Tag Archives: Lewis D. Kowal

Portonova, Carol vs. Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212013-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-10-02
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The judge found that Petitioner failed to prove she made a request to examine or purchase copies of Association records in June 2011 or November 2011,. Consequently, the Petition was dismissed.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Carol Portonova Counsel —
Respondent Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Michael Orcutt

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The judge found that Petitioner failed to prove she made a request to examine or purchase copies of Association records in June 2011 or November 2011,. Consequently, the Petition was dismissed.

Why this result: Failure to prove a records request was made

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records regarding monies received to satisfy a judgment

Petitioner alleged that the Association violated the statute by not providing records pertaining to monies the Association received to satisfy a judgment it obtained against Petitioner.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed and no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

12F-H1212013-BFS Decision – 308933.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:42:08 (69.6 KB)

12F-H1212013-BFS Decision – 313665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:42:29 (59.0 KB)

Briefing: Portonova v. Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document details the administrative hearing and subsequent final agency action regarding Case No. 12F-H1212013-BFS. The matter involved a dispute between Carol Portonova (Petitioner) and the Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc. (Respondent/Association).

The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to financial records concerning a judgment the Association had previously obtained against her. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Lewis D. Kowal, ruled that the Petitioner failed to provide a preponderance of evidence that a formal request for these records was ever made. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. This decision was certified as the final administrative action on November 13, 2012, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to modify or reject the ALJ's initial ruling.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

Statutory Compliance and Record Access

The central legal theme of the case is the interpretation and application of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). This statute mandates that all financial and other records of a homeowners association must be made "reasonably available for examination" by any member or their designated representative.

Key provisions of this statute include:

  • Timeframe: The association has 10 business days to fulfill a request for examination.
  • Costs: Review of materials must be free, though associations may charge up to $0.15 per page for physical copies.
  • Scope: The law covers "all financial and other records," which in this case included accounting for monies received to satisfy a legal judgment and associated attorney fees.
Evidentiary Burden and Conflict of Testimony

The ruling turned on the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. The Petitioner claimed she had made requests for records in two specific instances:

  1. A November 2011 Meeting: Petitioner implied she requested records during a Homeowners Association meeting.
  2. A May 3, 2012 Letter: Petitioner submitted a letter directed to Association officers, including Mario Capriotti, Jr., as evidence of a formal request.

However, the Respondent offered conflicting testimony. Mario Capriotti, Jr. testified that he never received the May 3 letter and that no request for records was made at the November 2011 meeting. The ALJ found that the Petitioner could not provide sufficient proof (such as evidence of receipt or specific dates) to outweigh the Respondent's denials.

Administrative Process and Finality

The case highlights the procedural flow of Arizona administrative law:

  • Initial Petition: Filed June 4, 2012, with a $550.00 filing fee.
  • ALJ Hearing: Held September 19, 2012, focusing on factual determinations.
  • Certification: Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08, the ALJ's decision is transmitted to the relevant agency (Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety). If the agency does not accept, reject, or modify the decision within a set timeframe (in this case, by November 7, 2012), the ALJ's decision is certified as final.

Important Quotes and Legal Definitions

Concept / Item Context Source Quote
Statutory Obligation The legal requirement for associations to provide records. "Except as provided in subsection B… all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…" (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A))
Burden of Proof The standard of evidence required for the Petitioner to win the case. "Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)."
Preponderance of Evidence Definition used by the court to weigh the conflicting testimony. "Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not."
The Ruling The ALJ's conclusion regarding the lack of evidence. "Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she or a designated representative made a request to Respondent to examine or provide records…"

Actionable Insights

For Association Members
  • Formalize Record Requests: To ensure statutory compliance under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), members should submit record requests in a manner that provides proof of delivery (e.g., certified mail or signed receipt).
  • Document Timeline: Members should keep precise records of when requests are made and when the 10-business-day window for fulfillment expires.
  • Specific Evidence: When alleging a violation, a member must provide more than oral testimony if that testimony is disputed; physical evidence of the request is critical to meeting the burden of proof.
For Homeowners Associations
  • Verification Systems: Associations should have a consistent system for logging incoming member correspondence and requests to examine records to defend against claims of non-compliance.
  • Adherence to Deadlines: Once a verified request is received, the association has a strict 10-business-day window to provide access or copies to avoid potential administrative penalties or litigation.
  • Clarity on Fees: Associations should remain aware that they cannot charge for the review of documents, only for the reproduction of copies (capped at $0.15 per page).
For Administrative Appeals
  • Rehearing Rights: Parties dissatisfied with an ALJ decision have the right to request a rehearing from the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(A).
  • Superior Court Recourse: Following the exhaustion of administrative remedies (like a rehearing), the matter may be appealed to the Superior Court. However, failure to act within statutory timelines may result in the loss of these rights.

Study Guide: Carol Portonova v. Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing case regarding the access to records within a homeowners association. It outlines the legal standards for record requests in Arizona, the burden of proof required in administrative proceedings, and the procedural lifecycle of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision.

Core Concepts and Case Overview

Case Summary

In Case No. 12F-H1212013-BFS, Petitioner Carol Portonova alleged that Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc. (the "Association") violated state law by failing to provide financial records. These records pertained to a judgment the Association had obtained against the Petitioner, including accounting for monies received to satisfy that judgment and associated attorney fees.

Legal Standards for Association Records

Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), homeowners associations are mandated to make their financial and other records available to members under specific conditions:

  • Availability: All records must be made reasonably available for examination by a member or their designated representative.
  • Review Fees: The association is prohibited from charging a member for making materials available for review.
  • Timeline for Review: The association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.
  • Timeline for Copies: If a member requests to purchase copies, the association has ten business days to provide them.
  • Copying Fees: Associations may charge a fee for copies, but it cannot exceed fifteen cents per page.
The Burden of Proof

In administrative proceedings of this nature, the Petitioner bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence (per A.A.C. R2-19-119). This is defined as evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposing evidence, making the fact sought to be proved "more probable than not."

Procedural Lifecycle of a Decision
  1. Hearing and Decision: The ALJ conducts a hearing and issues a decision.
  2. Transmission: The decision is transmitted to the relevant state agency (in this case, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety).
  3. Agency Review: The Department has a specific window (approximately 35 days) to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s decision.
  4. Certification: If the agency takes no action within the statutory timeframe, the ALJ decision is certified as the final administrative decision.
  5. Effective Date: The Order typically becomes effective five days after certification.
  6. Appeals: Parties have the right to request a rehearing or appeal the matter to the Superior Court.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. How many units are contained within the Tenth Avenue Missions community?
  2. What was the specific amount of the filing fee paid by the Petitioner to the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety?
  3. According to A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), how many business days does an association have to provide copies of records once requested?
  4. What is the maximum fee per page an association can charge for making copies of records?
  5. Why did the ALJ conclude that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of the law?
  6. Who was the witness that testified he did not receive the May 3, 2012, letter requesting records?
  7. If a state agency takes no action on an ALJ decision within the timeframe prescribed by A.R.S. § 41-1092.08, what happens to that decision?
  8. What was the Petitioner’s primary concern regarding the "Satisfaction of Judgment" obtained by the Association?

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Preponderance of Evidence in Administrative Law: Analyze the role of the "preponderance of the evidence" standard in this case. Discuss how the conflicting testimony between Carol Portonova and Mario Capriotti, Jr. influenced the ALJ's final ruling, and why the Petitioner's evidence was deemed insufficient to meet this legal threshold.
  2. Statutory Obligations of Homeowners Associations: Examine the requirements placed on HOAs by A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Discuss the balance the law attempts to strike between a member's right to transparency and the association's administrative timeline.
  3. The Administrative Appeals Process: Describe the steps a party must take after an ALJ decision is certified as final. Include references to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, the right to a rehearing, and the eventual path to the Superior Court.

Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) The Arizona Revised Statute governing the availability of financial and other association records to members.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) The presiding official who hears evidence and issues a ruling in administrative disputes.
Burden of Proof The obligation of a party to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim; in this case, held by the Petitioner.
Certification The process by which an ALJ decision becomes the final administrative action after agency review or inaction.
Patio Homes The specific type of housing units (6 in total) located within the Tenth Avenue Missions community.
Preponderance of the Evidence A legal standard meaning the evidence shows that the fact to be proved is "more probable than not."
Respondent The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc.
Satisfaction of Judgment A legal document indicating that a debt or judgment has been paid in full.
Superior Court The judicial body where a party may appeal a final administrative decision.

Understanding Your Rights to HOA Records: Lessons from Portonova v. Tenth Avenue Missions

1. Introduction: The Power Struggle Over Association Records

In the complex ecosystem of planned communities, transparency is often the only thing preventing a neighborly disagreement from escalating into a costly legal war. A classic pitfall for homeowners is the assumption that their right to see financial records is self-executing. In reality, the bridge between a homeowner’s request and an association’s compliance is built on specific legal procedures that, if ignored, can lead to devastating consequences.

The case of Carol Portonova vs. Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc. (Case No. 12F-H1212013-BFS) serves as a stark warning for homeowners. The dispute highlights the tension that arises when a member seeks to verify how their payments—specifically those intended to satisfy a legal judgment involving attorneys' fees—are being handled by the Board. For Carol Portonova, what began as a quest for financial accountability ended in a dismissive ruling and a significant financial loss.

2. The Legal Framework: What is A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)?

Arizona law provides homeowners with a powerful tool for oversight through Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805(A). This statute is the primary shield against Board secrecy, mandating that records be accessible under strict conditions.

As defined in the statute:

"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 or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative, the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records. An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page."

Key "Rules of the Road" for Record Requests:
  • The 10-Day Clock: Once a written request is received, the association has exactly 10 business days to either provide the records for examination or deliver requested copies.
  • The Right to Inspect: Homeowners have the absolute right to examine records at no charge.
  • Strict Copy Fees: If you want physical copies, the association cannot gouge you; the law caps fees at $0.15 per page.

3. Inside the Case: The Dispute Over "Satisfaction of Judgment"

The dispute took place within Tenth Avenue Missions, an intimate Tempe community consisting of only six units. In such small associations, record-keeping often occurs at kitchen tables rather than professional offices, which can lead to a dangerous informality.

Following a lawsuit in which the association obtained a "Satisfaction of Judgment" against Portonova and her husband, Portonova sought to verify the accounting of the monies paid, including the association’s legal fees. On June 4, 2012, she took the high-stakes step of filing a petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, paying a $550.00 filing fee to have her grievances heard.

During the hearing on September 19, 2012, Portonova’s case rested on three primary claims:

  1. An alleged failure to provide records dating back to June 2011.
  2. A verbal request made during a November 2011 association meeting.
  3. A written request via a letter dated May 3, 2012, addressed to association officers.

However, the Association’s representative, Mario Capriotti, Jr., offered a flat denial, testifying that he never received the May 3 letter and that no request was made during the November meeting. Furthermore, the Petitioner’s credibility was weakened when it was revealed she had actually received a copy of the 2012 budget at some point, yet she could not recall when. This inconsistency suggested that the Association was not entirely unresponsive, casting doubt on her claims of a total records blackout.

4. The Legal Turning Point: Defining the "Preponderance of the Evidence"

The "Advocate’s Bite" in this case lies in the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) application of the burden of proof. In these proceedings, the Petitioner must prove their case by a "Preponderance of the Evidence."

As cited by ALJ Lewis D. Kowal from Black’s Law Dictionary, a preponderance is:

“Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

The ALJ’s logic was a clinical exercise in "he-said, she-said" jurisprudence. Because Portonova had no proof of delivery for her May 3 letter—no certified mail receipt, no signed acknowledgment—and because her testimony regarding the June 2011 date didn't match her evidence, she could not tilt the scales. In the absence of a paper trail, the Association wins by default. The Judge concluded that Portonova failed to prove she even made a valid request, meaning the Association could not have violated a law it was never formally triggered to follow.

5. The Final Verdict and Certification

On October 2, 2012, ALJ Lewis D. Kowal issued an Order dismissing the petition entirely. No action was required of Tenth Avenue Missions.

The decision was then subjected to a formal certification process. Gene Palma, Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, had until November 7, 2012, to accept, reject, or modify the decision. When no action was taken by that deadline, the decision was certified as final on November 13, 2012, by Cliff J. Vanell, Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Parties were notified of two remaining paths, though both carried further risk and cost:

  • Rehearing: A request for a second look by the Department under A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(A).
  • Appeal: Taking the matter to Superior Court under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H).

6. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

This case is an expensive lesson in the importance of formal procedure over informal assumptions.

  1. Certified Mail is the "Gold Standard": Never rely on a regular letter or a verbal request. If you do not have a return receipt or a signed proof of delivery, the law treats your request as if it never happened. This proof is the only way to meet the "preponderance of the evidence" standard.
  2. Consistency is King: The Petitioner’s inability to remember when she received the 2012 budget and her failure to align her evidence with the dates in her petition (June 2011) proved fatal. Keep a meticulous log of all interactions with the Board.
  3. The High Cost of Losing: Filing a petition is not a low-cost endeavor. Portonova lost her $550.00 filing fee in addition to the time and stress of litigation. Homeowners must ensure their "paper trail" is bulletproof before initiating a legal fight.
  4. Small Associations Need Formal Rules: In a six-unit community, it is tempting to handle business "as neighbors." However, when legal judgments and attorney fees are on the line, both Boards and homeowners must treat the relationship as a business to avoid the "friendship vs. business" trap that leads to the courtroom.

7. Conclusion: The Importance of Transparency and Documentation

The Portonova case serves as a reminder that transparency in a Homeowners Association is not just a moral obligation—it is a procedural one. Whether a community consists of six units or six hundred, the rights afforded by A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) are only as strong as the documentation a homeowner keeps.

By insisting on formal, written communication and maintaining a precise record of all requests, homeowners can protect their $550 "tuition" and ensure their right to oversight is respected. Boards, in turn, can protect themselves from litigation by adhering strictly to the 10-day statutory window, ensuring that the community remains a place of residence rather than a theater for legal battle.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Carol Portonova (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Michael Orcutt (attorney)
    Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Esq.
  • Mario Capriotti, Jr. (officer/witness)
    Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Officer of the Association; testified at hearing

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (OAH Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Holly Textor (staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma

Vise, Robert L. vs. East 12 Condo HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212003-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2012-06-18
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove his roof was damaged. Therefore, the issue of whether insurance proceeds should be used for repair or placed in a contingency fund was moot regarding his specific claim.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert L. Vise Counsel —
Respondent East 12 Condo HOA Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1253(H); CC&Rs Section 5(H)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove his roof was damaged. Therefore, the issue of whether insurance proceeds should be used for repair or placed in a contingency fund was moot regarding his specific claim.

Why this result: Insufficient evidence presented to prove the existence of roof damage requiring repair.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Repair Common Elements/Misuse of Insurance Proceeds

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated the statute and CC&Rs by placing insurance proceeds into a contingency fund rather than repairing his roof, which he claimed was damaged.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed and no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

12F-H1212003-BFS Decision – 295469.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:39:53 (84.9 KB)

12F-H1212003-BFS Decision – 302544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:39:56 (57.2 KB)

Case Briefing: Robert L. Vise vs. East 12 Condo HOA (No. 12F-H1212003-BFS)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative law hearing between Robert L. Vise (Petitioner) and the East 12 Condo HOA (Respondent). The dispute centered on whether the Association was legally obligated to use insurance proceeds to repair the Petitioner’s roof following a 2010 storm. The Petitioner alleged that the Association’s decision to place insurance payouts into a contingency fund rather than directly funding his repairs violated both Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

On June 18, 2012, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lewis D. Kowal dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that his roof was actually damaged. This decision was certified as the final administrative action of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on July 26, 2012, after the agency took no action to modify or reject the ruling.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Conflict

The central theme of the proceedings was the "preponderance of evidence" standard. The Petitioner was required to show that it was more probable than not that his roof was damaged and required repair.

The evidence presented was highly conflicting:

  • Petitioner’s Evidence: Testimony, photographs taken in May 2012, contractor-provided photos, and repair estimates.
  • Respondent’s Evidence: Testimony from neighbors and Board members. Specifically, Donna Armstrong, who shares a duplex roof with the Petitioner, testified that the damage was on her portion of the roof, not the Petitioner’s.
  • Complicating Factor: An email from the Petitioner dated May 2, 2011, revealed he had performed self-repairs (replacing shingles and cementing pieces) shortly after the storm. The ALJ noted that this "sketchy evidence" made it impossible to determine what damage remained or if the damage existed at all at the time of the claim.
2. Association Governance and Equitable Distribution

The Association faced a dilemma regarding a $3,374.39 insurance payout (the remainder of an $8,374.39 claim after a $5,000 deductible). Because the blanket insurance policy covered wind damage across the community rather than uniform hail damage, the Board determined that distributing the funds equitably was problematic.

To resolve this, the Board deferred to the membership:

  • Membership Vote: On April 29, 2011, the Association members voted 8 to 4 to place the proceeds into a contingency fund for the benefit of the entire community.
  • Board Discretion: Under Section 5(H) of the CC&Rs, the Board maintains the discretion to manage insurance in a manner they deem "advisable" for the benefit of all owners.
3. Legal and Regulatory Compliance

The Petitioner cited two primary authorities to support his claim for direct repair:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1253(H): This statute requires that any portion of a condominium for which insurance is required and which is damaged "shall be repaired or replaced promptly by the association" unless specific conditions (like termination of the condo or an 80% vote not to rebuild) are met.
  • CC&R Section 5(H): Outlines the Board's power to insure buildings against casualty.

The ALJ concluded that because the Petitioner could not prove the underlying fact of damage, the Association's duty to repair under these provisions was never triggered.

Important Quotes with Context

On the Standard of Proof

"A preponderance of the evidence is '[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.'"

— Source: Black's Law Dictionary, as cited in the ALJ Decision (Page 4)

Context: This definition was used to explain why the Petitioner's claim failed; the ALJ found the evidence from both sides to be of roughly equal weight, meaning the Petitioner did not tip the scales in his favor.

On the Board’s Insurance Authority

"Such insurance may, at the discretion of the Board, be taken in the name of the Board for the benefit of all the apartment owners, or in such other manner as the Board may deem advisable."

