to the body of owners, not the Board of Directors.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona, unaffiliated with the parties, responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings and making legal decisions in disputes like this one.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was Jay A. Janicek, a homeowner in the Association.

Preponderance of the evidence

The burden of proof in this case. It is defined as evidence that is more likely true than not and has the most convincing force, sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue.

The authority to represent someone else, especially in voting. The document notes that the term “proxy” applies to votes of the members, as members of the Board are not permitted to vote by proxy.

Quorum

The minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly necessary to conduct the business of that group. For the Respondent’s Board of Directors, a quorum is defined as a majority of the number of Directors.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association.

Restrictive Covenants

Legal obligations imposed in a deed to real property to do or not do something. The Petitioner argued this term included the CC&Rs, Bylaws, and rules of the Association.

Tribunal

A body established to settle certain types of dispute. In this document, it refers to the Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Blog Post – 19F-H1918001-REL

Select all sources

696205.pdf

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1818032-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-08-22
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Dina R. Galassini	Counsel	—
Respondent	Plaza Waterfront Condominium Owners Association, Inc.	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01; ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Petitioner’s petition for rehearing, concluding that the OAH has the authority, pursuant to statute and precedent, to resolve disputes involving the interpretation of condominium documents and related regulating statutes, rejecting Petitioner's constitutional claims regarding separation of powers. Respondent's request for attorney's fees was denied.

Why this result: Petitioner's argument that the original ALJ decision was contrary to law due to separation of powers violation was dismissed, as the OAH confirmed its statutory authority (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01) to interpret condominium documents and regulating statutes.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the Respondent Association correctly posted owner assessments for the 2018 parking lot budget

Petitioner sought rehearing arguing the ALJ lacked constitutional authority (separation of powers) to interpret condominium documents (contracts) and statutory definitions of common/limited common elements (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202) related to the posting of the 2018 parking lot budget assessment.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed. Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Ariz. Cannabis Nurses Ass'n v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs., 242 Ariz. 62, 67, 392 P.3d 506, 511 (App. 2017)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Assessment, Jurisdiction, ALJ Authority, Condominium Documents, Separation of Powers

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Ariz. Cannabis Nurses Ass'n v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs., 242 Ariz. 62, 67, 392 P.3d 506, 511 (App. 2017)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. CONST. Art. 3

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818032-REL Decision – 636950.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:04:20 (128.6 KB)

18F-H1818032-REL Decision – 655375.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:39 (65.7 KB)

Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818032-REL

Briefing Document: Galassini v. Plaza Waterfront Condominium Owners Association, Inc. (Case No. 18F-H1818032-REL-RHG)

Executive Summary

This document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 18F-H1818032-REL-RHG, which dismissed a petition filed by Dina R. Galassini against the Plaza Waterfront Condominium Owners Association, Inc. The central conflict revolved around the jurisdictional authority of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The Petitioner, Ms. Galassini, argued that the OAH, as part of the executive branch, violated the constitutional separation of powers by interpreting private condominium documents, a power she claimed was reserved exclusively for the judicial branch.

The ALJ, Thomas Shedden, rejected this argument and dismissed the petition as a matter of law. The decision affirms that the OAH is statutorily empowered by Arizona Revised Statutes to hear disputes concerning alleged violations of condominium documents. The ALJ’s rationale rests on established legal precedent, citing Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov to confirm that condominium documents are a contract and Ariz. Cannabis Nurses Ass’n v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs. to support an agency’s authority to take actions reasonably implied by its governing statutes. Consequently, the Petitioner’s core constitutional challenge was deemed “unfounded,” leading to the dismissal of her petition. While the petition was dismissed, the Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees was denied.

1. Case Background and Procedural History

The case involves a dispute between a condominium owner and a condominium association, brought before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Dina R. Galassini

◦ Respondent: Plaza Waterfront Condominium Owners Association, Inc.

• Forum: Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

• Presiding Judge: Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge

• Decision Date: August 22, 2018

The matter arrived before Judge Shedden following a series of procedural steps initiated after an original ALJ decision.

• June 26, 2018: The Petitioner filed a Request for Rehearing with the Department of Real Estate.

• July 20, 2018: The Department of Real Estate issued an Order Granting Rehearing, based on the reasons outlined in the Petitioner’s request.

• August 15, 2018: The Respondent filed a Motion to Vacate Rehearing, arguing the case could be resolved as a matter of law.

• August 21, 2018: The Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Respondent’s motion.