— Source: Section (5) H of the CC&Rs (Page 5)

Context: This quote establishes the legal basis for the Board's decision-making power regarding insurance, supporting their right to put funds into a general contingency fund rather than paying out individual claims if they deem it "advisable."

On the Requirement to Repair

"Any portion of the condominium for which insurance is required… which is damaged or destroyed shall be repaired or replaced promptly by the association…"

— Source: A.R.S. § 33-1253(H) (Page 4)

Context: This was the statutory pillar of the Petitioner's argument. However, the ALJ determined that this mandate only applies if damage is definitively proven.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners and Petitioners
  • Document Before Repairing: The Petitioner’s decision to perform his own repairs before an official assessment significantly weakened his case. It created ambiguity as to whether the damage was ever present or if it had been fully remediated.
  • Objective Third-Party Evidence: Relying on one's own photographs or contractors with a financial interest in the repair can be less persuasive than independent adjusters or neutral witnesses.
  • Burden of Certainty: In cases of shared structures (like duplex roofs), clear evidence must be provided to distinguish between damage to a private unit versus damage to a neighbor's unit or common elements.
For Homeowner Associations (HOAs)
  • Utilize Membership Votes for Disputed Funds: By putting the use of the insurance proceeds to a vote of the twelve members, the Board insulated itself from claims of arbitrary decision-making. The 8-4 vote provided a democratic mandate for the contingency fund.
  • Consistency with CC&Rs: The Board’s defense was strengthened by adhering strictly to the discretionary powers granted to them in the CC&Rs.
  • Insurance Adjuster Documentation: Using the findings of a State Farm adjuster—who found wind damage rather than hail damage—allowed the HOA to challenge the Petitioner's narrative of extensive storm damage.
Final Case Status
Key Event Date
Initial Storm Event October 2010
Membership Vote on Funds April 29, 2011
Petition Filed February 3, 2012
Administrative Hearing May 30, 2012
ALJ Decision Issued June 18, 2012
Final Certification July 26, 2012

Final Outcome: The petition was dismissed. The Respondent was not required to repair the roof, reimburse the $550 filing fee, or pay the Petitioner's attorney's fees.

Study Guide: Robert L. Vise v. East 12 Condo HOA

This study guide provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative law case Robert L. Vise v. East 12 Condo HOA (No. 12F-H1212003-BFS), heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. It covers the factual background, legal standards, and final decision rendered by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

I. Case Overview

The case centers on a dispute between a condominium unit owner (Petitioner) and his Homeowners Association (Respondent) regarding the use of insurance proceeds. Following a storm, the Association received insurance funds for roof damage across the community. Rather than applying these funds to specific repairs for the Petitioner's unit, the Association voted to place the proceeds into a contingency fund.

The Central Legal Issue: Did the Association violate state law (A.R.S. § 33-1253(H)) or its own Declaration of Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to use insurance proceeds to repair the Petitioner's roof?

II. Key Facts and Evidence

The Insurance Claim
  • Trigger Event: A major hail storm occurred in October 2010.
  • The Policy: The Association maintained a "blanket insurance policy" with State Farm.
  • The Inspection: In February 2011, an adjuster found wind damage (missing shingles) but no hail damage.
  • Financials:
  • Total value of claims: $8,374.39
  • Deductible: $5,000.00
  • Final payout to Association: $3,374.39
Association Action

On April 29, 2011, the Association held a membership vote to determine the distribution of the $3,374.39. The results were:

  • Eight votes to place the money in a contingency fund.
  • Four votes against.

The Board chose this path because damage varied across the units, making equitable distribution difficult.

Evidence of Damage

The Petitioner alleged his roof was damaged based on:

  • Observations from a roofing contractor in March 2011.
  • Personal photographs and estimates.

The Respondent countered this with:

  • Testimony from a neighbor (Ms. Armstrong) who shared a roof slope with the Petitioner; she claimed the damage identified by the Petitioner was actually on her portion of the roof.
  • An email from the Petitioner (May 2, 2011) stating he had already performed self-repairs, such as replacing shingles and cementing pieces.

III. Legal Framework

Burden of Proof

The Petitioner bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. This means the evidence must show that the fact to be proved is "more probable than not."

Governing Regulations
  1. A.R.S. § 33-1253(H): Requires that any portion of a condominium for which insurance is required and which is damaged must be repaired or replaced promptly by the association unless the community is terminated, repair is illegal, or 80% of owners vote not to rebuild.
  2. CC&Rs Section 5(H): Grants the Board the power to insure buildings and improvements and gives the Board discretion on how to take that insurance for the benefit of all owners.

IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

The ALJ dismissed the petition based on the following conclusions:

  • Failure to Prove Damage: Because the Petitioner had performed some self-repairs and the evidence from both parties was "sketchy" and conflicting, the ALJ could not determine if the Petitioner’s roof remained damaged.
  • Contingency Fund Issue: The question of whether the money belonged in the contingency fund was moot because the Petitioner failed to prove that his roof required repairs in the first place.
  • No Violation: The Respondent did not violate the CC&Rs or state statutes.
  • Final Ruling: The petition was dismissed, and the Petitioner was not entitled to reimbursement for his $550 filing fee or attorney’s fees.

V. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. Who was the Chairman of the Board of Management for East 12 Condo HOA at the time of the dispute?

Answer: Diane Gorinac.

2. What was the specific amount of the insurance check issued to the Association after the deductible?

Answer: $3,374.39.

3. According to A.R.S. § 33-1253(H), what percentage of unit owners must vote "not to rebuild" to exempt an association from the requirement to repair damaged property?

Answer: Eighty percent (80%).

4. Why did the Board decide to put the insurance proceeds into a contingency fund rather than distributing them to owners?

Answer: Because the damage was not uniform across all units, and the Board did not know how to distribute the funds equitably.

5. What action did the Petitioner take on May 2, 2011, that complicated his claim of existing roof damage?

Answer: He sent an email stating he had already performed repairs himself, such as replacing shingles and cementing pieces.

VI. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings: Analyze why the Petitioner failed to meet the "preponderance of the evidence" standard in this case. How did his self-repairs and the conflicting testimony of his neighbor contribute to the ALJ’s inability to rule in his favor?
  2. Statutory Interpretation vs. Board Discretion: Compare the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1253(H) with the powers granted to the Board under Section 5(H) of the CC&Rs. Does the law mandate repair regardless of the amount of insurance proceeds received, or does the Board have the right to allocate funds for the "benefit of all owners"?
  3. The Role of the Contingency Fund: The ALJ stated that the issue of the contingency fund "need not be addressed" if the Petitioner could not prove damage. Explore the logical connection between the existence of physical damage and the legal right to specific insurance proceeds.

VII. Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.A.C. R2-19-119: The administrative code section governing the burden of proof in these proceedings.
  • Adjuster: A representative from an insurance company (in this case, State Farm) who inspects property to determine the extent of the company's liability.
  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over an administrative hearing and renders a decision based on facts and law.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1253(H): An Arizona Revised Statute outlining the requirements for insurance and repair within condominium associations.
  • CC&Rs (Declaration of Restrictions): The "Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions" that govern the rights and responsibilities of the HOA and the unit owners.
  • Contingency Fund: A reserve of money set aside by the Association for future, often unplanned, expenses or for the general benefit of the community.
  • Deductible: The amount of an insurance claim that the policyholder (the Association) must pay out of pocket before the insurance company covers the remaining costs.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The legal standard of proof in civil cases; evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered against it.
  • Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, the East 12 Condo HOA).

The Burden of Proof: Lessons from the East 12 Condo HOA Insurance Dispute

1. Introduction: The Storm After the Storm

In October 2010, a significant hail storm swept through Sun City, Arizona, leaving property owners concerned about structural integrity and potential insurance recovery. For the residents of the East 12 Condo HOA, however, the meteorological event was merely the catalyst for a protracted legal conflict.

The dispute centered on an action brought by homeowner Robert L. Vise (Petitioner) against the East 12 Condo HOA (Respondent) regarding the allocation of insurance proceeds. While the Association successfully secured funds through a collective insurance claim, the Board of Management and the general membership elected to place those proceeds into a contingency fund rather than distributing them for individual unit repairs. This matter ultimately required adjudication by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

This analysis examines the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Vise v. East 12 Condo HOA, highlighting the critical nature of the "burden of proof" and the evidentiary standards that govern community association disputes.

2. The Insurance Claim and the Adjuster’s Valuation

Following the 2010 storm, the East 12 Condo HOA Board submitted a claim under a "blanket insurance policy" with State Farm Insurance Company. Although the claim was initiated based on suspected hail damage, a State Farm adjuster determined in February 2011 that the roofs had not sustained hail damage. Instead, the insurer agreed to cover wind damage, specifically for missing shingles.

The adjuster’s valuation and the subsequent net recovery are summarized below:

  • Total Claim Amount: $8,374.39
  • Deductible: $5,000.00
  • Net Insurance Proceeds: $3,374.39

Because the wind damage varied across the twelve units and six buildings, the Board faced a significant governance dilemma: how to distribute the relatively nominal proceeds equitably when the extent of damage was not uniform.

3. The Exercise of Board Discretion and Membership Ratification

Faced with the difficulty of equitable distribution, the Board sought to defer the decision to the Association’s membership. On April 29, 2011, a membership meeting was convened to determine the disposition of the $3,374.39.

The Association consists of 12 total members. The voting results for the proposal to move the insurance proceeds into a contingency fund for the benefit of the entire community were as follows:

  • In Favor: 8 members (attending physically).
  • Opposed/Absentee: 4 members (voting via absentee ballot).

By an 8 to 4 vote, the membership ratified the Board's proposal to place the funds into a contingency account for community-wide use rather than immediate, individual payouts.

4. The Legal Battle: A.R.S. § 33-1253(H) and the CC&Rs

The Petitioner challenged the Association’s decision, alleging violations of both the Declaration of Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arizona statutory law. The Petitioner specifically cited Section (5) H of the CC&Rs, which grants the Board discretion over insurance matters, and A.R.S. § 33-1253(H).

As a matter of law, A.R.S. § 33-1253(H) dictates the requirements for the repair of damaged condominium property:

"Any portion of the condominium for which insurance is required under this section which is damaged or destroyed shall be repaired or replaced promptly by the association unless any of the following apply: 1. The condominium is terminated. 2. Repair or replacement would be illegal… 3. Eighty per cent of the unit owners… vote not to rebuild."

To prevail, the Petitioner carried the burden of proving his case by a "Preponderance of the Evidence." Under this standard, the evidence must be:

“[E]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1182 (6th ed. 1990).

5. Conflicting Evidence: A Case of "He Said, She Said"

The adjudication turned on highly conflicting testimony regarding Building 6, a duplex unit shared by the Petitioner and a neighbor, Donna Armstrong. Both parties share a common roof slope, which became the focal point of the evidentiary dispute.

Petitioner’s Evidence Respondent’s Evidence
Personal photographs taken on May 18, 2012. Testimony from neighbor Donna Armstrong, sharing the same roof slope, stating no damage existed.
Copies of photographs taken by a roofing contractor depicting various roof slopes. Testimony from Board member Lorraine Matts, clarifying that estimates for Building 6 applied only to Ms. Armstrong’s portion.
Roofing contractor estimates and a March 2011 contractor observation suggesting damage. A May 2, 2011, email from the Petitioner admitting he had already replaced and cemented shingles himself.

The ALJ noted that the evidence was "sketchy." Most notably, the Petitioner’s admission of "self-help" repairs proved fatal to his case. By performing his own repairs without professional documentation, the Petitioner effectively obscured the original condition of the roof, making it impossible for the ALJ to verify the existence or extent of storm damage.

6. The Ruling: Why the Case Was Dismissed

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his roof was actually damaged and required repair.

In administrative law, the failure to prove a foundational fact (the damage) renders secondary legal questions (the use of funds) moot. Because no damage was proven, the Association’s statutory obligation to repair under A.R.S. § 33-1253(H) was never triggered. Consequently, the legal standing of the contingency fund became irrelevant to the Petitioner's claim.

The final outcomes were:

  • Dismissal: The petition was dismissed in its entirety.
  • Denial of Fees: The Petitioner’s request for the $550.00 filing fee and reimbursement of attorney’s fees was denied.
  • No Action: The Association was not required to distribute any funds to the Petitioner.
7. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

This ruling provides a clinical look at the risks of uncoordinated action and poor documentation in HOA disputes:

  1. The Burden is on the Accuser: A Petitioner must do more than allege a grievance; they must provide the "greater weight" of evidence. If the evidence is equally balanced or "sketchy," the party with the burden of proof will lose.
  2. The DIY Trap: Homeowners should be wary of "self-help" repairs prior to a legal resolution. Performing your own repairs without comprehensive, professional "before" documentation can be legally fatal, as it destroys the evidence necessary to prove the original damage.
  3. The Power of Membership Ratification: The Association’s position was significantly bolstered by the transparent 8-4 membership vote. When a Board is unsure of how to equitably exercise its discretion, a vote of the members can provide a robust defense against claims of arbitrary decision-making.

The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety was given until July 23, 2012, to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s decision. Having received no action by that date, the decision was officially certified as the final administrative action on July 31, 2012.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert L. Vise (Petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Diane Gorinac (Board Chairman)
    East 12 Condo HOA
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Donna Armstrong (Witness)
    Shares duplex unit with Petitioner
  • Lorraine Matts (Board member)
    East 12 Condo HOA
    Testified regarding damage estimates

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (OAH Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Beth Soliere (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed in transmission attention line

Brown, William M. vs. Terravita Country Club Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112007-BFS
Agency Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-05-08
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) because, although it provided the policy, it did not do so within the mandatory ten business days. The late delivery was attributed to an unintentional computer error. Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $550.00 filing fee, but no civil penalties were assessed against the Respondent.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner William M. Brown Counsel —
Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc. Counsel Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) because, although it provided the policy, it did not do so within the mandatory ten business days. The late delivery was attributed to an unintentional computer error. Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $550.00 filing fee, but no civil penalties were assessed against the Respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records (Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy) within ten business days

Petitioner requested a copy of the Respondent's Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy. Respondent failed to provide the policy within the statutory ten business day period, allegedly due to a computer error where the email became stuck in an outbox.

Orders: Respondent shall pay Petitioner his filing fee of $550.00. No civil penalty imposed as Respondent attempted to comply.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

11F-H125885-BFS Decision – 292130.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:39:17 (81.4 KB)

11F-H125885-BFS Decision – 295358.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:39:22 (60.5 KB)

Case Briefing: William M. Brown vs. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law proceedings and final decision in the matter of William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc. (No. 11F-H1112007-BFS). The case centered on a records request made by Petitioner William M. Brown for the Respondent’s Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Lewis D. Kowal, determined that Terravita Country Club, Inc. violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide the requested records within the mandatory ten-business-day window. While the Respondent cited technical "computer errors" and a lack of clarity regarding the request, the ALJ held the Respondent accountable for the delay. Ultimately, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $550 filing fee, though no additional civil penalties were imposed due to evidence of the Respondent’s attempt to comply with the law. The decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety on June 14, 2012.

Statutory Framework

The legal foundation for this case is A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which governs the availability of records for planned communities. The statute mandates the following:

  • Access to Records: All financial and other records of an association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member or their designated representative.
  • Cost: Associations may not charge for making materials available for review. However, they may charge a fee of no more than fifteen cents per page for copies.
  • Fulfillment Timeline: The association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.

Key Themes and Analysis

1. The Mandatory Nature of Statutory Deadlines

The primary issue in this case was the failure to meet the ten-business-day requirement. Despite the Respondent receiving the request on October 21, 2011, the actual policy was not successfully delivered until November 7, 2011.

  • Analysis: The ALJ found that even though the Respondent attempted to send the email on November 4 (the final day of the statutory period), the failure of that email to leave the outbox meant the association remained in violation. This emphasizes that the burden of delivery rests with the association, and technical failures do not absolve them of statutory timelines.
2. Clarity of Records Requests

The Respondent’s staff, specifically the Custodian of Records (Cici Rausch), testified that they did not initially understand the Petitioner’s request for the "Not-For-Profit Individual and Organization Insurance Policy."

  • Analysis: The ALJ noted that the record was unclear as to why the staff did not understand the request, especially since the Petitioner provided specific details, including a policy number in subsequent communications. The ruling suggests that associations must act diligently to clarify and fulfill requests rather than allowing confusion to delay the statutory clock.
3. Mitigation of Sanctions

The Respondent argued that the delay was due to an unintentional computer error and that the Petitioner should have contacted them to confirm receipt.

  • Analysis: While the ALJ rejected the argument that the Petitioner was responsible for following up, he did use the "unintentional" nature of the error to determine the severity of the penalty. Because the Respondent thought they had complied on November 4, the ALJ declined to impose additional civil sanctions, ordering only the reimbursement of the filing fee.
4. Credibility and Post-Hearing Allegations

Following the hearing, the Petitioner alleged that the Custodian of Records, Cici Rausch, committed perjury regarding her legal name and her involvement in other civil litigation (specifically a divorce proceeding).

  • Analysis: The ALJ dismissed these claims, finding that Ms. Rausch’s use of the name "Cici" was supported by documentary evidence and that her belief that a family court divorce was not "civil litigation" was a reasonable misunderstanding. This aspect of the case highlights the high bar required to prove perjury in administrative hearings.

Significant Case Timeline

Date Event
Oct 21, 2011 (10:09 AM) Petitioner emails initial request for insurance policy records.
Oct 21, 2011 (4:22 PM) Respondent sends a Certificate of Insurance, which is not the full policy.
Oct 21, 2011 (4:48 PM) Petitioner repeats request, providing a specific policy number (PHSD646331).
Oct 28, 2011 General Manager Tom Forbes emails the Policy to the Custodian of Records.
Nov 4, 2011 Statutory deadline for the initial Oct 21 request.
Nov 4, 2011 (Evening) Custodian attempts to email Policy; email becomes "stuck" in the outbox.
Nov 7, 2011 Custodian realizes the error and re-sends the Policy.
Apr 9, 2012 Administrative hearing held.
May 8, 2012 ALJ issues decision finding a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
June 14, 2012 Decision certified as the final administrative decision.

Important Quotes with Context

"The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records."

— A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), cited as the governing law.

"The Administrative Law Judge concludes that while Respondent provided Petitioner with a copy of the Policy, that did not occur within ten business days of his request and, therefore, Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)."

— Conclusion of Law, Paragraph 3. This establishes the core finding of the case.

"Respondent’s argument that Petitioner should be estopped from pursuing the instant matter because Petitioner did not contact Respondent fails."

— Conclusion of Law, Paragraph 4. This clarifies that the burden of compliance is on the association, not the member making the request.

"The evidence of record established that Respondent attempted to comply with the law, which the Administrative Law Judge has taken into consideration in determining whether any civil penalty should be imposed."

— Conclusion of Law, Paragraph 5. This explains why the Respondent was only ordered to pay the filing fee rather than further sanctions.

Actionable Insights

  • Establish Clear Protocols for Records Requests: Organizations should ensure that the Custodian of Records is trained to identify and clarify legal requests immediately. Any ambiguity in a request should be resolved through prompt communication to avoid missing statutory deadlines.
  • Verify Delivery of Electronic Documents: Reliance on the "send" button is insufficient for legal compliance. Organizations should implement a verification process—such as requesting a read receipt or checking the "Sent" folder—to ensure that records have actually left the outbox.
  • Calculate Statutory Deadlines Immediately: Upon receipt of a records request, the ten-business-day window should be calculated and marked on a calendar to prevent last-minute technical failures from causing a legal violation.
  • Documentation of Technical Issues: If a delay occurs due to technical reasons, maintaining a clear paper trail (such as timestamps and IT logs) may help mitigate civil penalties, even if a violation is technically found.
  • Cost of Non-Compliance: Even in cases of "unintentional" error, the prevailing party is entitled to the reimbursement of filing fees (in this case, $550). This serves as a financial incentive for associations to prioritize timely records disclosure.

Study Guide: Administrative Law Case Study – Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between William M. Brown and Terravita Country Club, Inc. (No. 11F-H1112007-BFS). It examines the application of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) regarding records requests in planned communities, the burden of proof in administrative hearings, and the finality of Administrative Law Judge decisions.

Key Concepts and Legal Standards

Statutory Requirement: A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

This statute governs the availability of records for homeowners' associations in planned communities. Its core provisions include:

  • Access: Financial and other records must be made "reasonably available" for examination by any member or their designated representative.
  • Timelines: The association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.
  • Fees: Associations may not charge for the review of materials but may charge up to fifteen cents per page for physical copies.
Burden of Proof: Preponderance of the Evidence

In these proceedings, the Petitioner (the person bringing the claim) bears the burden of proof.

  • Legal Definition: According to Black’s Law Dictionary, as cited in the case, "preponderance of the evidence" means evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition.
  • Application: It must be shown that the fact sought to be proved is "more probable than not."
Administrative Finality

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision that can be accepted, rejected, or modified by the relevant state department (in this case, the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety). If the department takes no action within a specific timeframe (e.g., approximately 30 days), the ALJ’s decision is certified as the final administrative decision.

Case Summary: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

The Dispute

Petitioner William M. Brown, a resident of the Terravita Country Club community, requested a copy of the Respondent's Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy. While the Respondent eventually provided the document, the Petitioner alleged they failed to do so within the ten-business-day window required by A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Timeline of Events
Date Event
Oct 21, 2011 (10:09 AM) Petitioner emails his first request for the insurance policy.
Oct 21, 2011 (4:22 PM) Respondent provides a "Certificate of Insurance," which is not the full policy.
Oct 21, 2011 (4:48 PM) Petitioner sends a second request specifying the policy number (PHSD646331).
Oct 28, 2011 The General Manager emails the Policy to the Custodian of Records (Ms. Rausch).
Nov 4, 2011 (4:55 PM) Petitioner sends a third request as the records have still not been received.
Nov 4, 2011 Ms. Rausch attempts to email the Policy, but the email becomes "stuck" in her outbox due to a computer error.
Nov 7, 2011 Ms. Rausch discovers the error and re-sends the Policy. Petitioner receives it.
The Ruling

The ALJ concluded that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) because the document was not delivered within ten business days of the initial request.

  • Sanctions: No civil penalties were imposed because the Respondent demonstrated an attempt to comply, and the delay was attributed to an unintentional computer error.
  • Remedy: As the prevailing party, the Petitioner was awarded his $550.00 filing fee, to be paid by the Respondent.
  • Credibility Issues: The Petitioner alleged the Respondent's witness (Ms. Rausch) committed perjury regarding her name and involvement in other civil litigation. The ALJ dismissed these claims, finding her explanations (regarding her use of the name "Cici" and her understanding of family court vs. civil litigation) to be reasonable.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. According to A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), how many business days does an association have to provide copies of requested records?
  2. What was the specific document requested by William M. Brown that led to this litigation?
  3. What was the "computer error" that occurred on November 4, 2011?
  4. Why did the Administrative Law Judge decline to impose civil penalties against Terravita Country Club, Inc.?
  5. What was the total filing fee that the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Petitioner?
  6. Who bears the burden of proof in this administrative proceeding?
  7. What was the Respondent's unsuccessful argument regarding why the Petitioner should be "estopped" (prevented) from pursuing the matter?

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Role of Intent in Statutory Violations: Analyze the ALJ’s decision to find a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) while simultaneously refusing to issue sanctions. Does the lack of intent to violate the law excuse the violation itself, or only the punishment? Use the "stuck" email incident as the basis for your argument.
  2. Statutory Compliance vs. Certificate of Insurance: In this case, the Respondent initially provided a "Certificate of Insurance" instead of the requested "Policy." Discuss the legal and practical differences between these two documents in the context of a member's right to examine association records.
  3. The Impact of Witness Credibility: The Petitioner challenged the credibility of the Custodian of Records based on her name and her involvement in family court. Evaluate the ALJ's reasoning in maintaining the witness's credibility. How does an ALJ distinguish between intentional perjury and a "reasonable explanation" for inconsistent testimony?

Glossary of Important Terms

  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A judge who over-sees hearings and makes decisions in disputes involving government agency rules or specific state statutes.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): The Arizona Revised Statute governing the right of members in a planned community to inspect and copy association records.
  • Certificate of Insurance: A document providing proof of insurance coverage but not containing the full terms, conditions, or endorsements of the actual insurance policy.
  • Custodian of Records: The individual designated by an organization to maintain and manage its official documents and respond to records requests.
  • Estoppel: A legal principle that prevents someone from arguing something or asserting a right that contradicts what they previously said or agreed to by law.
  • Petitioner: The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition; in this case, William M. Brown.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof used in most civil and administrative cases, requiring that a fact is more likely than not to be true.
  • Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, Terravita Country Club, Inc.
  • Sanctions: Penalties or other means of enforcement used to provide incentives for obedience with the law or with rules and regulations.

The 10-Day Clock: Lessons in Transparency from Brown v. Terravita Country Club

1. Introduction: The Power of Record Requests

For homeowners in Arizona planned communities, the right to inspect association records is not a courtesy—it is a statutory mandate. This transparency is the bedrock of a healthy relationship between a Board of Directors and the residents they serve. When an HOA fails to provide requested documents, it isn't just a breach of trust; it is a legal violation that carries financial consequences.

The case of William M. Brown vs. Terravita Country Club, Inc. provides a masterclass in the pitfalls of administrative delay. This dispute demonstrates that in the eyes of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), "intent to comply" and "technical difficulties" do not stop the clock. For homeowners, this case is a reminder of their rights; for Boards, it is a cautionary tale: the 10-day deadline is absolute, and the burden of compliance rests entirely on the association.

2. The Legal Foundation: Understanding A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Arizona law is remarkably clear regarding the accessibility of records. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), all financial and other records must be made "reasonably available" to members or their designated representatives.

As a consumer advocate, I always emphasize that homeowners should understand the specific parameters of this law. To remain in compliance, an association must follow these three strict standards:

  • The Examination Timeline: The association has exactly 10 business days to fulfill a request to examine records. (Note: "Business days" exclude weekends and legal holidays).
  • The Delivery Timeline: If a homeowner requests physical or electronic copies, the association has 10 business days to provide them.
  • The Cost Ceiling: The association cannot overcharge for transparency. They are limited to a maximum fee of fifteen cents ($0.15) per page.
3. Anatomy of a Delay: A Timeline of the Dispute

The conflict in Brown v. Terravita Country Club began with a simple request for an insurance policy but devolved into a legal battle due to internal mismanagement and missed deadlines.

  • October 21, 2011 (10:09 a.m.): Mr. Brown emails the Custodian of Records, Cici Rausch, requesting the Directors and Officers (D&O) Liability Insurance Policy.
  • October 21, 2011 (4:22 p.m.): Ms. Rausch responds with a Certificate of Insurance. This is a common error—a Certificate is merely a summary, not the actual policy contract the homeowner is legally entitled to see.
  • October 21, 2011 (4:48 p.m.): Mr. Brown immediately clarifies his request, providing the exact document title and Policy Number PHSD646331.
  • October 24, 2011: Ms. Rausch acknowledges the request but states she must follow up with the Controller.
  • October 28, 2011: The General Manager emails the requested policy to Ms. Rausch at 5:18 p.m. Crucially, the internal process stalled here; Ms. Rausch could not recall when she even opened this email, and the document sat for a full week without being forwarded to the homeowner.
  • November 4, 2011: The 10th business day. This was the legal deadline for delivery. Mr. Brown sends a third request. Ms. Rausch attempts to email the policy at the end of the day, but the email becomes "stuck" in her outbox.
  • November 7, 2011: On the 11th business day, the association finally discovers the error and successfully delivers the policy.
4. The "Stuck Email" Defense: Why Technical Glitches Aren't Legal Excuses

The association’s primary defense was a "computer error." They argued that because the staff member pressed "send" on the deadline date (November 4), the failure to deliver was unintentional.

The ALJ was unpersuaded for two critical reasons. First, the 10-day window is a hard deadline; by the time the email was actually delivered on November 7, the law had already been violated. Second, the ALJ rejected the association's "estoppel" argument—the claim that Mr. Brown should have called to check on his records. Because Ms. Rausch’s email on the afternoon of November 4 indicated she was leaving for the weekend, the Judge ruled that the homeowner had no duty to "chase" the association. The burden of ensuring a record is delivered remains 100% on the HOA.

The case also featured side allegations regarding whether the custodian committed "perjury" by using the nickname "Cici" instead of "Celia" or by failing to categorize a divorce as "civil litigation." The ALJ dismissed these as distractions, noting that using a common nickname and misunderstanding legal terminology did not undermine the witness's credibility or change the fact of the timeline violation.

5. The Verdict: Costs and Consequences

The ALJ ruled that Terravita Country Club violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). This case highlights an important distinction between a "violation" and "sanctions."

While the Judge acknowledged the association's "attempted compliance" (the effort to send the email on November 4), this intent did not excuse the violation. It only served to mitigate the penalty, meaning the Judge chose not to impose additional civil fines. However, a violation is still a loss for the association.

The financial sting for the community was immediate:

  • Reimbursement Ordered: The association was ordered to pay Mr. Brown $550.00 to reimburse his filing fee.

From an advocate's perspective, this $550 represents a completely preventable waste of community resources caused by a week of internal administrative silence between October 28 and November 4.

6. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

This ruling provides three essential lessons for navigating record requests in Arizona:

Precision Matters

If you are a homeowner, do not just ask for "insurance info." Follow Mr. Brown’s lead: identify the specific document and, if possible, the policy number. By being exact, you eliminate the association's ability to claim they didn't understand the request.

The Clock is Absolute

The 10-business-day deadline expires at the end of the tenth day. Associations should treat the eighth or ninth day as their internal deadline to account for technical glitches. To protect the community, Boards should require staff to use "Read Receipts" or "Delivery Confirmations" for all statutory disclosures to avoid the "stuck in the outbox" trap.

Filing Fees are at Risk

Even if a Board has "good intentions," a late response is a losing response in court. When an association loses a records dispute, they are typically on the hook for the petitioner's filing fees. Boards must realize that administrative negligence is a direct hit to the association's budget.

7. Compelling Conclusion

The decision in Brown v. Terravita Country Club serves as a vital reminder that transparency in a planned community is governed by the calendar, not by convenience. Statutory timelines are the safeguards that prevent associations from "slow-walking" information to their members. By prioritizing clear communication and respecting the 10-day clock, HOAs can avoid unnecessary legal fees and build a culture of accountability that serves the entire community.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William M. Brown (Petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Joshua M. Bolen (Attorney)
    Carpenter Hazelwood, Delgado, & Bolen, PLC
    Representing Terravita Country Club, Inc.
  • Cici Rausch (Custodian of Records)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.
    Also identified as Celia Anne Rausch; testified at hearing
  • Tom Forbes (General Manager)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.
  • Raquel Shull (Controller)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Beth Soliere (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of transmitted copy

Steadman, Lorinda and John -v- Esquire Village Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112004-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-04-09
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, finding that the Gadsden flag is a protected flag under A.R.S. § 33-1808 as it was historically an official flag of the Marine Corps. The HOA's determination of a violation was improper, and the fines were ordered withdrawn. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioners' filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Lorinda and John Steadman Counsel J. Roger Wood
Respondent Esquire Village Homeowners Association Counsel Joseph Tadano

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, finding that the Gadsden flag is a protected flag under A.R.S. § 33-1808 as it was historically an official flag of the Marine Corps. The HOA's determination of a violation was improper, and the fines were ordered withdrawn. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioners' filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Restriction on flying the Gadsden flag

Petitioners challenged the HOA's assessment of fines for flying the Gadsden flag. The HOA argued the flag was not protected under A.R.S. § 33-1808. The ALJ determined that because the Gadsden flag was historically an official flag of the U.S. Marine Corps, it fell under the statutory protection for official service flags, regardless of whether it is currently used as the primary official flag.

Orders: Respondent is to take appropriate action to reflect that the flying of the Gadsden flag was not a violation and withdraw the assessment of any fees imposed. Respondent shall pay Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

11F-H1112004-BFS Decision – 289742.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:37:39 (89.7 KB)

11F-H1112004-BFS Decision – 292654.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:37:43 (60.2 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Steadman v. Esquire Village Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law case Lorinda and John Steadman v. Esquire Village Homeowners Association (No. 11F-H1112004-BFS). The central conflict involved the assessment of fines by the Esquire Village Homeowners Association (the "Association") against the Steadmans for flying the Gadsden flag in their backyard.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Lewis D. Kowal, ruled in favor of the Petitioners (the Steadmans), concluding that the Gadsden flag was protected under the version of A.R.S. § 33-1808 in effect at the time of the dispute. The ruling established that because the Gadsden flag served as an official flag of the United States Marine Corps at one point in history, it fell under statutory protections regardless of its "current" status. Consequently, the Association was ordered to rescind the fines and reimburse the Petitioners' $550.00 filing fee.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1808

The crux of the legal dispute was the interpretation of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1808, which limits the power of homeowners associations to prohibit the display of certain flags.

  • The "Official" vs. "Current" Distinction: The Association argued that the Gadsden flag was not a "protected" flag because it was not currently identified as an official flag in modern military manuals. However, the ALJ focused on the specific text of the statute: "an official or replica flag of the United States army, navy, air force, marine corps."
  • The Indefinite Article "An": The ALJ noted that the use of the word "an" suggests any one of a number of official flags, rather than a single, current iteration.
  • Historical Protection: Because the statute lacked the word "current," the ALJ determined that if a flag was ever an official flag of a military branch, it met the criteria for protection. The Petitioners successfully argued that the Gadsden flag was, at some time, an official flag of the U.S. Marine Corps.
2. The Evolution of Legislative Protections

The timing of the dispute coincided with a change in Arizona law.

  • Pre-Amendment Context: The violations and fines were issued between November 2010 and February 2011, under a version of the statute that did not explicitly name the Gadsden flag.
  • The 2011 Amendment: In April 2011 (effective July 2011), the statute was amended to specifically identify the Gadsden flag as a protected flag.
  • Legal Sufficiency: While the Association believed they were within their rights because the Gadsden flag was not yet explicitly named in the statute during the violation period, the ALJ found the broader language of the existing statute already provided sufficient protection.
3. Evidentiary Standards and Burden of Proof

The case highlighted a disparity in the quality of evidence presented by the parties:

  • Respondent’s Evidence: The Association President, Julie Frost, conducted personal research in military manuals and claimed to have spoken with Arizona legislative counsel. However, the ALJ gave this "little weight" because no formal legal opinion was produced, and the counsel did not testify.
  • Petitioners’ Evidence: The Steadmans provided legal opinions from the ACLU of Arizona, references to historical records, and an Arizona State Senate Issue Brief. They also presented testimony from Pat Haruff, a homeowner advocate.
4. HOA Governance and Procedural Compliance

The management company, Renaissance Community Partners, issued the violation notices and fines at the direction of the Board. The Petitioners raised concerns regarding procedural failures, including:

  • Failure to respond to each individual appeal.
  • Failure to identify the specific persons who observed the violations.
  • Failure to provide information on the challenge procedure.
  • Outcome on Procedure: Because the ALJ ruled that the flags were protected by law, these procedural issues were deemed moot.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote Context
"Absent from the statute is any requirement that the flag in question be the sole official flag of any of the armed forces." ALJ Analysis: Explaining why the Gadsden flag qualifies for protection even if it is not the primary current flag of a military branch.
"Noticeably absent is any requirement than an official flag be a 'current' official flag of such forces." ALJ Analysis: The reasoning used to justify historical flags (like the Gadsden) as protected under the broad language of A.R.S. § 33-1808.
"The Administrative Law Judge concludes that under the law existing at the time at issue, Petitioners could fly the Gadsden flag." Ruling: The final determination that the Association's fines were improperly assessed based on the law as it stood in 2010-2011.
"Respondent’s determinations that violations occurred were improperly made and the fees were improperly assessed." Conclusion of Law: The formal invalidation of the Association's disciplinary actions against the Steadmans.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners Associations (HOAs)
  • Broad Statutory Interpretation: HOAs should interpret state-protected categories (like flags) broadly. Relying on a narrow "current use" definition can lead to legal liability if the statute does not explicitly include the word "current."
  • Verification of Legal Advice: Relying on informal conversations with legislative counsel or press releases from other communities is insufficient for a legal defense. Boards should obtain formal, written legal opinions before issuing fines on contested statutory issues.
  • Impact of Pending Legislation: Even if a specific item (like a flag) is not yet explicitly protected by name, its impending addition to a statute (as seen in the 2011 amendment) often indicates how a judge will interpret existing, broader language.
For Homeowners
  • Burden of Proof: Homeowners bear the burden of proving a violation of state law by a preponderance of the evidence. Comprehensive documentation, including historical context and expert opinions (such as those from the ACLU), is critical to meeting this burden.
  • Administrative Recourse: The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety provides a venue for challenging HOA actions. While there is a filing fee (in this case, $550.00), the prevailing party is entitled to reimbursement of that fee.
Legal Precedent Established
  • Historical Military Flags: This case reinforces that historical flags of the U.S. military branches carry the same statutory protections as current flags in Arizona, provided they were "official" at some point in the branch's history.