2. Core Dispute: Petitioner’s Jurisdictional Challenge

The Petitioner’s request for a rehearing was founded on a direct constitutional challenge to the authority of the Administrative Law Judge. The underlying substantive issue concerned the association’s handling of “owner assessments for the 2018 parking lot budget,” which turned on the interpretation of “common element” versus “limited common element.”

Petitioner’s Arguments

• Violation of Separation of Powers: The Petitioner contended that the original ALJ decision was “contrary to law” because it involved the interpretation of private contracts (the condominium documents). She argued this function is reserved exclusively for the judicial branch under Arizona’s Constitution, Article 3 (Separation of Powers).

• Due Process Violation: By interpreting the contract, the ALJ allegedly committed a “due process violation.” The Petitioner stated, “For the ALJ to definitively interpret actual contracts between two private parties is a due process violation (separation of powers).”

• Improper Delegation of Power: The Petitioner claimed the ALJ’s action “redistributed interpreted power from the Judiciary to the Executive and this is a congressional encroachment on my rights.”

3. The Administrative Law Judge’s Legal Rationale and Decision

The ALJ agreed with the Respondent that the case could be resolved as a matter of law, focusing entirely on the jurisdictional question raised by the Petitioner. The decision systematically refutes the Petitioner’s separation of powers argument by outlining the OAH’s legal authority.

Statutory Authority

The decision establishes the OAH’s jurisdiction through Arizona state law:

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11: This statute describes the administrative process for referring disputes between owners and condominium associations to the OAH.

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A): This section specifically grants the OAH authority to conduct hearings for alleged “violations of condominium documents … or violations of the statutes that regulate condominiums….”

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202: The decision notes that analyzing the Petitioner’s claim inherently requires interpreting definitions found in the statutes that regulate condominiums, such as this section defining “common element” and “limited common element.”

Precedent from Case Law

The ALJ grounded the OAH’s interpretive authority in two key Arizona appellate court decisions:

1. Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007): This case is cited to establish the legal principle that “the condominium documents are a contract between the parties.” By defining the documents as a contract, the decision links the dispute directly to the type of documents the OAH is empowered to review.

2. Ariz. Cannabis Nurses Ass’n v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., 242 Ariz. 62, 392 P.3d 506 (App. 2017): This case is cited to support the broader principle of administrative authority. The ruling states, “[I]t is the law of this state that an agency may” take such action “which may be reasonably implied from ‘a consideration of the statutory scheme as a whole.’” This supports the conclusion that the OAH’s authority to hear disputes over condominium documents implies the authority to interpret them.

Conclusion of the Court

Based on the cited statutes and case law, the ALJ concluded that the OAH possesses the necessary authority to interpret both the condominium documents and the relevant state statutes. Therefore, the Petitioner’s central argument that the original decision was “contrary to law” was declared “unfounded,” and dismissing the matter was deemed appropriate.

4. Final Orders and Directives

The Administrative Law Judge issued the following final orders on August 22, 2018:

Outcome

Petitioner’s Petition

Dismissed

Respondent’s Request for Attorney’s Fees

Denied

The decision also included the following legally mandated notices for the parties:

• Binding Nature: The order is binding on the parties as a result of the rehearing, per ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B).

• Appeal Rights: A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review by filing with the superior court within thirty-five (35) days from the date the order was served. The appeal process is prescribed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. title 12, chapter 7, article 6 and § 12-904(A).

Study Guide – 18F-H1818032-REL

Study Guide: Galassini v. Plaza Waterfront Condominium Owners Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1818032-REL-RHG, issued by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. It is designed to assess comprehension of the case’s key arguments, legal precedents, and procedural history.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information provided in the source document.

1. Identify the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case and state the official case number.

2. What was the Petitioner’s core legal argument for requesting a rehearing, as detailed in her filing on June 26, 2018?

3. On what grounds did the Respondent file a Motion to Vacate Rehearing on August 15, 2018?

4. According to the Petitioner’s Response, what was the specific issue that the Department’s Commissioner had ordered the rehearing to address?

5. Which Arizona Revised Statute section is cited as describing the process for hearings on disputes between owners and condominium associations?

6. To resolve the Petitioner’s claim, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) needed to interpret the definitions of what two key terms from the Arizona Revised Statutes?

7. What legal precedent was cited in the decision to establish that condominium documents are considered a contract between the parties?

8. What was the final decision issued by Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden on August 22, 2018, regarding the Petitioner’s petition and the Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees?

9. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B), what is the legal status of an administrative law judge order that has been issued as the result of a rehearing?

10. What specific steps must a party take to appeal this order, including the timeframe and the court where the appeal must be filed?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is Dina R. Galassini, and the Respondent is Plaza Waterfront Condominium Owners Association, Inc. The official case number is 18F-H1818032-REL-RHG.

2. The Petitioner argued that the original Administrative Law Judge’s decision was contrary to law because it violated the principle of separation of powers. She claimed that by interpreting contracts between private parties, the ALJ, part of the Executive branch, encroached upon the power of the Judiciary, resulting in a due process violation.

3. The Respondent argued that the matter could be resolved as a matter of law. This argument was based on ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01, which governs administrative hearings for condominium disputes.

4. The Petitioner asserted in her Response that the Department’s Commissioner had ordered a rehearing specifically on the issue of whether the Respondent Association had correctly posted owner assessments for the 2018 parking lot budget.

5. ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11, specifically section 32-2199.01(A), is cited as governing the process. It states that hearings are conducted for alleged “violations of condominium documents … or violations of the statutes that regulate condominiums.”

6. To analyze the Petitioner’s claim, the ALJ needed to interpret the definitions of “common element” and “limited common element.” These definitions are found in ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1202.

7. The case Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007) was cited to support the legal principle that condominium documents (like CC&Rs) constitute a contract between the parties involved.

8. Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be dismissed. He further ordered that the Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees be denied.

9. According to the statute, an administrative law judge order issued as a result of a rehearing is binding on the parties.

10. A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review as prescribed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. title 12, chapter 7, article 6. The appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

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

1. Analyze the Petitioner’s “separation of powers” argument. Explain why she believed the ALJ’s decision constituted a due process violation and a congressional encroachment on her rights, and discuss how the final decision legally refuted this claim.

2. Detail the legal basis and precedents cited by the Administrative Law Judge to establish the authority of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Explain how ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01(A) and the cases Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov and Ariz. Cannabis Nurses Ass’n v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs. were used to justify the OAH’s jurisdiction in this matter.

3. Trace the procedural history of this case from the Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing to the final Administrative Law Judge Decision. Include key dates, motions filed by both parties, and the reasoning behind the Department of Real Estate’s initial decision to grant a rehearing.

4. Discuss the relationship between condominium documents and state statutes as presented in this decision. How does the ruling define condominium documents, and what authority does it grant the OAH in interpreting both these documents and the statutes that regulate condominiums?

5. Based on the final decision and the provided notice, explain the legal options available to the Petitioner following the dismissal of her petition. What specific steps must be taken to pursue an appeal, and what legal standard is established by ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B) regarding the finality of the ALJ’s order?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Thomas Shedden of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Common Element

A term defined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1202. The interpretation of this term was central to the Petitioner’s original dispute.

Condominium Documents

The governing documents of a condominium association (e.g., CC&Rs). The decision establishes these as a contract between the parties, citing Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov.

Department of Real Estate

The state agency that issued the Order Granting Rehearing in this matter on July 20, 2018.

Due Process Violation

An alleged infringement of legal rights. The Petitioner claimed this occurred when the ALJ interpreted a contract between private parties.

Judicial Review

The legal process by which a party can appeal an administrative order to a court. The decision specifies this must be done by filing with the superior court within 35 days.

Limited Common Element

A term defined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1202. The interpretation of this term was central to the Petitioner’s original dispute.

Motion to Vacate Rehearing

A formal request filed by the Respondent on August 15, 2018, arguing that the case could be resolved as a matter of law.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

The state office where disputes between owners and condominium associations are referred for hearings, as per ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

Petitioner

The party initiating a legal petition. In this case, Dina R. Galassini.

Request for Rehearing

A formal request filed by the Petitioner on June 26, 2018, after an initial decision, which was granted by the Department of Real Estate.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Plaza Waterfront Condominium Owners Association, Inc.

Separation of Powers

A constitutional principle cited by the Petitioner. She argued that only the judicial branch, not the executive branch (where the OAH resides), can make decisions that legally bind private parties.

Blog Post – 18F-H1818032-REL

4 Surprising Legal Lessons from a Condo Parking Lot Dispute

Introduction: The Anatomy of a Neighborhood Fight

Disputes with a Condominium or Homeowner’s Association are a common, and often frustrating, part of modern life. But what happens when a seemingly minor conflict over assessments for the 2018 parking lot budget escalates into a direct challenge to the power of the state?

The case of Dina R. Galassini vs. the Plaza Waterfront Condominium Owners Association, Inc. did just that. This neighborhood fight quickly grew to question fundamental legal principles, revealing some counter-intuitive truths about the power and jurisdiction of administrative agencies. The final court decision provides a masterclass in administrative law, a powerful, court-like system designed for efficiency that operates with more flexibility and authority than most people realize. Here are the top surprising takeaways from the final ruling.