Case Study Analysis: Lorinda and John Steadman vs. Esquire Village Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case involving the right of homeowners to display certain flags within a Homeowners Association (HOA) community. It examines the legal interpretations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.), the burden of proof in administrative hearings, and the specific facts of the dispute between the Steadman family and the Esquire Village Homeowners Association.

I. Executive Case Summary

Case Number: 11F-H1112004-BFS Parties: Lorinda and John Steadman (Petitioners) vs. Esquire Village Homeowners Association (Respondent) Administrative Law Judge: Lewis D. Kowal Final Certification Date: May 15, 2012

The core of this dispute involved the assessment of fines by the Esquire Village Homeowners Association against Lorinda and John Steadman for flying the Gadsden flag in their backyard. The Association argued the flag was not protected under state law at the time of the violation, while the Petitioners argued it qualified as an official military flag. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Petitioners, determining that the fines were improperly assessed based on a textual interpretation of the existing statute.

II. Key Legal Concepts and Statutes

A.R.S. § 33-1808: Flag Display Protections

At the time of the dispute, this statute prohibited HOAs from restricting the outdoor display of specific flags, notwithstanding any provisions in community documents (CC&Rs). Protected flags included:

  • The American flag.
  • An official or replica flag of the United States army, navy, air force, marine corps, or coast guard.
  • The POW/MIA flag.
  • The Arizona state flag.
  • An Arizona Indian nation flag.

Statutory Amendment: In April 2011 (effective July 2011), the statute was amended to specifically name the Gadsden flag as a protected flag. However, the violations in this case occurred under the version of the statute in effect prior to this amendment.

A.R.S. § 33-1803(D): Violation Procedures

This statute outlines the requirements for an association when notifying a member of a violation, including the procedure for appeals. The Petitioners challenged the Association's compliance with these procedures, though the ALJ eventually found this issue moot due to the primary ruling.

Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof: In this administrative proceeding, the Petitioners bore the burden of proving that the Respondent violated the law.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof required. It is defined as evidence of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition; showing that the fact to be proved is "more probable than not."

III. Factual Timeline and Evidence

Chronology of Events
Date Event
February 4, 2008 Petitioners apply to the Architectural Review Committee for a 20-foot flagpole.
March 4, 2008 Application approved, subject to the list of flags in A.R.S. § 33-1808.
November 9, 2010 Association sends a letter informing Petitioners of a violation for flying the Gadsden flag.
February 9, 2011 Association issues a $50.00 fine; Petitioners appeal to the Board.
February 23, 2011 Association issues a second $50.00 fine; Petitioners appeal to the Board.
August 29, 2011 Petitioners file a Petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
March 22, 2012 Administrative hearing held.
April 9, 2012 ALJ issues decision in favor of Petitioners.
May 15, 2012 Decision certified as final.
Evidence and Testimony
  • Respondent’s Research: Board President Julie Frost testified she researched military manuals and spoke with legislative counsel. She concluded the Gadsden flag was not an "official" flag. The ALJ gave the legislative counsel's alleged opinion "little weight" as it was not corroborated by formal testimony or a written legal opinion.
  • Petitioners’ Evidence: Petitioners provided legal opinions from hired counsel and the ACLU of Arizona, a Wikipedia reference, and an Arizona State Senate Issue Brief from August 2010.
  • Expert Testimony: Pat Haruff, Director of the Coalition of HomeOwners for Rights and Education, testified that she had advised the Association's management company (Renaissance Community Partners) that the flag should be allowed.

IV. The ALJ’s Interpretation and Ruling

The ALJ’s decision rested on a "textual analysis" of A.R.S. § 33-1808(A)(1).

  1. The "An" vs. "The" Distinction: The statute protected "an" official flag of the marine corps, not "the" official flag. This suggests that any one of multiple official flags (past or present) is protected.
  2. Lack of Recency Requirement: The statute did not require a flag to be a "current" official flag.
  3. Determination: Because evidence showed the Gadsden flag was, at some time, an official flag of the U.S. Marine Corps, it fell under the protection of the statute even before the 2011 amendment specifically named it.

Final Order:

  • The Association was ordered to withdraw all fees and violation notices regarding the Gadsden flag.
  • The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for their $550.00 filing fee.

V. Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. What was the specific amount of the filing fee the Petitioners had to pay to the Department?
  • Answer: $550.00.
  1. Under which management company did the Association issue the violation notices?
  • Answer: Renaissance Community Partners.
  1. Why did the ALJ give "little weight" to Julie Frost’s testimony regarding her conversation with legislative counsel?
  • Answer: There was no corroborating testimony from the counsel, no written analysis provided, and no evidence that it constituted a formal legal opinion.
  1. What was the Association's primary justification for regulating the flagpole and flags under the CC&Rs?
  • Answer: Section 11.1 of the CC&Rs, which granted the Architectural Review Committee authority over aesthetic improvements visible from the street.
  1. Identify the specific date the 2011 amendment to A.R.S. § 33-1808 became effective.
  • Answer: July 2011.
  1. What was the total amount in fines specifically identified in the findings of fact?
  • Answer: Two fines of $50.00 each, totaling $100.00.
  1. What organization did Pat Haruff represent?
  • Answer: Coalition of HomeOwners for Rights and Education.
  1. According to the ALJ’s interpretation, did the Gadsden flag need to be the "current" official flag of the Marine Corps to be protected?
  • Answer: No; the statute only required it to have been "an" official flag at some time.

VI. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. Statutory Interpretation: Analyze the ALJ's decision to use a textualist approach to interpret A.R.S. § 33-1808. How did the distinction between the articles "an" and "the" change the outcome of the case? Discuss how this interpretation impacts the rights of HOAs to regulate historical versus modern military flags.
  2. The Burden of Proof in Administrative Law: Explain the "preponderance of the evidence" standard as applied in this case. Compare the evidence provided by the Association (internal research and uncorroborated conversations) with the evidence provided by the Petitioners (legal opinions and historical briefs). Why was the Petitioners' evidence more "convincing" in the eyes of the court?
  3. The Impact of Legislative Amendments: The Gadsden flag was specifically added to the statute shortly after this dispute began. Discuss the legal implications of flying a flag that is not yet specifically named in a statute but may fall under a broader category. Should the Association have paused enforcement given the pending legislative change?

VII. Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes): The codified laws of the state of Arizona.
  • ALJ (Administrative Law Judge): An official who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and issues decisions on disputes involving state agencies.
  • Architectural Review Committee: A body within an HOA responsible for approving or denying changes to the aesthetic appearance of properties (e.g., flagpoles, fences).
  • CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The governing documents of a homeowners association that dictate what a homeowner can and cannot do with their property.
  • Gadsden Flag: A historical American flag depicting a rattlesnake with the words "Don't Tread on Me," used by the U.S. Marine Corps in its early history.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases; it means that a fact is more likely to be true than not.
  • Respondent: The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed (in this case, the Esquire Village Homeowners Association).
  • Petitioner: The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, the Steadmans).

Flag Rights and HOA Overreach: The Case of the Gadsden Flag

1. Introduction: A Battle in the Backyard

The legal showdown between Lorinda and John Steadman and the Esquire Village Homeowners Association represents a critical victory for property owners against the encroaching tide of arbitrary private governance. At the heart of this dispute was the Gadsden flag—the yellow banner featuring a coiled rattlesnake and the defiant motto "Don't Tread on Me." What began as a simple act of expression in a private backyard escalated into a punitive campaign of fines and notices.

The Association’s decision to penalize the Steadmans rested on a legally deficient and overly restrictive interpretation of state law. By claiming the Gadsden flag was not "protected," the HOA attempted to override a homeowner’s statutory rights. This case—and the subsequent ruling—serves as a masterclass in how precise textual analysis of A.R.S. § 33-1808 can be used to dismantle HOA overreach and defend the right to display historical symbols of American service.

2. The Dispute: Fines, Flags, and Formalities

The facts of case No. 11F-H1112004-BFS reveal an enforcement process characterized by a lack of independent oversight. Notably, the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was not an independent body but was comprised of the Board members themselves, creating an environment ripe for confirmation bias in enforcement.

Key Events and Factual Negligence:

  • February 4, 2008: The Steadmans applied to install a 20-foot aluminum flagpole in their rear yard.
  • March 4, 2008: The ARC (the Board) approved the application, provided the flags flown were limited to those protected by A.R.S. § 33-1808.
  • November 9, 2010: The Association initiated a violation notice against the Steadmans specifically for flying the Gadsden flag.
  • February 2011: Under the direction of the Board, Kevin Bishop, President of the management company Renaissance Community Partners, issued two separate $50.00 fines.
  • Procedural Failing: Throughout the dispute, the Association failed to identify specific provisions in the community's governing documents that would support a violation, relying instead on their flawed interpretation of state law.

3. The Legal Pivot: Interpreting A.R.S. § 33-1808

The Association’s defense was built on the premise that the Gadsden flag was not explicitly listed in the version of A.R.S. § 33-1808 then in effect. However, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal utilized a sophisticated textual analysis to expose the Association’s error.

The statute protected the display of "the American flag or an official or replica flag of the United States army, navy, air force, [or] marine corps." The judge identified a crucial grammatical distinction found in Footnote 4 of the decision:

  • "The" vs. "An": The use of the definite article "the" for the American flag implies a specific, singular, and current version. However, the use of the indefinite article "an" for military flags implies any one of a number of official flags.
  • Historical Inclusion: Because the statute did not require a flag to be the current or sole official flag, any flag that was "at some time" an official flag of a military branch qualified for protection.

The judge concluded that the Gadsden flag, as a historical flag of the U.S. Marine Corps, was protected under A.R.S. § 33-1808 at all relevant times. This analysis effectively blocked the HOA from using a "current-only" standard to suppress historical expression.

4. Evidence and Testimony: Research vs. Reality

The hearing highlighted the disparity between the Association’s amateur research and the substantiated evidence provided by the homeowners.

HOA/Respondent (Board Defense) Steadman/Petitioners (Property Rights Defense)
Julie Frost (President) conducted research in military manuals; ironically, she testified that the Gadsden flag was mentioned in the Marine Corps manual—providing the very evidence used against the HOA. Legal opinion from the ACLU of Arizona supporting the homeowners' right to fly the flag as a protected military symbol.
Reliance on uncorroborated hearsay from a conversation with legislative counsel. The judge gave this "little weight" as it was not a formal legal opinion. Inclusion of Wikipedia as a reference tool, which was stipulated into evidence to establish the flag's historical military status.
Consideration of a press release from a private law firm regarding a different community, rather than seeking a binding legal ruling. An Arizona State Senate Issue Brief (August 24, 2010) clarifying that HOAs cannot prohibit military flags.
Testimony from Kevin Bishop confirming the Association's refusal to resolve the matter despite homeowner appeals. Testimony from Pat Haruff, Director of the Coalition of HomeOwners for Rights and Education, who advocated for the Steadmans' rights.

5. The Final Verdict: Accountability for the HOA

On April 9, 2012, Judge Kowal ruled in favor of the Steadmans, a decision certified as final on May 15, 2012. The ruling was a total rebuke of the Association’s actions. The judge noted that while the Petitioners bore the burden of proof, they met it by a preponderance of the evidence—showing it was more probable than not that the flag held official military status.

The Association was ordered to:

  • Withdraw all assessments: Rescind all fines and fees related to the Gadsden flag.
  • Correct Official Records: Update Association records to explicitly show that flying the flag was not a violation of the ARC’s approval.
  • Financial Penalty: In a significant move for accountability, the Association was ordered to reimburse the Steadmans $550.00 for their filing fee, shifting the financial burden of the HOA’s legal error back onto the Board.

6. Conclusion: Key Takeaways for Homeowners

The Steadman case provides a blueprint for homeowners facing HOA overreach regarding A.R.S. § 33-1808:

  1. Statutory Interpretation is a Shield: Small words like "an" can have massive legal consequences. Never accept an HOA's restrictive reading of the law without a professional textual analysis.
  2. Vindicating Legislative Response: While the judge ruled the Gadsden flag was already protected under the "official flag" umbrella, the Arizona legislature responded to this type of overreach by amending A.R.S. § 33-1808 in July 2011 to explicitly list the Gadsden flag, removing any shadow of a doubt for future residents.
  3. The Standard of Evidence: Homeowners do not need absolute certainty to win; they must only meet the preponderance of the evidence standard. Thorough documentation and the use of resources like Senate Briefs and expert advocacy can tilt the scales.

Ultimately, this case proves that the balance of power in a managed community does not reside solely with the Board. When an Association attempts to "tread" on the statutory rights of its members, the law provides a robust mechanism for accountability and the restoration of property rights.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Lorinda Steadman (petitioner)
    Homeowner
  • John Steadman (petitioner)
    Homeowner
  • L. Roger Wood (attorney)
    The Law Offices of J. Roger Wood, PLLC
    Listed as 'L. Roger Wood' in appearances and 'J. Roger Wood' in service list
  • Pat Haruff (witness)
    Coalition of HomeOwners for Rights and Education
    Director of Coalition; advocate for homeowners

Respondent Side

  • Esquire Village Homeowners Association (respondent)
    Entity named as Respondent
  • Joseph Tadano (attorney)
    Farley Sletos & Choate
  • Kevin Bishop (witness)
    Renaissance Community Partners
    President of the management company
  • Julie Frost (board member)
    Esquire Village Homeowners Association
    Board President; testified at hearing

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on transmission of decision
  • Cliff J. Vanell (agency director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Beth Soliere (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    ATTN recipient for transmission

Wozniak, Kathy vs. The North Slopes Property Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112001-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2011-10-28
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge granted the Respondent's First Amended Motion to Dismiss. The Petitioner lacked standing to file the petition because she did not own the lot within the subdivision at the time of filing. Additionally, the Tribunal lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the dispute was contractual in nature regarding CC&R amendments.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kathy Wozniak Counsel —
Respondent The North Slopes Property Owners Association Counsel Karen L. Karr

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B); A.R.S. § 41-2198(3)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the Respondent's First Amended Motion to Dismiss. The Petitioner lacked standing to file the petition because she did not own the lot within the subdivision at the time of filing. Additionally, the Tribunal lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the dispute was contractual in nature regarding CC&R amendments.

Why this result: Lack of standing; Lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Key Issues & Findings

Motion to Dismiss – Standing and Jurisdiction

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated the CC&Rs/contract by amending the minimum home size from 2,500 to 3,500 square feet. Respondent moved to dismiss.

Orders: The matter was dismissed because the Petitioner lacked standing (did not own the lot at the time of filing) and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over contractual disputes.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198(3)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

11F-H1112001-BFS Decision – 277667.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:36:56 (57.4 KB)

11F-H1112001-BFS Decision – 280461.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:36:59 (60.0 KB)

Administrative Briefing: Wozniak v. The North Slopes Property Owners Association

Executive Summary

The matter of Kathy Wozniak v. The North Slopes Property Owners Association (No. 11F-H1112001-BFS) involved a petition filed with the Arizona Department of Fire Building and Life Safety. The Petitioner, Kathy Wozniak, challenged the Respondent’s actions regarding the enforcement and amendment of community Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), specifically concerning minimum home size requirements.

On October 28, 2011, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lewis D. Kowal issued a decision granting the Respondent's First Amended Motion to Dismiss. The dismissal was predicated on two primary grounds: the Petitioner's lack of standing as a property owner and the Tribunal's lack of jurisdiction over the contractual nature of the claims. This decision was officially certified as the final administrative action on December 6, 2011, after the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety took no action to modify or reject the ruling.

Case Overview

Entity Detail
Case Number 11F-H1112001-BFS
Petitioner Kathy Wozniak
Respondent The North Slopes Property Owners Association
Presiding Judge Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Forum Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
Final Decision Date October 28, 2011 (Certified December 6, 2011)

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Standing and Ownership Status

A central issue in the dismissal was the Petitioner's status at the time of filing. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), a petitioner must be an owner to have standing for an administrative hearing in this context. It was determined that Wozniak did not own Lot 20 within the North Slopes subdivision when she filed the petition. Consequently, she did not meet the legal definition of an "owner" and lacked the standing required to be a party to the proceedings.

2. Jurisdiction and the Nature of the Claim

The Petitioner’s grievances focused on a change in the community’s CC&Rs. Specifically, the minimum home size requirement was increased from 2,500 square feet (the standard when she purchased Lot 20) to 3,500 square feet.

The ALJ identified two major jurisdictional failures in the Petitioner’s argument:

  • Failure to Identify Statutory Violations: The Petitioner did not cite any specific statute or community document provision that the Respondent violated by amending the CC&Rs.
  • Contractual vs. Regulatory Disputes: The Petitioner framed her argument as a breach of contract and a failure to act in good faith. The ALJ ruled that such "gravamen" is contractual in nature. The Tribunal's jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 41-2198(3) is limited to adjudicating complaints ensuring compliance with Title 33, Chapter 16, and planned community documents; it does not extend to general contract law.
3. Finality of Administrative Action

The procedural history confirms the transition of the ALJ’s decision into a final agency action. Because the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety did not accept, reject, or modify the ALJ's decision by the December 2, 2011 deadline, the decision was certified as final by Cliff J. Vanell, Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, on December 6, 2011.

Important Quotes and Context

On Standing

"Based on the information presented by the parties, it is undisputed that at the time when Petitioner filed the Petition… she did not own Lot 20 within the North Slopes subdivision and was therefore not an owner within the meaning of A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B)."

  • Context: This quote explains the primary technical reason for the dismissal, emphasizing that ownership is a prerequisite for filing such a petition.
On Jurisdiction

"Petitioner’s gravamen is one that is contractual in nature and does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal with respect to administrative hearings to be held pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198(3)…"

  • Context: The ALJ clarifies that the Office of Administrative Hearings is a specific forum for regulatory compliance, not a general court for breach-of-contract disputes.
On the Nature of the Complaint

"Petitioner articulated that her cause of action has to do with the fact that the CC& Rs in existence when she purchased Lot 20 provided that the minimum size of a home that could be constructed within the subdivision was 2,500 square feet, and that subsequently, the CC& Rs were amended to increase the minimum home size to 3,500 square feet."

  • Context: This provides the factual background of the dispute, illustrating the Petitioner’s specific grievance regarding the association's policy changes.

Actionable Insights

Based on the final certification and the ALJ's ruling, the following rights and subsequent steps are available to the parties:

  • Request for Rehearing: A party dissatisfied with the final decision has the right to request a rehearing from the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(A).
  • Judicial Appeal: The matter may be appealed to the Superior Court under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H). However, exhaustion of administrative remedies (such as seeking a rehearing) may be a required prerequisite under A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(B) before an appeal can be filed.
  • Time Sensitivity: The document emphasizes that rights may be lost if action is not taken in a "timely manner." Parties are directed to review the Arizona Revised Statutes immediately to ensure compliance with filing deadlines.
  • Jurisdictional Strategy: The ruling suggests that claims based purely on "good faith" or "contractual" disagreements regarding CC&R amendments may be better suited for Superior Court rather than an administrative hearing, unless a specific violation of Title 33, Chapter 16 can be identified.

Case Study: Wozniak v. The North Slopes Property Owners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative legal proceedings between Kathy Wozniak (Petitioner) and The North Slopes Property Owners Association (Respondent). It explores the legal concepts of standing, jurisdiction, and the administrative certification process within the context of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.).

I. Case Background and Core Themes

The dispute originated when Kathy Wozniak filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Fire Building and Life Safety against the North Slopes Property Owners Association. The core of the complaint involved changes to the subdivision’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Key Dispute Details
  • Original Provision: When the Petitioner purchased Lot 20, the CC&Rs required a minimum home size of 2,500 square feet.
  • Amended Provision: The CC&Rs were subsequently amended to increase the minimum home size to 3,500 square feet.
  • Petitioner’s Argument: The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent failed to adhere to a contract and did not act in good faith.

II. Key Legal Concepts

The dismissal of this case rested on two fundamental legal pillars: standing and jurisdiction.

1. Legal Standing

Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), a party must meet specific criteria to be considered an "owner" and thus have the right to participate in an administrative hearing.

  • Finding: At the time the petition was filed, Kathy Wozniak did not own Lot 20 within the North Slopes subdivision.
  • Consequence: Lacking ownership at the time of filing meant the Petitioner did not have standing to be a party to the hearing.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal

The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) operates under specific statutory limits. A.R.S. § 41-2198(3) mandates that an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adjudicate complaints to ensure compliance with:

  • Title 33, Chapter 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.
  • Planned community documents.

The Jurisdictional Gap: The Petitioner’s claims were "contractual in nature," focusing on "good faith" and breach of contract rather than specific violations of Title 33 or the community documents. The ALJ determined that contractual disputes fall outside the jurisdiction of this specific administrative tribunal.

III. Procedural Timeline and Finality

The transition of an ALJ's initial decision to a final agency action follows a strict statutory timeline involving the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety.

Date Event Description
October 19, 2011 Oral Argument Addressing the Respondent’s First Amended Motion to Dismiss.
October 28, 2011 ALJ Decision The ALJ orders the dismissal of the matter due to lack of standing and jurisdiction.
December 2, 2011 Statutory Deadline The deadline for the Department to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ decision.
December 6, 2011 Certification The Director of the OAH certifies the decision as final after no action was taken by the Department.

IV. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. Why was Kathy Wozniak's status as a property owner central to the dismissal of her petition? Answer: According to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), standing to be a party in these administrative hearings is contingent upon being an "owner." Because she did not own Lot 20 at the time of filing, she failed to meet the statutory definition of an owner.

2. What specific body of law does an ALJ have the authority to enforce under A.R.S. § 41-2198(3)? Answer: The ALJ is authorized to ensure compliance with Title 33, Chapter 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes and the specific planned community documents.

3. What happened when the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety failed to act on the ALJ’s decision by December 2, 2011? Answer: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D), the lack of action resulted in the ALJ's decision being certified as the final administrative decision of the Department.

4. What was the specific change in the CC&Rs that the Petitioner used as the basis for her claim? Answer: The minimum square footage for a home in the subdivision was increased from 2,500 square feet (at the time of her purchase) to 3,500 square feet.

5. What are the two primary options for a party wishing to challenge a certified final administrative decision? Answer: A party may request a rehearing from the Department (A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(A)) or appeal the matter to the Superior Court (A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)).

V. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. Standing vs. Merits: Analyze the difference between a court dismissing a case for "lack of standing" versus "lack of merit." Using the Wozniak case, explain why the ALJ did not need to rule on whether the increase in square footage was "fair" before dismissing the case.
  2. Administrative Jurisdiction: Discuss the limitations placed on Administrative Law Judges. Why might the law restrict an ALJ to Title 33 violations while directing "contractual" or "good faith" disputes to other court systems?
  3. The Certification Process: Evaluate the procedural importance of A.R.S. § 41-1092.08. How does the "inaction" of a department head (like the Director of the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety) serve as a mechanism for finalizing legal decisions?

VI. Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198 et seq.: The Arizona Revised Statutes governing the administrative procedures for home and community-related disputes.
  • CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions): The governing documents of a planned community that outline the rules and requirements for property owners.
  • Certification: The process by which the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings declares an ALJ's decision to be the final agency action.
  • Gravamen: The essence or most serious part of a legal complaint or accusation. In this case, the gravamen was contractual.
  • Jurisdiction: The official power of a legal body or tribunal to make legal decisions and judgments on specific topics.
  • Motion to Dismiss: A formal request for a judge to terminate a case without further testimony or a trial, usually due to a procedural or legal defect.
  • Petitioner: The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition (in this case, Kathy Wozniak).
  • Respondent: The party against whom a legal action is brought (in this case, North Slopes Property Owners Association).
  • Standing: The legal right of a person to bring a lawsuit or participate in a case, based on their connection to and harm from the matter at hand.

Understanding HOA Disputes: Lessons from Wozniak v. The North Slopes Property Owners Association

1. Introduction: The Complexity of Planned Community Conflicts

Living in a planned community involves a delicate balance between individual property rights and the collective regulations enforced by a Property Owners Association (HOA). Friction often arises when homeowners feel an association has overstepped its authority or failed to honor established agreements. However, seeking redress requires more than just a sense of grievance; it requires a precise understanding of legal standing and the specific jurisdictional boundaries of the courts and tribunals involved.

The case of Kathy Wozniak vs. The North Slopes Property Owners Association (No. 11F-H1112001-BFS) serves as a critical cautionary tale for homeowners. It illustrates how even a substantive challenge can be dismissed without a hearing on the merits if the petitioner fails to meet strict statutory requirements or selects the incorrect legal venue.

2. The Core of the Dispute: Square Footage and CC&Rs

The conflict in this case centered on amendments made to the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Petitioner, Kathy Wozniak, challenged the Association regarding a significant change to home construction requirements within the subdivision.

When Wozniak originally purchased Lot 20, the CC&Rs stipulated a minimum home size of 2,500 square feet. Subsequently, the Association amended these documents to increase the minimum requirement to 3,500 square feet. Wozniak filed a petition claiming that the Respondent "did not enforce the CC&Rs" as they originally existed and argued that she had a "contract" with the Association that was not being honored. Central to her argument was the claim that the Association failed to act in "good faith" by altering the terms of their agreement.

3. The Requirement of Standing: A Fundamental Gatekeeper

The first reason for the dismissal of this case was the issue of standing. In the legal world, standing is not a mere technicality; it is a fundamental gatekeeping rule designed to ensure that only those with a direct, current financial or legal stake in a property can disrupt association business or engage the state's adjudicative resources.

Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), the law explicitly defines who is eligible to file a petition in an administrative context. To have standing, the person filing must be an "owner" within the subdivision at the time the petition is filed. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lewis D. Kowal found that at the time Wozniak filed her petition with the Arizona Department of Fire Building and Life Safety, she no longer owned Lot 20 within the North Slopes subdivision. Because she was not an owner at the moment of filing, she lacked the legal standing to participate in the hearing, rendering her claims moot in this venue.

4. Jurisdiction: Administrative Hearings vs. Civil Court

The second pillar of the dismissal involved the limited jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). It is vital for homeowners to understand that the OAH is a court of limited jurisdiction; it can only exercise the specific powers granted to it by state statute and cannot "invent" authority to hear general grievances.

Under A.R.S. § 41-2198(3), the role of the ALJ is strictly to adjudicate complaints regarding compliance with Title 33, Chapter 16, and the specific provisions of planned community documents. In this case, the ALJ noted that Wozniak failed to identify any specific statute or community provision that was actually violated by the act of amending the CC&Rs.

Instead, the ALJ determined that the gravamen—the essence or most serious part of the complaint—was "contractual in nature." Wozniak’s claims of "bad faith" and breach of contract are issues of equity and general contract law. While these claims might be valid in a Civil or Superior Court setting, they do not fall within the narrow statutory jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal tasked only with overseeing Title 33 compliance.

5. The Final Ruling and Certification Process

On October 28, 2011, ALJ Lewis D. Kowal granted the Respondent’s First Amended Motion to Dismiss. This triggered a specific administrative finalization process:

  • Review Period: Per A.R.S. § 41-1092.08, the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety had until December 2, 2011, to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s decision.
  • Automatic Certification: The Department took no action by the deadline. Consequently, under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D), the decision was automatically certified as the final administrative decision.
  • Effective Date: Director Cliff J. Vanell officially certified the decision on December 6, 2011. Per the ALJ's order, the dismissal became effective five days after that certification.
6. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Associations

The dismissal of the Wozniak case offers three critical lessons for navigating HOA conflicts:

  • Ownership is Mandatory for Standing: You must be a legal owner of the property at the time of filing under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B). A common mistake is selling a property and then attempting to sue the HOA for past grievances through the administrative process. Once the deed is transferred, your standing to use this specific venue generally evaporates.
  • Identify Specific Statutory or Document Violations: The OAH cannot rule on general "unfairness." A successful petition must point to a violation of a specific Arizona statute (Title 33) or a specific provision in the CC&Rs. Claims based purely on "bad faith" or the "spirit" of a contract are likely to be dismissed.
  • Know Your Venue: Administrative tribunals are designed for statutory compliance. If your dispute is purely contractual—dealing with the "promises" made during purchase or general contract disputes—the Superior Court is the correct venue, not the OAH.

Final Procedural Note: Parties who receive an adverse ruling should act quickly. While a party has the right to request a rehearing under A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(A) or appeal to the Superior Court under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H), homeowners must be aware of A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(B). This statute suggests that a party may be required to seek an administrative rehearing before a Superior Court appeal can even be considered. Failure to follow these steps in a timely manner can result in the permanent loss of all appeal rights.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kathy Wozniak (Petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Karen L. Karr (Attorney)
    Bisgaard & Smith LLP; Lewis Brisbois
    Attorney for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Beth Soliere (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed in transmission details

Sawicki, Carl A. vs. Clearwater Farms Estates

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H089015-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2009-01-29
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The ALJ granted the Respondent's request to dismiss the petition, finding that the Petitioner's single issue did not give rise to a cause of action because the governing documents did not prohibit the Association from holding a second vote to amend the By-Laws.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Carl A. Sawicki Counsel —
Respondent Clearwater Farms Estates Counsel Beth Mulcahy

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Paragraph 5; Article X, Paragraph 3

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the Respondent's request to dismiss the petition, finding that the Petitioner's single issue did not give rise to a cause of action because the governing documents did not prohibit the Association from holding a second vote to amend the By-Laws.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to identify any provision in the By-Laws that prohibited the Respondent from conducting a second vote after the first vote failed.

Key Issues & Findings

Validity of Second Vote to Amend By-Laws

Petitioner argued that because a quorum was present at the first vote (which failed), the Respondent was precluded from holding a second vote to amend the By-Laws in December 2008.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Article IV, Paragraph 5
  • Article X, Paragraph 3

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H089015-BFS Decision – 206857.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:36:40 (63.8 KB)

Briefing on Administrative Decision: Sawicki v. Clearwater Farms Estates

Executive Summary

This briefing examines the administrative decision in the case of Carl A. Sawicki vs. Clearwater Farms Estates (No. 08F-H089015-BFS), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings on January 29, 2009. The dispute centered on whether a homeowners’ association is prohibited from conducting a subsequent vote to amend its By-Laws shortly after an initial vote on the same amendment failed to pass despite reaching a quorum.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Respondent, Clearwater Farms Estates, dismissing the petition. The core finding was that the association’s By-Laws did not contain any provisions restricting or prohibiting multiple votes on amendments. Furthermore, the ruling clarified the limited jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings, noting it only has the power to address specific violations of planned community documents or state statutes as granted by law.

Case Overview and Parties

Entity

Carl A. Sawicki

Petitioner

Clearwater Farms Estates

Respondent

Lewis D. Kowal

Administrative Law Judge

Office of Administrative Hearings

Adjudicating Agency

Decision Date

January 29, 2009

Factual Timeline and Dispute

The controversy arose from two distinct attempts by the Clearwater Farms Estates Board of Directors to amend the association’s By-Laws to align with changes in Arizona State law regarding planned communities.

1. The First Vote (November 6, 2008)

• Status: A quorum of members was present, satisfying Article IV, Paragraph 5 of the By-Laws.

• Outcome: The amendment failed to pass.

• Reason for Failure: The vote did not reach the 2/3 majority of the membership required by Article X, Paragraph 3 of the By-Laws.

2. The Second Vote (December 4, 2008)

• Status: A quorum of members was present.

• Outcome: The amendment passed.

• Reason for Success: A 2/3 majority of the membership voted in favor of the amendment.

The Petitioner’s Argument

Petitioner Carl A. Sawicki did not dispute the mathematical results of the second vote. Instead, he argued that because a quorum was present during the first (failed) vote, the Respondent was legally or procedurally precluded from holding a second vote on the same amendment so soon after the first.

The Respondent’s Argument

Respondent Clearwater Farms Estates contended that the act of holding a second vote did not constitute a violation of the association’s By-Laws.

Legal Analysis and Jurisdictional Framework

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision rested on two primary pillars: the statutory limits of the agency’s authority and the specific language of the association’s governing documents.

Statutory Authority and Jurisdiction

The decision emphasized that the Office of Administrative Hearings is a creature of statute and lacks broad judicial powers.

• Limited Powers: The OAH does not possess “common law or inherent powers.” Its duties are strictly limited to those granted by statute (Ayala v. Hill, 136 Ariz. 88).

• Scope of Review: Under A.R.S. §§ 41-2198 and 41-2198.01(B), the agency’s jurisdiction is limited to determining if an association violated:

◦ Articles of Incorporation

◦ Bylaws

◦ Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

◦ A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9 or 16

Determination of the Issue

Upon review of the By-Laws and arguments, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to state a valid cause of action.

• Absence of Prohibition: The ALJ found that none of the By-Law provisions relied upon by the Petitioner—nor any other provisions in the documents—prohibit or restrict the membership from holding a second vote to amend the By-Laws.

• Lack of Violation: Because there was no rule against a second vote, the association could not have committed a violation.

Final Order

The Office of Administrative Hearings issued the following mandates:

1. Dismissal: The Respondent’s Request to Dismiss Petition was granted.

2. Removal from Docket: The matter was vacated from the OAH docket.

3. Finality: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A), the order serves as the final administrative decision. It is not subject to requests for rehearing.

Key Legal Citations

Study Guide: Sawicki v. Clearwater Farms Estates Administrative Decision

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative case Carl A. Sawicki v. Clearwater Farms Estates (No. 08F-H089015-BFS). It is designed to assist in understanding the legal arguments, the jurisdiction of administrative bodies in Arizona, and the specific outcomes regarding the governance of planned communities.

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who are the parties involved in this case and what is their legal relationship?

2. What occurred during the First Vote on November 6, 2008, regarding the Respondent’s By-Laws?

3. Why did the Clearwater Farms Estates Board of Directors seek to amend the By-Laws?

4. How did the outcome of the Second Vote on December 4, 2008, differ from the First Vote?

5. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument against the validity of the Second Vote?

6. According to the decision, how are the powers and duties of administrative agencies limited?

7. What specific documents or statutes does the Office of Administrative Hearings have the jurisdiction to review in cases involving planned communities?

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s claim that a second vote was prohibited?

9. What was the final order issued by Judge Lewis D. Kowal on January 29, 2009?

10. What is the status of this decision regarding further administrative appeals or rehearings?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. Who are the parties involved in this case and what is their legal relationship? The Petitioner is Carl A. Sawicki, and the Respondent is Clearwater Farms Estates. The case was heard in the Office of Administrative Hearings to determine if the Respondent violated its planned community documents or state statutes.

2. What occurred during the First Vote on November 6, 2008, regarding the Respondent’s By-Laws? A quorum was present for the First Vote as required by Article IV, Paragraph 5 of the By-Laws. However, the amendment failed to pass because it did not receive the 2/3 majority vote of the membership required by Article X, Paragraph 3.