Takeaway 1: Administrative Agencies Can Act Like Courts

At the heart of her appeal, Ms. Galassini made a powerful constitutional argument: she believed that only a judge in the judicial branch—not an administrator in the executive branch—had the authority to interpret a private contract like her condominium documents.

In her “Request for Rehearing,” she argued forcefully:

The decision by the administrative law judge (ALJ) is contrary to law, and the decision that was handed down to me only belongs in the judicial branch. Regarding what is a common element or a limited common element (see Exhibit C) should only be decided upon by a judge. For the ALJ to definitively interpret actual contracts between two private parties is a due process violation (separation of powers). In doing so the ALJ redistributed interpreted power from the Judiciary to the Executive and this is a congressional encroachment on my rights. According to Arizona’s Constitution Article 3, Separation of Powers—only the judicial branch can make decisions that make decisions that bind private parties as law.

The surprising outcome was that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected this argument entirely. The judge found that the Office of Administrative Hearings was specifically empowered by Arizona statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01(A)) to handle disputes involving “violations of condominium documents.” Creating specialized administrative bodies like this is a common legislative strategy. It provides expert, efficient resolution for specific types of disputes, preventing the judicial courts from being overwhelmed.

Takeaway 2: Your Condo Agreement is a Legally Binding Contract

The ALJ’s authority to reject such a powerful constitutional claim hinged on a foundational question: what exactly are a condo’s governing documents in the eyes of the law? The answer is what gives administrative bodies their power in these disputes.

The decision affirms that these documents are not just community guidelines, but a formal, legally binding contract between the unit owner and the association. To support this, the judge referenced the legal precedent set in Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, which established that “the condominium documents are a contract between the parties.”

This is a critical takeaway because by defining these governing documents as a contract, it provides the legal foundation for an administrative body, like the Office of Administrative Hearings, to step in and resolve disputes using principles of contract law.

Takeaway 3: An Agency’s Power Can Be “Reasonably Implied”

Another surprising lesson from the decision is that a government agency’s authority doesn’t always have to be spelled out word-for-word for every possible action it might take.

To make a broader point about administrative law, the judge cited a separate case, Ariz. Cannabis Nurses Ass’n v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs. The principle from that case is that an agency can take actions that “may be reasonably implied from ‘a consideration of the statutory scheme as a whole.’”

This concept is crucial for government to function. Legislatures cannot possibly foresee and explicitly write laws for every conceivable scenario an agency might face. This doctrine of “implied power” allows agencies the flexibility to adapt and act effectively within the spirit of the law, fulfilling their duties based on the overall purpose of the statutes they enforce.

Takeaway 4: Winning a Rehearing Isn’t Winning the War

The case’s procedure offers a fascinating lesson in legal strategy. The Department of Real Estate initially granted the petitioner’s request for a rehearing, a decision made, crucially, “for the reasons outlined in Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing.” This shows the Department initially found her legal argument about separation of powers compelling enough to warrant a second look.

However, the outcome was deeply ironic. Instead of re-arguing the facts, the respondent (the Condo Association) “filed a Motion to Vacate Rehearing, arguing that… this matter can be resolved as a matter of law” (meaning no facts were in dispute, only the interpretation of the statutes and contracts).

The ALJ agreed. The petitioner, by winning the rehearing, had inadvertently given the respondent a perfect platform to argue the case on purely legal grounds—the respondent’s strength. The rehearing forced the core jurisdictional issue to the forefront, leading directly to the dismissal of the petitioner’s case. It’s a stark reminder that a procedural victory doesn’t guarantee a final win.

Conclusion: The Law in Your Daily Life

Born from a dispute over a parking lot, this single case reveals the hidden legal machinery designed to resolve specific conflicts efficiently, without overburdening the traditional court system. It demonstrates how everyday disagreements can touch upon complex principles of constitutional power, contract law, and implied statutory authority. From a simple assessment, we see a system where administrative bodies act with court-like power, a power built upon the contractual nature of community rules and the flexibility of implied authority. It’s a powerful reminder of the intricate legal frameworks operating just beneath the surface of our daily lives.

What hidden legal complexities might be shaping the rules and agreements in your own life?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Dina R. Galassini (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Jim Flood (board member)
Roger Isaacs (witness)
Gary Pedersen (witness, statutory agent)

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)

Other Participants

Peter Saiia (observer)
Suzanne Isaacs (observer)
Paul Blessing (observer)
Felicia Del Sol (unknown)