3. Why did the Clearwater Farms Estates Board of Directors seek to amend the By-Laws? The Board of Directors initiated the amendment process to ensure the community’s internal rules were updated. Specifically, the amendment was sought to conform the By-Laws to changes in Arizona State law regarding planned communities.

4. How did the outcome of the Second Vote on December 4, 2008, differ from the First Vote? Unlike the first attempt, the Second Vote held on December 4, 2008, was successful. While both votes met the quorum requirement, the Second Vote achieved the necessary 2/3 majority of the membership in favor of the amendment.

5. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument against the validity of the Second Vote? The Petitioner argued that because a quorum was present during the failed First Vote, the Respondent was precluded from holding another vote on the same amendment so soon. He contended that the failure of the first vote effectively blocked a subsequent vote in December 2008.

6. According to the decision, how are the powers and duties of administrative agencies limited? Administrative agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings, are limited strictly to the powers granted to them by statute. They do not possess any common law or inherent powers beyond what is explicitly defined in legislation.

7. What specific documents or statutes does the Office of Administrative Hearings have the jurisdiction to review in cases involving planned communities? The OAH has jurisdiction to determine violations of a community’s Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, or Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Additionally, it can review violations of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9 or 16.

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s claim that a second vote was prohibited? The Judge concluded that the Petitioner’s issue did not give rise to a cause of action because no By-Law provisions restricted or prohibited a second vote. Since no specific provision was violated, there was no legal basis for the Petitioner’s complaint.

9. What was the final order issued by Judge Lewis D. Kowal on January 29, 2009? The Judge ordered that the Respondent’s Request to Dismiss Petition be granted. Furthermore, the matter was vacated from the docket of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

10. What is the status of this decision regarding further administrative appeals or rehearings? Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A), this order constitutes the final administrative decision. As a final decision, it is explicitly not subject to any requests for rehearing.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

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

1. The Role of Quorum and Majority Thresholds: Analyze the importance of Article IV, Paragraph 5 and Article X, Paragraph 3 in the context of the Clearwater Farms Estates governance. How did these specific rules dictate the outcomes of both the November and December votes?

2. Administrative Jurisdiction and Statutory Limitations: Discuss the limitations of the Office of Administrative Hearings as outlined in the decision. Why is it significant that administrative agencies lack “common law or inherent powers” when adjudicating disputes between homeowners and associations?

3. Interpreting Planned Community Documents: Examine the Judge’s reasoning for dismissing the petition. How does the absence of a specific prohibitory provision in the By-Laws influence the legality of the Board’s actions?

4. Legislative Conformity: Explore the Board of Directors’ motivation for the amendment—conforming to State law. Why might a planned community prioritize aligning its By-Laws with state statutes, and how does this process intersect with membership voting rights?

5. The Finality of Administrative Decisions: Reflect on the procedural conclusion of this case. What are the implications for a petitioner when a decision is rendered “final” and “not subject to a request for rehearing” under A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A)?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding officer who conducts hearings and issues decisions for administrative agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. Title 33

The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that contains laws pertaining to property, including planned communities (Chapters 9 and 16).

By-Laws

The internal rules and regulations established by an organization, such as a planned community, to govern its administration and the conduct of its members.

Cause of Action

A set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party.

Common Law

Law derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes; the document notes administrative agencies do not have these powers.

Jurisdiction

The official power of a legal body to make legal decisions and judgments over a specific subject matter or geographic area.

Petitioner

The party who presents a petition to a court or administrative body (in this case, Carl A. Sawicki).

Planned Community Documents

The collective set of governing documents for a development, including Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Quorum

The minimum number of members of an assembly or society that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is taken (in this case, Clearwater Farms Estates).

Vacate

To cancel or render void a legal proceeding or a scheduled matter on a court’s docket.

Here is a concise summary of the administrative hearing decision in Carl A. Sawicki v. Clearwater Farms Estates (Case No. 08F-H089015-BFS).

Case Overview

This matter was heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Petitioner Carl A. Sawicki and Respondent Clearwater Farms Estates1. On January 20, 2009, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal held a pre-hearing conference where both parties presented arguments regarding the potential dismissal of the Petition12.

Key Facts and Arguments

The dispute arose from the Respondent’s attempts to amend its By-Laws to conform with changes in State law3.

• The First Vote: On November 6, 2008, the Respondent held an initial vote to amend the By-Laws2. While a quorum was present, the amendment failed because it did not receive the required 2/3 vote of the membership23.

• The Second Vote: On December 4, 2008, the Respondent held a second vote3. This time, a quorum was present, and the amendment passed with the necessary 2/3 majority3.

Petitioner’s Argument: The Petitioner did not dispute the results of the second vote or the presence of a quorum3. Instead, he argued that because the first vote had a quorum but failed, the Respondent was precluded from holding another vote on the amendment as soon as it did in December 20084.

Respondent’s Argument: The Respondent contended that the actions complained of did not constitute a violation of the community’s By-Laws4.

Legal Analysis and Decision

The Administrative Law Judge noted that the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings is limited to determining if an Association has violated its planned community documents (such as By-Laws or Articles of Incorporation) or specific statutes under A.R.S. Title 335.

Upon reviewing the documents and arguments, the Judge concluded the following:

• No Violation Found: None of the By-Law provisions relied upon by the Petitioner prohibited or restricted the membership from conducting a second vote to amend the By-Laws6.

• No Cause of Action: Because the Respondent did not violate any provision of the By-Laws, the Petitioner’s complaint lacked a valid basis67.

The Administrative Law Judge granted the Respondent’s Request to Dismiss the Petition and vacated the matter from the docket7. This Order constituted a final administrative decision not subject to a request for rehearing7.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Carl A. Sawicki (Petitioner)
    ,

Respondent Side

  • Beth Mulcahy (Attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
    Esq. listed in mailing distribution

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Mailing list recipient
  • Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Mailing list recipient

Price, Maribeth -v- Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H089012-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2009-01-26
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition with prejudice and vacated the hearing following a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss filed by the parties.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Maribeth Price Counsel —
Respondent Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

n/a

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition with prejudice and vacated the hearing following a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss filed by the parties.

Why this result: The parties filed a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice.

Key Issues & Findings

Dismissal

The matter was dismissed based on a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge granted the Stipulated Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Complaint with Prejudice and vacated the hearing.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: dismissed

Cited:

  • 2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H089012-BFS Decision – 206537.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:36:31 (57.0 KB)

Administrative Briefing: Maribeth Price vs. Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association (Case No. 08F-H089012-BFS)

Executive Summary

This briefing outlines the final administrative resolution of the matter Maribeth Price vs. Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association. Following a stipulated motion filed by both parties, the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings has formally dismissed the petitioner’s complaint with prejudice and vacated all scheduled proceedings. This order, issued on January 26, 2009, serves as the final administrative decision regarding the dispute originally filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

Case Overview

The matter involved a legal dispute between an individual petitioner and a nonprofit homeowner association. The proceedings were conducted under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Petitioner: Maribeth Price

• Respondent: Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association (an Arizona nonprofit corporation)

• Case Number: 08F-H089012-BFS

• Presiding Official: Lewis D. Kowal, Administrative Law Judge

Procedural Timeline and Final Action

The resolution of this case was reached through mutual agreement between the involved parties, leading to the following sequence of events:

• January 23, 2009: The Office of Administrative Hearings received a “Stipulated Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Complaint with Prejudice and Request to Vacate Hearing.”

• January 26, 2009: The scheduled hearing was officially vacated from the Office of Administrative Hearings docket.

• Final Disposition: In accordance with the joint motion, the petition—initially filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety—was dismissed with prejudice.

Legal Authority and Status

The dismissal of this case is governed by specific Arizona Revised Statutes. Under A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A), the order issued by Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal constitutes the final administrative decision for this matter. By dismissing the case “with prejudice,” the order signifies a permanent end to the specific claims raised in the petition.

Key Stakeholders and Legal Representation

The following table identifies the legal representatives and departmental contacts involved in the distribution of the final order:

Entity/Role

Name and Affiliation

Location

Administrative Law Judge

Lewis D. Kowal

Phoenix, AZ

Departmental Oversight

Robert Barger, Director (Attn: Debra Blake)

Dept. of Fire Building and Life Safety, Phoenix, AZ

Legal Counsel

Troy B. Stratman, Esq. (Mack Drucker & Watson, P.L.L.C.)

Phoenix, AZ

Legal Counsel

Mark K. Saho, Esq. (Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Wood, PLC)

Tempe, AZ

Conclusion

The matter of Price vs. Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association has been concluded without a full evidentiary hearing. The use of a stipulated motion indicates that the parties reached a settlement or mutual agreement to terminate the litigation, resulting in a final administrative order that vacates all future hearings and removes the case from the active docket.

Study Guide: Price v. Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association Legal Proceedings

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal documents pertaining to the case of Maribeth Price versus Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association. It is designed to facilitate a deep understanding of the procedural actions, parties involved, and the final resolution of the matter within the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

——————————————————————————–

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative case?

2. What specific office was responsible for overseeing this matter, and where is it located?

3. What was the nature of the motion received by the Office of Administrative Hearings on January 23, 2009?

4. What was the specific outcome regarding the hearing originally scheduled for January 26, 2009?

5. Who served as the presiding official over this matter, and what is their formal title?

6. According to the order, what is the legal status of the decision rendered on January 26, 2009?

7. Under which Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) is the finality of this administrative decision established?

8. With which state department was the original petition filed before reaching the Office of Administrative Hearings?

9. Which individuals or entities were designated to receive mailed copies of the final order?

10. What is the official case identification number for this proceeding?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Quiz Answer Key

1. The Parties: The Petitioner is Maribeth Price, and the Respondent is the Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association. The Respondent is identified as an Arizona nonprofit corporation.

2. The Venue: The matter was handled by the Office of Administrative Hearings. This office is located at 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona 85007.

3. The Motion: On January 23, 2009, the office received a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Complaint with Prejudice. This filing also included a Request to Vacate the Hearing that had been scheduled for January 26, 2009.

4. The Hearing Status: In accordance with the stipulated motion, the hearing was officially vacated from the Office of Administrative Hearings docket. This means the scheduled legal proceeding was cancelled and will not take place.

5. Presiding Official: The order was issued and signed by Lewis D. Kowal. His official title is Administrative Law Judge.

6. Finality of Decision: The document explicitly states that the order serves as the final administrative decision for the case. By dismissing the petition and vacating the hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings concluded the matter.

7. Statutory Authority: The finality of the administrative decision is supported by A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A). This statute is cited to provide the legal basis for the order’s conclusion.

8. Original Filing Department: The original petition was filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The matter was subsequently transitioned to the Office of Administrative Hearings for adjudication.

9. Recipients of the Order: Copies were transmitted to Robert Barger (Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety), Troy B. Stratman of Mack Drucker & Watson, P.L.L.C., and Mark K. Saho of Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Wood, PLC.

10. Case Number: The proceeding is cataloged under case number 08F-H089012-BFS. This number is used to identify the specific dispute between Maribeth Price and the Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the provided source context to develop detailed responses to the following prompts. (Answers not provided).

1. The Significance of Stipulation: Analyze the role of a “Stipulated Motion” in the context of this case. How does a mutual agreement between a Petitioner and a Respondent change the trajectory of an administrative hearing?

2. Administrative Hierarchy: Discuss the relationship between the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety and the Office of Administrative Hearings as suggested by the path of Maribeth Price’s petition.

3. Legal Finality: Explain the implications of an order being designated as a “final administrative decision” under A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A). Why is it necessary for an Administrative Law Judge to explicitly state this in the order?

4. Dismissal with Prejudice: Explore the legal weight of dismissing a complaint “with prejudice” within the framework of a dispute involving a Homeowners Association. What does this term imply about the Petitioner’s ability to refile the same claim?

5. Procedural Efficiency: Evaluate the process of “vacating” a hearing. How does the receipt of a motion just three days prior to a scheduled hearing (January 23 to January 26) reflect the administrative handling of legal dockets?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding official (in this case, Lewis D. Kowal) who hears and decides cases for a state or federal agency.

A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A)

The specific Arizona Revised Statute cited as the authority for the finality of the administrative decision.

Dismissal with Prejudice

A final judgment on the merits of a case which prevents the petitioner from bringing the same lawsuit or complaint again in the future.

Docket

The official schedule or list of cases to be heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Final Administrative Decision

An order that concludes the agency’s involvement in a case, making it the definitive ruling on the matter at the administrative level.

Nonprofit Corporation

The legal status of the Respondent, Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association, indicating it is organized for purposes other than turning a profit for shareholders.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal proceeding or petition (in this case, Maribeth Price).

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or who is required to answer a legal claim (in this case, Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association).

Stipulated Motion

A formal request made to the court or judge in which both parties (Petitioner and Respondent) have agreed upon the terms.

Vacate

To cancel or annul a scheduled legal proceeding, such as a hearing.

Study Guide: Price v. Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association Legal Proceedings

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal documents pertaining to the case of Maribeth Price versus Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association. It is designed to facilitate a deep understanding of the procedural actions, parties involved, and the final resolution of the matter within the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

——————————————————————————–

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative case?

2. What specific office was responsible for overseeing this matter, and where is it located?

3. What was the nature of the motion received by the Office of Administrative Hearings on January 23, 2009?

4. What was the specific outcome regarding the hearing originally scheduled for January 26, 2009?

5. Who served as the presiding official over this matter, and what is their formal title?

6. According to the order, what is the legal status of the decision rendered on January 26, 2009?

7. Under which Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) is the finality of this administrative decision established?

8. With which state department was the original petition filed before reaching the Office of Administrative Hearings?

9. Which individuals or entities were designated to receive mailed copies of the final order?

10. What is the official case identification number for this proceeding?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Quiz Answer Key

1. The Parties: The Petitioner is Maribeth Price, and the Respondent is the Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association. The Respondent is identified as an Arizona nonprofit corporation.

2. The Venue: The matter was handled by the Office of Administrative Hearings. This office is located at 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona 85007.

3. The Motion: On January 23, 2009, the office received a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Complaint with Prejudice. This filing also included a Request to Vacate the Hearing that had been scheduled for January 26, 2009.

4. The Hearing Status: In accordance with the stipulated motion, the hearing was officially vacated from the Office of Administrative Hearings docket. This means the scheduled legal proceeding was cancelled and will not take place.

5. Presiding Official: The order was issued and signed by Lewis D. Kowal. His official title is Administrative Law Judge.

6. Finality of Decision: The document explicitly states that the order serves as the final administrative decision for the case. By dismissing the petition and vacating the hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings concluded the matter.

7. Statutory Authority: The finality of the administrative decision is supported by A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A). This statute is cited to provide the legal basis for the order’s conclusion.

8. Original Filing Department: The original petition was filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The matter was subsequently transitioned to the Office of Administrative Hearings for adjudication.

9. Recipients of the Order: Copies were transmitted to Robert Barger (Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety), Troy B. Stratman of Mack Drucker & Watson, P.L.L.C., and Mark K. Saho of Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Wood, PLC.

10. Case Number: The proceeding is cataloged under case number 08F-H089012-BFS. This number is used to identify the specific dispute between Maribeth Price and the Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the provided source context to develop detailed responses to the following prompts. (Answers not provided).

1. The Significance of Stipulation: Analyze the role of a “Stipulated Motion” in the context of this case. How does a mutual agreement between a Petitioner and a Respondent change the trajectory of an administrative hearing?

2. Administrative Hierarchy: Discuss the relationship between the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety and the Office of Administrative Hearings as suggested by the path of Maribeth Price’s petition.

3. Legal Finality: Explain the implications of an order being designated as a “final administrative decision” under A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A). Why is it necessary for an Administrative Law Judge to explicitly state this in the order?

4. Dismissal with Prejudice: Explore the legal weight of dismissing a complaint “with prejudice” within the framework of a dispute involving a Homeowners Association. What does this term imply about the Petitioner’s ability to refile the same claim?

5. Procedural Efficiency: Evaluate the process of “vacating” a hearing. How does the receipt of a motion just three days prior to a scheduled hearing (January 23 to January 26) reflect the administrative handling of legal dockets?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding official (in this case, Lewis D. Kowal) who hears and decides cases for a state or federal agency.

A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A)

The specific Arizona Revised Statute cited as the authority for the finality of the administrative decision.

Dismissal with Prejudice

A final judgment on the merits of a case which prevents the petitioner from bringing the same lawsuit or complaint again in the future.

Docket

The official schedule or list of cases to be heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Final Administrative Decision

An order that concludes the agency’s involvement in a case, making it the definitive ruling on the matter at the administrative level.

Nonprofit Corporation

The legal status of the Respondent, Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association, indicating it is organized for purposes other than turning a profit for shareholders.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal proceeding or petition (in this case, Maribeth Price).

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or who is required to answer a legal claim (in this case, Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association).

Stipulated Motion

A formal request made to the court or judge in which both parties (Petitioner and Respondent) have agreed upon the terms.

Vacate

To cancel or annul a scheduled legal proceeding, such as a hearing.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Maribeth Price (Petitioner)

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
  • Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    H/C ATTN

Other Participants

  • Troy B. Stratman (Attorney)
    Mack Drucker & Watson, P.L.L.C.
    Listed in transmission copy list; specific party representation not explicitly stated in text.
  • Mark K. Saho (Attorney)
    Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Wood, PLC
    Listed in transmission copy list; specific party representation not explicitly stated in text.

Leckey, Richard M. vs. Dreamland Villa Community Club

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H089008-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2009-01-26
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge granted the Respondent's motion to dismiss. The single issue raised by Petitioner regarding proxy votes from 2004 pre-dated the enabling legislation for the OAH's jurisdiction (effective Sept 21, 2006), which does not have retroactive effect. Furthermore, the ALJ ruled that the Respondent's Constitution is not a planned community document subject to OAH jurisdiction.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Richard M. Leckey Counsel —
Respondent Dreamland Villa Community Club Counsel Jeffrey B. Corben, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Respondent’s Constitution Article V, Section 1; By-Laws Article X, Sections 1 and 3; By-Laws Article XI, Section 3 and 3(c)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the Respondent's motion to dismiss. The single issue raised by Petitioner regarding proxy votes from 2004 pre-dated the enabling legislation for the OAH's jurisdiction (effective Sept 21, 2006), which does not have retroactive effect. Furthermore, the ALJ ruled that the Respondent's Constitution is not a planned community document subject to OAH jurisdiction.

Why this result: Lack of subject matter jurisdiction over acts occurring prior to enabling legislation and over the Association's Constitution.

Key Issues & Findings

Validity of 404 signatures used as proxy votes

Petitioner challenged the validity of proxy votes from 2004. Respondent argued the act pre-dated enabling legislation and the Constitution is not a planned community document.

Orders: Respondent's Request to Dismiss Petition granted; matter vacated.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1802
  • A.R.S. §§ 41-2198
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B)
  • Ayala v. Hill, 136 Ariz. 88

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H089008-BFS Decision – 206585.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:35:45 (75.4 KB)

Administrative Law Decision: Leckey v. Dreamland Villa Community Club

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative decision in Case No. 08F-H089008-BFS, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The dispute involved Petitioner Richard M. Leckey and Respondent Dreamland Villa Community Club regarding the validity of a 2004 vote that transitioned the Respondent from a voluntary club into a planned community.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the petition on jurisdictional grounds. The ruling established three critical points:

• Statutory Limitations: Administrative agencies possess only the powers granted by statute and lack common law or inherent powers.

• Non-Retroactivity: The enabling legislation providing for administrative hearings in planned community disputes (effective September 21, 2006) does not apply retroactively to acts occurring in 2004.

• Document Definition: A community’s “Constitution” does not qualify as a “planned community document” under A.R.S. § 33-1802, placing it outside the tribunal’s oversight.

Core Dispute and Allegations

The case originated from a January 2004 balloting process conducted by the Dreamland Villa Community Club. This vote resulted in the organization becoming a “planned community”; prior to this, it operated as a voluntary club.

The Petitioner’s Claims

The Petitioner challenged the validity of 404 signatures used during the 2004 balloting. While initially identified as proxy votes, the Petitioner later filed a “Correction of Testimony” clarifying that the signatures in question were counted as either regular or absentee ballots.

The Petitioner asserted that the Respondent violated specific internal governance documents:

• Constitution: Article V, Section 1.

• By-Laws: Article X, Sections 1 and 3; Article XI, Sections 3 and 3(c).

The Discovery Argument

The Petitioner argued that although the act in question occurred in January 2004, he did not become aware of the alleged violations until November 2007. This date of discovery fell after the effective date of the legislation (September 21, 2006) that authorized the Office of Administrative Hearings to oversee such matters.

Jurisdictional and Statutory Framework

The decision heavily emphasized the limited scope of administrative tribunals compared to general courts.

Limits of Agency Power

Citing Ayala v. Hill, the ALJ noted that the Office of Administrative Hearings has no common law or inherent powers. Its jurisdiction is strictly confined to:

1. Determining if an association violated provisions of “planned community documents” (defined as Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, or Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions [CC&Rs]).

2. Determining if an association violated A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16.

Definition of Planned Community Documents

A primary point of contention was whether the Respondent’s Constitution fell under the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The ALJ concluded that the Constitution is not a planned community document as defined by A.R.S. § 33-1802. Consequently, the tribunal lacked the authority to address any alleged violations of that specific document.

Legal Analysis and Findings

The Respondent moved for dismissal based on the timing of the events and the nature of the documents involved. The ALJ’s analysis focused on the following factors:

Analysis of Enabling Legislation

The legislation enabling the Office of Administrative Hearings to resolve planned community disputes became effective on September 21, 2006. The ALJ found that:

• The legislation does not provide for retroactive effect.

• A cause of action must come into existence or continue to exist after the effective date of the legislation to be heard.

• The 2004 balloting was a discrete act that occurred prior to the enabling legislation.

Determination on “Ongoing” Disputes

The ALJ rejected the notion that the discovery of the act in 2007 brought the matter within the tribunal’s reach. The ruling stated that the matter did not present an “ongoing or current dispute within the spirit and intent of the enabling legislation.” Because the act itself was pre-legislative, the ALJ determined it did not give rise to a cause of action that could be brought before the tribunal.

Final Decision and Order

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that because the central issue pertained to an act occurring before the effective date of the enabling legislation, no cause of action existed for the tribunal to adjudicate.

Key Rulings:

• Dismissal of By-Law Claims: It was unnecessary to address the alleged violations of the By-Laws because no valid cause of action existed under the non-retroactive statute.

• Dismissal of Constitutional Claims: The tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the Respondent’s Constitution. Even if the Constitution were a planned community document, the claim would still fail due to the timing of the act.

Final Order: The Respondent’s Request to Dismiss Petition was granted, and the matter was vacated from the docket. Per A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A), the order represents the final administrative decision and is not subject to requests for rehearing.

Administrative Law Study Guide: Leckey v. Dreamland Villa Community Club

This study guide examines the administrative law decision in the matter of Richard M. Leckey v. Dreamland Villa Community Club (No. 08F-H089008-BFS). It focuses on issues of jurisdiction, the retroactivity of legislation, and the definition of planned community documents.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions based on the provided administrative decision. Each answer should be between two and three sentences.

1. What was the central issue Richard M. Leckey raised during the pre-hearing conference?

2. How did the legal status of the Dreamland Villa Community Club change as a result of the January 2004 balloting?

3. Which specific internal documents did the Petitioner allege the Respondent had violated?

4. What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the timing of the alleged violations?

5. How did the Petitioner attempt to justify the timing of his petition despite the event occurring in 2004?

6. According to the decision, what defines the limits of the power and duties of the Office of Administrative Hearings?

7. What is the specific jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding planned community disputes?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) refuse to address the alleged violations of the Respondent’s Constitution?

9. What was the ALJ’s conclusion regarding the retroactivity of the enabling legislation?

10. What was the final outcome of the case and what is the status of the ruling?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. What was the central issue Richard M. Leckey raised during the pre-hearing conference? The Petitioner sought to challenge the validity of 404 signatures used as ballots during a January 2004 vote. These signatures, which were counted as either regular or absentee ballots, were the basis for the Respondent becoming a planned community.

2. How did the legal status of the Dreamland Villa Community Club change as a result of the January 2004 balloting? Prior to the January 2004 action, the Dreamland Villa Community Club operated as a voluntary club. Following the balloting and the counting of the contested signatures, the organization transitioned into a “planned community.”

3. Which specific internal documents did the Petitioner allege the Respondent had violated? The Petitioner asserted that the Respondent violated Article V, Section 1 of its Constitution. Additionally, he alleged violations of Article X (Sections 1 and 3) and Article XI (Sections 3 and 3(c)) of the Respondent’s By-Laws.

4. What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the timing of the alleged violations? The Respondent argued that the act complained of occurred in 2004, which predated the September 21, 2006, effective date of the enabling legislation. Consequently, they maintained that no violation could be found because the law providing for administrative hearings was not yet in effect.

5. How did the Petitioner attempt to justify the timing of his petition despite the event occurring in 2004? The Petitioner argued that while the act itself occurred in early 2004, he did not become aware of the alleged misconduct until November 2007. He contended that because his discovery of the act happened after the September 2006 effective date, the petition should be considered valid.

6. According to the decision, what defines the limits of the power and duties of the Office of Administrative Hearings? The powers and duties of administrative agencies like the Office of Administrative Hearings are strictly limited to those granted by statute. They do not possess any common law or inherent powers beyond what is specifically authorized by the legislature.

7. What is the specific jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding planned community disputes? The Office has limited jurisdiction to determine only if an association violated provisions of its planned community documents (such as Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, or CC&Rs) or A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16. Jurisdiction is explicitly defined under A.R.S. §§ 41-2198 and 41-2198.01(B).

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) refuse to address the alleged violations of the Respondent’s Constitution? The ALJ concluded that the Respondent’s Constitution does not qualify as a “planned community document” under the definition provided in A.R.S. § 33-1802. Therefore, the tribunal lacked the legal jurisdiction to determine whether a violation of that specific document had occurred.

9. What was the ALJ’s conclusion regarding the retroactivity of the enabling legislation? The ALJ determined that the enabling legislation does not provide for any retroactive effect and only applies to causes of action that come into existence after the effective date. Because the disputed signatures were from 2004, the matter did not represent a current or ongoing dispute within the spirit of the law.

10. What was the final outcome of the case and what is the status of the ruling? The ALJ granted the Respondent’s request to dismiss the petition and vacated the matter from the OAH docket. Under A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A), this order constitutes the final administrative decision and is not subject to requests for rehearing.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the case facts and legal principles outlined in the source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. Statutory Authority and Administrative Jurisdictions: Discuss the significance of the ruling that administrative agencies lack “common law or inherent powers.” How does this principle protect or limit the rights of parties like Leckey?

2. The Principle of Non-Retroactivity: Analyze the ALJ’s reasoning for dismissing the petition based on the effective date of September 21, 2006. Why is the date of the “act” prioritized over the Petitioner’s “date of discovery”?

3. Defining Planned Community Documents: Examine the distinction the ALJ made between a “Constitution” and “planned community documents” under A.R.S. § 33-1802. What are the legal implications for an organization when its primary governing document is ruled outside the jurisdiction of a specialized administrative tribunal?

4. Procedural Dismissal vs. Merit Review: The ALJ decided it was “unnecessary to address the alleged violations” of the By-Laws because no cause of action existed. Evaluate the efficiency and fairness of dismissing a case on jurisdictional grounds before examining the actual merits of the alleged violations.

5. The Transition from Voluntary Club to Planned Community: Based on the context of the case, discuss the legal complexities involved when a voluntary organization seeks to become a regulated planned community, specifically regarding the validity of the balloting process.

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1802

The specific Arizona Revised Statute that defines what constitutes a “planned community document.”

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding officer who conducts hearings and issues decisions for administrative agencies, in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Cause of Action

A set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party.

Common Law Powers

Authority derived from judicial decisions and custom rather than from specific statutes; the OAH was ruled not to possess these.

Enabling Legislation

A statute that grants new authority to a government official or agency, such as the law allowing administrative hearings for planned communities effective Sept. 21, 2006.

Jurisdiction

The official power of a legal body to make legal decisions and judgments regarding specific types of cases or documents.

Petitioner

The party who presents a petition to a court or administrative body (Richard M. Leckey in this matter).

Planned Community Documents

Specific legal filings including Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that govern a planned community.

Proxy Vote

A ballot cast by one person on behalf of another; in this case, the Petitioner initially challenged signatures used as proxy votes.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who responds to the allegations (Dreamland Villa Community Club in this matter).

Retroactive Effect

The application of a law to events that took place before the law was passed; the ALJ ruled the enabling legislation had no such effect.

Voluntary Club

The legal status of the Respondent prior to the 2004 vote, distinguishing it from a mandated planned community.

Why the Past Stays in the Past: 4 Surprising Lessons from the Dreamland Villa Legal Battle

The 404-Signature Dispute

In the matter of Leckey v. Dreamland Villa Community Club, homeowner Richard M. Leckey challenged the very foundation of his community’s status. The conflict centered on a 2004 vote that transformed Dreamland Villa from a “voluntary club” into a “planned community,” a shift that fundamentally altered the rights and obligations of every resident.

Leckey targeted 404 signatures used during that January 2004 balloting, which he initially described as proxy votes before clarifying in a “Correction of Testimony” that they were counted as regular or absentee ballots. This case highlights a frustrating reality: what happens when you discover a potential injustice years after the ink has dried on the deal?

The great irony of the Leckey case is that the truth regarding those 404 signatures was never actually investigated. Because of rigid jurisdictional boundaries, the court never reached the “what” of the alleged fraud; it was entirely defeated by the “where” and the “when.”

The “Non-Retroactive” Barrier

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the case primarily because the enabling legislation allowing the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to oversee such disputes did not take effect until September 21, 2006. Since the controversial vote occurred in 2004, the tribunal determined it simply lacked the authority to look backward in time.

This serves as a critical lesson for homeowners: when new laws are passed to provide protections or oversight, they rarely reach back to heal old wounds. In the eyes of the administrative court, the timeline is a hard wall that cannot be breached, regardless of the merit of the underlying claim.

The Myth of “Inherent Power”

Homeowners often walk into a hearing assuming that any judge has the “inherent power” to right a clear wrong. However, as an “Information Architect” of HOA law must warn, the OAH is not a general common law court; it is a creature of statute with a very narrow, pre-defined “menu” of powers.

Unlike a Superior Court judge, an Administrative Law Judge cannot exercise “broad justice” or create equitable remedies unless the legislature specifically wrote that power into the law. If the statute doesn’t explicitly say the judge can do it, the judge cannot do it.

The Structural Loophole of Document Labels

A major component of Leckey’s challenge involved the “Constitution” of the Dreamland Villa Community Club. Here, the court revealed a structural loophole: the OAH’s jurisdiction is strictly limited by A.R.S. §§ 41-2198 and 41-2198.01(B) to specific “planned community documents.”

In Arizona, this “menu” of reviewable documents typically includes Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and CC&Rs. Because the governing document in question was labeled a “Constitution,” the ALJ concluded it was not a planned community document under A.R.S. § 33-1802, leaving the court without the power to even address whether its provisions were violated.

For the homeowner, this is a vital architectural warning: the label of a document can determine your level of legal protection. A community governed by a “Constitution” rather than traditional “Bylaws” may inadvertently—or intentionally—bypass the administrative oversight meant to protect homeowners.

The Discovery Rule vs. The Statutory Clock

Leckey argued that while the signatures were collected in 2004, he did not discover the alleged issue until November 2007—well after the 2006 enabling legislation was in place. He believed this “discovery” should bring his case within the court’s timeframe.

The ALJ rejected this argument, taking a hardline stance on the statutory clock. The court ruled that for a dispute to be heard, the underlying act must be “ongoing or current within the spirit and intent of the enabling legislation,” rather than a completed act from the past that was only recently discovered.

This highlights the high cost of delayed discovery in administrative law. The court prioritizes the finality of the effective date over the homeowner’s personal timeline of awareness, effectively locking the door on historical grievances.

A Final Thought for Homeowners

The dismissal of the Dreamland Villa case serves as a stark reminder that in the world of HOA litigation, jurisdiction and document structure are often more important than the facts of the grievance. If your community is undergoing a transition, “real-time” vigilance is your only true protection; once the statutory window closes, it rarely opens again.

As more voluntary clubs transition into formal planned communities, we must ask: how can homeowners ensure transparency at the moment of change? If the courtroom doors are locked to the past, the only way to protect the future of a community is to get the “architecture” of the governing documents right the first time.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Richard M. Leckey (Petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Jeffrey B. Corben (attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed in mailing distribution
  • Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed in mailing distribution

Burns, Jack L. -v- Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 07F-H067030-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2009-01-23
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge ordered the petition dismissed with prejudice and the hearing vacated based on a Stipulation to Dismiss received from the parties.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jack L. Burns Counsel —
Respondent Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ordered the petition dismissed with prejudice and the hearing vacated based on a Stipulation to Dismiss received from the parties.

Key Issues & Findings

Dismissal

The parties submitted a Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice.

Orders: Petition dismissed with prejudice and hearing vacated.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: dismissed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

07F-H067030-BFS Decision – 206446.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T04:45:50 (56.4 KB)

Legal Briefing: Burns v. Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the final administrative resolution of the matter Jack L. Burns v. Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association (Case No. 07F-H067030-BFS). Following a formal “Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice” received on January 20, 2009, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal issued an order dismissing the petition and vacating the scheduled hearing. This action constitutes the final administrative decision regarding the petition originally filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

Case Overview and Jurisdiction

The matter was adjudicated within the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, located in Phoenix, Arizona. The proceedings involved a dispute between a private petitioner and a homeowners association.

• Petitioner: Jack L. Burns

• Respondent: Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association

• Case Number: 07F-H067030-BFS

• Administrative Authority: The order was issued under the authority of A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A).

Procedural History and Resolution

The case reached its conclusion through a voluntary agreement between the parties rather than a full evidentiary hearing.

• Stipulation to Dismiss: On January 20, 2009, the Office of Administrative Hearings received a “Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice.” A dismissal with prejudice signifies that the matter is permanently settled and cannot be refiled.

• Administrative Order: On January 23, 2009, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal signed the “Order Dismissing Petition and Vacating Hearing.”

• Finality of Decision: The order explicitly states that it serves as the final administrative decision concerning the petition filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

• Docket Action: As a result of the dismissal, the matter was officially vacated from the Office of Administrative Hearings docket.

Involved Entities and Legal Representation

The following table details the regulatory bodies and legal counsel associated with this case:

Entity Type

Name/Firm

Representative(s)

Regulatory Agency

Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

Robert Barger (Director); Debra Blake

Legal Counsel

Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC

James Wood, Esq.; Jason E. Smith, Esq.; Carrie H. Smith, Esq.; Chad P. Miese, Esq.

Legal Counsel

Stoops, Denious Wilson & Murray, P.L.C.

Thomas A. Stoops, Esq.; Stephanie M. Wilson, Esq.

Conclusion

The litigation between Jack L. Burns and Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association concluded in January 2009 through a formal dismissal. The issuance of the order by the Administrative Law Judge finalized the proceedings, removing the case from the active docket and providing a definitive administrative resolution to the underlying petition.

Study Guide: Burns v. Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association Administrative Order

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the legal document titled “Order Dismissing Petition and Vacating Hearing” issued by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. It focuses on the procedural conclusion of the dispute between Jack L. Burns and the Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions using 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the source context.

1. Who are the primary petitioner and respondent in case No. 07F-H067030-BFS?

2. What specific document was received by the Office of Administrative Hearings on January 20, 2009?

3. What was the final outcome for the petition originally filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety?

4. Who served as the Administrative Law Judge for this matter, and on what date was the order finalized?

5. What does the order state regarding the status of the hearing previously scheduled for this case?

6. Under which Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) is this order considered the final administrative decision?

7. Which individual and department were designated to receive a mailed copy of the order on behalf of the state?

8. What is the physical address of the Office of Administrative Hearings where this order originated?

9. Which law firm listed in the document is located in Tempe, Arizona?

10. How many different law firms are identified as receiving copies of the order, excluding the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The petitioner is Jack L. Burns, and the respondent is the Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association. This legal matter was adjudicated under the case number 07F-H067030-BFS.

2. The Office of Administrative Hearings received a “Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice.” This document was the catalyst for the subsequent dismissal of the petition and the vacation of the hearing.

3. In accordance with the filed stipulation, the petition was dismissed with prejudice. Consequently, the matter was officially removed from the Office of Administrative Hearings docket.

4. The Administrative Law Judge for this case was Lewis D. Kowal. He signed and finalized the order on January 23, 2009.

5. The order explicitly states that the hearing for this matter is vacated. This action follows the dismissal of the petition and signifies that the scheduled proceedings will no longer take place.

6. The order is designated as the final administrative decision pursuant to A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A). This citation provides the legal authority for the finality of the judge’s ruling.

7. The copy was transmitted to Robert Barger, the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. It was specifically addressed to the attention of Debra Blake.

8. The Office of Administrative Hearings is located at 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona 85007. The office can also be reached via the provided phone number, (602) 542-9826.

9. The firm Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC is located in Tempe. Their specific address is 1400 E. Southern Ave., Suite 400, Tempe, AZ 85282.

10. Two law firms are identified: Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC, and Stoops, Denious Wilson & Murray, P.L.C. These firms represent the legal counsel involved in the case beyond the state department.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

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

1. Procedural Termination: Analyze the procedural steps that led to the termination of the case between Jack L. Burns and Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association. Explain the significance of a “Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice” in concluding administrative litigation.

2. Jurisdictional Oversight: Discuss the roles of the various administrative bodies mentioned in the document. How do the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety interact based on the distribution of this order?

3. Statutory Authority and Finality: Examine the importance of A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A) in the context of this order. Why is it necessary for an Administrative Law Judge to cite specific statutes when dismissing a petition?

4. Legal Representation: Identify the multiple legal entities and individuals involved in the case. Based on the “copy transmitted” section, describe the diversity of legal counsel and departmental officials required to be informed of a final administrative decision.

5. The Role of the Administrative Law Judge: Based on the text of the order, describe the responsibilities and authorities of Lewis D. Kowal. How does his signature transform a stipulation between parties into a final administrative action?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who presides over trials and adjudicates disputes involving administrative agencies.

A.R.S.

Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona.

Dismissed with Prejudice

A final judgment on a case that prevents the petitioner from filing another lawsuit on the same claim.

Docket

The official schedule or list of cases pending in a court or administrative office.

An official proclamation by a judge that defines the legal relationships between the parties to a hearing or directs a specific step in the proceedings.

Petition

A formal written request or document filed by a petitioner to initiate a legal or administrative proceeding.

Petitioner

The party who presents a petition to a court or administrative body; in this case, Jack L. Burns.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association.

Stipulation

A formal agreement between opposing parties regarding some aspect of the legal proceedings.

Vacate

To cancel or render void a scheduled event, such as a hearing or a previous order.

Finality in the Desert: 3 Surprising Lessons from a Decades-Old HOA Legal Battle

Homeowners Association (HOA) wars are legendary for their bitterness, often feeling like endless cycles of bureaucracy and mounting tension. For many residents, the legal path to resolving these conflicts feels like an expensive maze with no clear exit. However, looking back at historical case filings provides a rare glimpse into how these high-stakes battles eventually find a definitive, quiet conclusion.

The 2009 case of Jack L. Burns vs. Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association serves as an ideal case study for this procedural closure. While the specific grievances of the parties are left out of the final order, the administrative record of its resolution offers three surprising lessons on the reality of HOA law in Arizona.

The Surprising Venue for HOA Justice

There is a distinct irony in imagining a government body associated with sirens and safety inspections adjudicating a community property dispute. Yet, this petition was filed not in a traditional civil court, but with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. This administrative quirk highlights a unique structure where a department focused on physical safety also manages the delicate intricacies of homeowner petitions.

This oversight provides a specialized, structured alternative to the often-congested civil court system in Maricopa County. By utilizing the Office of Administrative Hearings, parties can navigate community-governance issues through a formal process that is both rigorous and geographically anchored.

The Power of the “Stipulation to Dismiss”

In the legal world, a dramatic courtroom victory is often less effective than a mutual ceasefire. Although the parties were represented by professional counsel from established firms—including Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC and Stoops, Denious Wilson & Murray, P.L.C.—they ultimately bypassed a judge’s ruling. Instead, the matter was resolved through a “Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice,” signaling a permanent end to the conflict.

A stipulation is a powerful tool because it implies a settlement or resolution reached between the Petitioner and Respondent themselves rather than a forced outcome. By dismissing the case “with prejudice,” both Jack L. Burns and the HOA ensured the matter was closed forever and could never be refiled.

The Weight of Administrative Finality

The finality of these community disputes is backed by the full weight of Arizona statutory authority. In this instance, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal issued an order that serves as the “final administrative decision” under A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A). This legal designation ensures that once the judge’s pen hits the paper, the administrative chapter for the community is officially and legally shut.

The act of “vacating” the hearing serves as the ultimate shutdown of the state’s legal machinery. When Judge Kowal marked the document “Done this day” on January 23, 2009, he effectively cleared the docket and released both parties from the burden of further litigation. This signature represented the exact moment the legal engine stopped, and the dispute ceased to exist in the eyes of the law.

Conclusion and Forward-Looking Reflection

The case of Burns vs. Hunter Creek Ranch demonstrates the quiet, procedural way that even the most complex community disputes eventually reach their end. It serves as a reminder that behind every legal filing is a human conflict seeking a resolution that the law can finally authorize.

In our own community disagreements, is a mutual “stipulation” always a better victory than a courtroom battle? Perhaps the most important takeaway is that even a one-page dismissal represents the end of a significant chapter, allowing a community to finally move forward.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jack L. Burns (petitioner)

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
  • Debra Blake (agency staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety

Other Participants

  • James Wood (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
    Esq.
  • Jason E. Smith (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
    Esq.
  • Carrie H. Smith (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
    Esq.
  • Chad P. Miese (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
    Esq.
  • Thomas A. Stoops (attorney)
    Stoops, Denious Wilson & Murray, P.L.C.
    Esq.
  • Stephanie M. Wilson (attorney)
    Stoops, Denious Wilson & Murray, P.L.C.
    Esq.

Riem, Karl -v- Rancho Antigua Condos

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H089009-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2008-12-19
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The Respondent failed to respond to the petition and a Notice of Default was entered. The Administrative Law Judge ruled the Respondent in default and designated the Petitioner as the prevailing party. However, because the Petitioner failed to cite specific statutory provisions or governing documents in the petition, the ALJ could not award substantive relief beyond the reimbursement of the $550.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Karl Riem Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Antigua Condos Counsel —

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Outcome Summary

The Respondent failed to respond to the petition and a Notice of Default was entered. The Administrative Law Judge ruled the Respondent in default and designated the Petitioner as the prevailing party. However, because the Petitioner failed to cite specific statutory provisions or governing documents in the petition, the ALJ could not award substantive relief beyond the reimbursement of the $550.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Default Judgment / Failure to Cite Provisions

Respondent failed to submit a response to the Petition and was held in default. However, Petitioner did not cite any provision of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16 or any provision of any planned community or condominium document allegedly violated. Consequently, relief was limited to the filing fee.

Orders: Respondent is in default and Petitioner is the prevailing party. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H089009-BFS Decision – 204670.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:35:56 (54.6 KB)

Administrative Ruling: Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos

Executive Summary

On December 19, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal issued an Order of Default and Award of Filing Fee in the matter of Karl Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos (No. 08F-H089009-BFS). The ruling followed a Notice of Default entered on October 31, 2008, after the Respondent failed to answer the Petitioner’s allegations.

While the Respondent was found to be in default and the Petitioner was named the prevailing party, the relief granted was strictly limited to the reimbursement of the $550.00 filing fee. This limitation was due to a significant deficiency in the Petition: the failure to cite specific statutory violations or governing document breaches. Consequently, while the allegations were deemed admitted by statute, they did not provide a legal basis for substantive relief beyond the recovery of costs.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

The following table summarizes the administrative and legal context of the proceedings:

Category

Details

Case Number

08F-H089009-BFS

Petitioner

Karl Riem

Respondent

Rancho Antigua Condos

Presiding Official

Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal

Administrative Body

Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)

Overseeing Agency

Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

Date of Order

December 19, 2008

——————————————————————————–

Procedural History and Findings

The Entry of Default

The matter was initiated via a Petition submitted by Karl Riem to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The Respondent, Rancho Antigua Condos, failed to submit a response to the Petition. Under the administrative rules governing the Department:

• On October 31, 2008, the Director of the Department entered a Notice of Default based on the Respondent’s failure to answer.

• Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), in the event of a default, the allegations contained within a Petition can be “deemed admitted.”

Deficiencies in the Petition

Despite the Respondent’s default, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) identified critical technical omissions in the Petitioner’s filing. The Source Context notes that the Petitioner “did not cite any provision of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16 or a provision of any planned community or condominium document that was allegedly violated by Respondent.”

Because the Petition lacked citations to specific laws (Chapters 9 or 16 of Title 33) or specific internal condominium documents, the ALJ determined that substantive relief could not be justified, even though the allegations were technically admitted through the default process.

——————————————————————————–

Final Order and Award

Based on the findings of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the following mandates were issued:

1. Prevailing Party Designation: The Respondent is officially in default, and the Petitioner, Karl Riem, is designated as the prevailing party.

2. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: The Respondent is ordered to reimburse the Petitioner for the filing fee in the amount of $550.00.

3. Compliance Timeline: The Respondent must complete this reimbursement within forty (40) days of the date of the Order (December 19, 2008).

——————————————————————————–

Distribution and Service

The original Order was transmitted to the following parties:

• Robert Barger, Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (Attn: Debra Blake).

• Karl Riem (Petitioner) at his Scottsdale, Arizona residence.

• Rancho Antigua Condos (Respondent) via Cuellar Realty Services in Phoenix, Arizona.

Study Guide: Administrative Hearing Case No. 08F-H089009-BFS

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal proceedings between Karl Riem and Rancho Antigua Condos. It is designed to facilitate an understanding of the procedural outcomes and legal limitations inherent in default judgments within the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

——————————————————————————–

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who are the Petitioner and the Respondent in this specific case?

2. What was the primary reason for the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety to enter a Notice of Default?

3. Why was the Petitioner unable to receive any relief other than the reimbursement of his filing fee?

4. According to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), what happens to the allegations in a Petition when a default occurs?

5. What specific amount was the Respondent ordered to pay the Petitioner, and for what purpose?

6. Who was the Administrative Law Judge who presided over this matter and issued the order?

7. What is the deadline for the Respondent to fulfill the order for reimbursement?

8. Which two chapters of A.R.S. Title 33 were specifically mentioned as not being cited in the Petition?

9. Where is the Office of Administrative Hearings located, according to the document?

10. To whom was the original copy of the order transmitted on behalf of the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. Who are the Petitioner and the Respondent in this specific case? The Petitioner is Karl Riem and the Respondent is Rancho Antigua Condos. The case was filed under the number 08F-H089009-BFS.

2. What was the primary reason for the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety to enter a Notice of Default? The Notice of Default was entered because the Respondent failed to submit a response to the Petition. This notice was officially entered on October 31, 2008.

3. Why was the Petitioner unable to receive any relief other than the reimbursement of his filing fee? The Petitioner did not cite any specific violations of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16, or any specific community or condominium documents. Because no specific legal violations were alleged, the judge could not award further relief beyond the filing fee.

4. According to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), what happens to the allegations in a Petition when a default occurs? Under this statute, the allegations contained in the Petition can be “deemed admitted” in the event of a default. This means the facts of the petition are accepted as true because they were not contested.

5. What specific amount was the Respondent ordered to pay the Petitioner, and for what purpose? The Respondent was ordered to pay $550.00 to the Petitioner. This payment was specifically for the reimbursement of the Petitioner’s filing fee.

6. Who was the Administrative Law Judge who presided over this matter and issued the order? The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was Lewis D. Kowal. He signed the Order of Default and Award of Filing Fee on December 19, 2008.

7. What is the deadline for the Respondent to fulfill the order for reimbursement? The Respondent is required to reimburse the Petitioner within forty days of the date of the Order. The Order was issued and signed on December 19, 2008.

8. Which two chapters of A.R.S. Title 33 were specifically mentioned as not being cited in the Petition? The document specifically notes that the Petitioner failed to cite provisions from A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16. These chapters generally govern community or condominium legalities.

9. Where is the Office of Administrative Hearings located, according to the document? The Office of Administrative Hearings is located at 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona 85007. Their listed phone number is (602) 542-9826.

10. To whom was the original copy of the order transmitted on behalf of the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety? The original was transmitted to Robert Barger, the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The transmission was marked to the attention of Debra Blake.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Format Questions

Instructions: Use the information from the source text to develop detailed responses to the following prompts.

1. The Importance of Statutory Citations: Analyze how Karl Riem’s failure to cite specific provisions of A.R.S. Title 33 or condominium documents affected the outcome of the case. Discuss why a “prevailing party” might still fail to receive substantive relief.

2. The Role of Default in Administrative Law: Explain the procedural implications of a Respondent failing to answer a Petition. Detail how the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety handles such failures and the legal assumptions made under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D).

3. Administrative Law Judge Authority: Discuss the role of Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal in this case. Evaluate his decision to grant a default judgment while simultaneously limiting the award to the filing fee.

4. Timeline and Compliance: Trace the timeline of this case from the Notice of Default to the final order. Explain the significance of the 40-day reimbursement window provided to the Respondent.

5. Service and Notification: Describe the administrative process for transmitting orders and notices as evidenced by the distribution list at the end of the document. Identify the key stakeholders involved in receiving the legal results.

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S.

Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding officer who hears and decides cases for an administrative agency, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Default

A failure to perform a legal duty or respond to a legal proceeding, such as failing to submit a response to a Petition.

Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

The state department responsible for oversight and enforcement related to fire safety, building codes, and community/condominium disputes.

Filing Fee

The administrative cost paid by a Petitioner to initiate a case; in this matter, the fee was $550.00.

Notice of Default

A formal document entered by a director or judge noting that a party has failed to respond to a legal action within the required timeframe.

A formal instruction or decision issued by a judge (in this case, Lewis D. Kowal) that mandates specific actions or determines the outcome of a case.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition (Karl Riem).

Prevailing Party

The party in a legal proceeding that is deemed successful; despite receiving limited relief, the Petitioner was named the prevailing party due to the Respondent’s default.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition or legal action is filed (Rancho Antigua Condos).

Source Fidelity Note: This study guide is based entirely on excerpts from the “204670.pdf” document regarding Karl Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos.

Why “Winning” Your Case Isn’t Always a Victory: Lessons from an Administrative Default

1. Introduction: The High Cost of a Quiet Courtroom

In the pursuit of legal redress, many litigants imagine the “gold standard” of outcomes: a scenario where the opposition fails to respond, leading to an automatic victory. From a strategic perspective, however, a procedural win is often a hollow shell if it lacks a substantive foundation. The case of Karl Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos (No. 08F-H089009-BFS) serves as a stark reminder that even when the other side remains silent, the burden of pleading remains with the petitioner.

Processed through the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, this case illustrates how a failure to establish a statutory nexus can turn a “win” into a net loss of time and resources. For the petitioner, the “high cost” was not just the filing fee, but the forfeiture of any meaningful relief due to a fundamental failure of pleading.

2. The Default Trap: When Silence is an Admission, but Not a Guarantee

The procedural timeline of this matter began with a significant tactical advantage for the Petitioner. On October 31, 2008, the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety entered a Notice of Default against the Respondent, Rancho Antigua Condos, following their failure to submit a formal response to the Petition.

Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), a default allows the Administrative Tribunal to deem the factual allegations in the petition as admitted. While this technically designates the Petitioner as the “prevailing party,” a Legal Insights Strategist must recognize this as a double-edged sword. Admitting the facts does not automatically equate to proving a legal violation that warrants a specific remedy. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is still bound by the statutory framework of the initial filing.

The final Order emphasizes this distinction:

3. The Citation Gap: Why Specificity is the Soul of Legal Relief

The primary obstacle in Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos was a critical “citation gap.” Despite the Respondent’s default, ALJ Lewis D. Kowal noted that the Petitioner failed to state a claim upon which substantive relief could be granted. Specifically, the Petitioner did not cite any provision of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9 (the Arizona Condominium Act) or Chapter 16 (the Planned Communities Act), nor any specific governing documents of the condominium association.

In Arizona property law, these chapters function as the “constitutions” of dispute resolution. Without anchoring allegations to these statutes, a Petitioner fails to establish the necessary statutory basis for a cause of action. The OAH cannot manufacture a legal theory or invent a remedy that the Petitioner has not explicitly requested through proper statutory citation.

——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–

4. The $550 Victory: A Breakdown of the Final Award

The final Order, issued on December 19, 2008, resulted in what can only be described as a pyrrhic victory. Although the Petitioner “won” the case, the lack of substantive legal grounding meant that the only recovery permitted was the restitution of the costs required to initiate the hearing.

Summary of the Orders issued by ALJ Lewis D. Kowal:

• Notice of Default: Confirmed the Respondent’s default status based on the Director’s October 31 entry.

• Prevailing Party Designation: Officially named Karl Riem as the prevailing party in the administrative matter.

• Reimbursement Window: Ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s $550.00 filing fee within forty days of the December 19, 2008, Order.

From an analytical standpoint, the Petitioner ended the dispute in the exact financial position they occupied before the filing, minus the significant “opportunity cost” of the time invested in the litigation.

5. Conclusion: The Importance of a Solid Foundation

The Riem case serves as a masterclass in the importance of preparation and legal precision. In administrative law, the tribunal’s power is not broad; it is specific and tethered to the law. A “win” by default does not relieve a petitioner of the duty to build a solid evidentiary and legal foundation. Simply identifying a grievance is insufficient; one must bridge the gap between a perceived wrong and the specific legislative acts—such as the Arizona Condominium and Planned Communities Acts—that govern it.

——————————————————————————–

Ponder This

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Karl Riem (petitioner)

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety