Holzman, Andrew -v- Emerald Springs Homeowners Association

Posted on October 28, 2008 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	08F-H089003-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2008-10-28
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent (HOA), finding that the Board acted appropriately in approving a 5-foot pool fence despite CC&R restrictions limiting height to 4 feet. The ALJ concluded that the HOA is required to comply with the County ordinance mandating a minimum 5-foot height for pool fences, which overrides the conflicting CC&R provision.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Andrew Holzman	Counsel	—
Respondent	Emerald Springs Homeowners Association	Counsel	Jason Smith

Alleged Violations

CC&R Sec. 3.16(1); CC&R Sec. 3.27

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent (HOA), finding that the Board acted appropriately in approving a 5-foot pool fence despite CC&R restrictions limiting height to 4 feet. The ALJ concluded that the HOA is required to comply with the County ordinance mandating a minimum 5-foot height for pool fences, which overrides the conflicting CC&R provision.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prevail because the CC&R provisions sought to be enforced were contrary to a County ordinance requiring higher fences for safety.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of fence height restrictions regarding neighbor's pool fence

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by approving a neighbor's plan for a pool fence at least 5 feet in height, whereas the CC&Rs restrict fence height to 4 feet. The HOA argued it must comply with a County ordinance requiring pool fences to be a minimum of 5 feet.

Orders: No action is required of the Association with respect to the Petition.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H089003-BFS Decision – 201322.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:35:17 (95.3 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Holzman v. Emerald Springs Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

The dispute in Andrew Holzman v. Emerald Springs Homeowners Association (No. 08F-H089003-BFS) centers on the conflict between private residential restrictive covenants and municipal safety ordinances. The Petitioner, Andrew Holzman, alleged that the Emerald Springs Homeowners Association (the “Association”) violated its Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by approving a neighbor’s pool fence that exceeded height limitations.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that while the Association’s CC&Rs mandate a maximum fence height of four feet for certain areas, La Paz County ordinance requires pool safety fences to be a minimum of five feet high. The ruling concludes that an association cannot be compelled to enforce CC&Rs that conflict with the law. Consequently, the Association’s approval of the five-foot fence was upheld as a necessary compliance with county safety requirements.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview and Parties

Location

Andrew Holzman

Petitioner

Lot 24, Emerald Springs

Emerald Springs HOA

Respondent

Phoenix/La Paz County, Arizona

Waymen & Carolyn Dekens

Involved Third Party

Lot 23, Emerald Springs (Neighbors)

The dispute arose when the owners of Lot 23 proposed extensive landscaping, including a pool with waterfalls and a safety fence. Mr. Holzman, residing on the adjacent Lot 24, challenged the approval on the grounds that the fence would obstruct his view of the Colorado River.

——————————————————————————–

Alleged Violations of CC&Rs

The Petitioner cited two specific sections of the Association’s CC&Rs as the basis for his complaint:

1. Section 3.16(1): Stipulates that fences and walls starting 130 feet from the front property line and extending toward the river may not exceed four feet in height and must be of an “open type face.”

2. Section 3.27: Mandates that back and front yard fences must not exceed four feet in height (open type), while side yard fences must not exceed six feet (constructed of wood, concrete block, or similar materials).

The core of the Petitioner’s argument was that the Association approved a fence for Lot 23 that reached at least five feet in height, thereby violating the four-foot restriction in Section 3.16(1) and the back yard provisions of Section 3.27.

——————————————————————————–

Findings of Fact

Board Approval and Meeting Discrepancies

On June 21, 2008, the Association Board met to discuss the proposed pool for Lot 23. The nature of this meeting and the subsequent approval were subjects of significant testimony:

• Petitioner’s View: Mr. Holzman, attending telephonically, contended that the Board approved the construction of the pool and fence despite his concerns about view obstruction.

• Association’s View: The Board President testified that the Board only approved the “concept” of the pool, conditioned on future engineering surveys and landscaping plans. They argued no formal written plans were approved during that session.

• Official Record: Meeting minutes and subsequent emails from the Board Secretary (Judy Jerrels) indicated that plans were indeed “passed around” and “conditionally approved,” with the understanding that revised plans would follow.

The Conflict of Regulations

The ALJ found the following facts critical to the final determination:

• County Requirements: It was undisputed that La Paz County requires pool fences to be a minimum of five feet in height.

• Board Recognition: During the June 21 meeting, the Board acknowledged the County’s five-foot requirement and received a legal opinion stating that CC&Rs do not prohibit pools on community lots.

• ALJ Determination: The ALJ concluded that the Board did approve a plan involving a fence of at least five feet in height to ensure compliance with the County ordinance.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Analysis and Conclusions of Law

Supremacy of Law over CC&Rs

The primary legal conclusion of the ALJ is that municipal ordinances take precedence over private restrictive covenants when the two are in direct conflict.

• Compliance Necessity: The Association is legally required to comply with County ordinances. It cannot be compelled by its members to enforce CC&R provisions (the four-foot height limit) that would cause a homeowner to violate safety laws (the five-foot pool fence requirement).

• Appropriateness of Action: Because the Board acted to align its approval with legal mandates, its decision was deemed appropriate.

Prevailing Party and Attorney Fees

Despite the ruling in favor of the Association, the Respondent’s request for attorney fees was denied based on the following:

• Statutory Limitations: Under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, attorney fees are awardable in an “action.” However, citing Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., the ALJ noted that an administrative proceeding does not constitute an “action” for the purposes of this statute.

• Lack of Governing Authority: The Association failed to cite any specific provision in its own governing documents that would allow for the recovery of fees or costs in this type of administrative proceeding.

——————————————————————————–

Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge ordered that no action is required of the Association regarding Mr. Holzman’s Petition. The decision was finalized on October 28, 2008, upholding the Association’s right to prioritize county safety ordinances over the height restrictions found in the CC&Rs.

Study Guide: Holzman v. Emerald Springs Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case between Andrew Holzman and the Emerald Springs Homeowners Association. It explores the legal conflict between community-specific Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and municipal ordinances, specifically regarding property improvements and safety requirements.

Short-Answer Quiz

1. What was the primary legal conflict at the center of this dispute?

2. Identify the specific sections of the Emerald Springs CC&Rs that the Petitioner alleged were being violated.

3. What were the specific height and material requirements for fences as outlined in Section 3.27 of the CC&Rs?

4. Why did Andrew Holzman object to the proposed fence on Lot 23?

5. How did the Board meeting on June 21, 2008, contribute to the dispute?

6. What was the legal justification for the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling in favor of the Homeowners Association regarding fence height?

7. Describe the conflicting testimony regarding the existence of “plans” for the pool on Lot 23.

8. What role did Judy Jerrels’ emails play in the Board’s defense?

9. On what grounds did the ALJ deny the Respondent’s request for attorney fees?

10. What are the requirements for a party to appeal this final administrative decision?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

Question

Answer

The conflict involved a discrepancy between the Emerald Springs CC&Rs, which limited certain fences to 4 feet in height, and a La Paz County ordinance, which mandated that pool fences be a minimum of 5 feet in height. The case questioned whether an HOA could be forced to follow its own rules when they contradict local law.

The Petitioner alleged violations of Section 3.16(1), regarding fence heights and types for properties extending toward the river, and Section 3.27, which governs the height and construction materials for back, front, and side yard fences.

Under Section 3.27, back and front yard fences were restricted to a 4-foot maximum height and required an “open type” design. Side yard fences were permitted to be up to 6 feet in height and could be constructed of wood, concrete block, or similar materials.

Holzman, residing on Lot 24, was concerned that a 5-foot fence installed by his neighbors on Lot 23 would obstruct his view of the Colorado River. He also claimed the neighbors had previously agreed to move the pool and eventually remove the fence.

During this meeting, the Board conditionally approved the concept of a pool for Lot 23. While the Petitioner argued this constituted a formal approval of a fence violating CC&Rs, the Board maintained it was a conceptual approval contingent on future engineering surveys and updated landscaping plans.

The ALJ concluded that the Association cannot be compelled to abide by CC&R provisions that are contrary to law. Because the County ordinance required a 5-foot minimum for pool safety, that law superseded the 4-foot restriction in the CC&Rs.

Holzman contended that by conditionally approving “plans,” the Board had authorized specific construction. Conversely, Board President Sherri Mehrver testified that no formal written plans or engineering surveys had been submitted yet, and the “plans” mentioned in minutes referred only to a diagram.

Jerrels’ emails from July 17, 2008, suggested that revised plans were still expected from the owners of Lot 23. This supported the Board’s argument that they had not yet given final approval to specific construction details, such as side yard fencing materials or exact height.

The ALJ ruled that an administrative proceeding is not considered an “action” under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, which is the statute used to award attorney fees. Additionally, the Association failed to provide any provision within its own governing documents that allowed for such an award in this type of proceeding.

A party must commence an action to review the decision by filing a complaint within 35 days of the decision being served. Service is considered complete upon personal delivery or five days after the decision is mailed to the party’s last known address.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

1. The Supremacy of Law over Private Agreements: Analyze the ALJ’s decision that Emerald Springs could not be compelled to follow CC&Rs that contradict County ordinances. Discuss the implications this has for homeowners associations when drafting and enforcing private community standards.

2. Evidentiary Interpretation of Board Minutes: Evaluate the weight given to the June 21, 2008, Board minutes. How did the phrasing “conditionally approved plans” create ambiguity, and how did the ALJ reconcile this phrasing with the testimony of Ms. Mehrver and the emails of Ms. Jerrels?

3. Property Rights and View Obstruction: Andrew Holzman’s primary grievance was the obstruction of his river view. Discuss the balance between an individual’s aesthetic enjoyment of their property and the legal necessity of safety regulations (like pool fencing) as presented in the case.

4. Administrative vs. Judicial Proceedings: Using the ALJ’s ruling on attorney fees as a baseline, compare the legal nature of an administrative hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings to a standard civil “action.” Why does the law distinguish between the two regarding the recovery of legal costs?

5. The Role of Conditional Approval in Governance: The Board approved the “concept” of the Dekens’ pool while awaiting further surveys. Discuss the risks and benefits of HOAs granting conditional approvals before receiving finalized engineering and landscaping plans.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

• A.R.S. § 12-341.01: A specific Arizona Revised Statute regarding the recovery of attorney fees; the ALJ ruled this did not apply to administrative hearings.

• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over administrative hearings, such as Lewis D. Kowal in this matter, to adjudicate disputes involving state agency actions or regulated communities.

• CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The governing documents of a homeowners association that dictate the rules for property use, maintenance, and architectural standards within the community.

• Conditional Approval: A status granted to a project or plan that is accepted in principle but requires further documentation, surveys, or modifications before final authorization.

• Lot 23: The property owned by the Dekens, where the proposed pool and fence were to be installed.

• Lot 24: The property owned by the Petitioner, Andrew Holzman, located adjacent to Lot 23.

• Open Type Face Fencing: A style of fencing required by the Emerald Springs CC&Rs for certain areas to preserve views; contrasted with solid walls or blocks.

• Ordinance: A law or regulation enacted by a municipal body, such as La Paz County, which in this case mandated specific heights for pool safety fences.

• Petitioner: The party who initiates the legal proceeding or appeal; in this case, Andrew Holzman.

• Respondent: The party against whom a legal petition is filed; in this case, the Emerald Springs Homeowners Association.

When Rules Collide: 3 Surprising Lessons from the Emerald Springs HOA Legal Battle

I. Introduction: The Battle for the View

In the world of deed-restricted communities, homeowners often pay a significant premium for aesthetic certainty. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are designed to offer a guarantee that a neighbor’s renovation will not infringe upon a skyline or a river view. However, a fundamental tension exists between these private restrictive covenants and the police power of local government.

This conflict reached a boiling point in Holzman v. Emerald Springs Homeowners Association, a dispute that began when a homeowner sought to protect his view of the Colorado River from a neighbor’s proposed pool and safety fence. The case, heard before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), provides a sobering look at the hierarchy of legal authority and the procedural traps that can leave an association vulnerable.

II. Takeaway 1: The Supremacy of Municipal Safety Ordinances

The central dispute in Holzman involved a direct contradiction between the Emerald Springs CC&Rs and La Paz County law. Sections 3.16 and 3.27 of the community’s governing documents were explicit: fences located 130 feet from the front property line and extending toward the river were capped at four feet in height. These provisions were intended to maintain a “step-down” effect to preserve the scenic corridor.

However, the owners of Lot 23 proposed a pool, and La Paz County ordinance required all pool enclosures to be a minimum of five feet in height for public safety. The ALJ determined that when a private contract (the CC&Rs) and a government safety ordinance collide, the ordinance prevails.

This creates a profound “Catch-22” for both associations and homeowners. A buyer may invest in a property specifically for its contractually protected views, yet that property right can be effectively extinguished by a change in local safety codes. The HOA, meanwhile, finds itself in the ironic position of being legally compelled to allow—and even facilitate—a violation of its own governing contract.

III. Takeaway 2: The Power of Admissions and Informal Minutes

The Holzman case underscores the danger of informal board governance and the legal weight of internal communications. During the June 21, 2008, Board meeting, the association discussed the pool project on Lot 23. The Petitioner, Andrew Holzman, attended telephonically and was unable to see the visual aids presented.

While the Association later argued that it had only approved a “concept” and that no formal plans were submitted, evidence suggested otherwise. A July 17, 2008, email from the Association’s secretary, Judy Jerrels, proved decisive. In the email, Jerrels admitted that “plans were passed around at the meeting for the attending membership to view.” This admission undermined the Board’s defense and led the ALJ to conclude that a “conditional approval” had indeed occurred.

For HOA boards, the lesson is clear: any recognition of a project in official minutes or officer correspondence can be construed as a formal action. The distinction between a “concept” and a “plan” is often lost if the administrative record shows the Board allowed the project to move forward.

IV. Takeaway 3: Winning the Merits Does Not Guarantee Legal Fees

Perhaps the most frustrating outcome for the Emerald Springs HOA was the financial resolution. Although the Association successfully defended its decision to follow county law, and the ALJ ruled that the Petitioner was not the prevailing party, the HOA was denied the recovery of its attorney fees.

The ALJ cited a critical distinction in Arizona law regarding fee shifting. Under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, fees are generally awardable to the prevailing party in “actions” arising out of contract. However, citing Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., the ALJ noted that an administrative hearing is not an “action” for the purposes of that statute.

To avoid being left with a significant legal bill even after a victory, associations must ensure their governing documents are specifically tailored for administrative forums. To maximize the chances of fee recovery, associations should prioritize:

• Explicit Provision for Administrative Forums: CC&Rs should explicitly state that the prevailing party is entitled to fees in any “legal proceeding, including administrative hearings.”

• Broad Definition of “Action”: Governing documents should define “action” or “litigation” to encompass Department of Real Estate or other administrative adjudications.

• Specific Statutory Citations: Ensure that any demand for fees references both contract law and the specific language of the association’s bylaws.

V. Conclusion: The Reality of Deed-Restricted Living

The Holzman v. Emerald Springs decision serves as a clinical reminder that HOA governance does not exist in a vacuum. While CC&Rs are binding private contracts that provide a sense of community control, they remain subordinate to the requirements of public safety and local government.

Ultimately, the case highlights the fragility of aesthetic protections when they meet the “police power” of the state. It forces a difficult realization for every resident of a common-interest community: If your community’s safety and your community’s aesthetics are in direct conflict, which one would you expect the law to choose? As the Emerald Springs battle demonstrates, public safety and municipal law will prevail every time.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Andrew Holzman (petitioner)
Owner of Lot 24; appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Jason E. Smith (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
Represented Emerald Springs Homeowners Association
Sherri Mehrver (witness)
Emerald Springs Homeowners Association
Former Board President; testified at hearing
Judy Jerrels (board member)
Emerald Springs Homeowners Association
Secretary of the Association

Neutral Parties

Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Waymen Dekens (neighbor)
Owner of Lot 23; neighbor proposing the pool/fence
Carolyn Dekens (neighbor)
Owner of Lot 23; neighbor proposing the pool/fence
Robert Barger (agency official)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Recipient of decision copy
Debra Blake (agency official)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Recipient of decision copy; Attention line

James, Lon vs. Corte Bella Country Club Association

Posted on September 25, 2008 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	08F-H089001-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2008-09-25
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	The Petition was dismissed. The claim regarding the Bylaws was precluded by mandatory ADR provisions in the CC&Rs. The claim regarding the open meeting statute was dismissed because an in camera review proved the closed meeting fell within valid statutory exceptions (personnel matters).
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Lon James	Counsel	—
Respondent	Corte Bella Country Club Association	Counsel	Angela Potts

Alleged Violations

Section 3.14
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed. The claim regarding the Bylaws was precluded by mandatory ADR provisions in the CC&Rs. The claim regarding the open meeting statute was dismissed because an in camera review proved the closed meeting fell within valid statutory exceptions (personnel matters).

Why this result: Mandatory ADR clause in governing documents and statutory exceptions for closed meetings applied.

Key Issues & Findings

Allegation of Violation of Sec 3.14 of Bylaws

Petitioner alleged that the Board held a closed meeting to discuss and vote on a proposal to realign the Board, refusing homeowner permission to attend.

Orders: Dismissed based on requirement of Article XVII of CC&Rs that requires such disputes be resolved by alternative dispute resolution.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Bylaws Section 3.14
CC&Rs Article XVII

Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (open meeting)

Petitioner alleged the May 5, 2008 closed meeting violated open meeting statutes.

Orders: Dismissed; the meeting fell within statutory exceptions.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804

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-H089001-BFS Decision – 199085.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:34:54 (96.0 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Lon James v. Corte Bella Country Club Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative law decision (Case No. 08F-H089001-BFS) regarding a dispute between Lon James (Petitioner) and the Corte Bella Country Club Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated community bylaws and Arizona state law by holding a closed Board meeting on May 5, 2008.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Lewis D. Kowal, dismissed the petition in its entirety. The ruling was based on two primary factors:

1. Jurisdictional Preclusion: Claims regarding Bylaw violations were subject to mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as per the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

2. Statutory Compliance: An in camera review of evidence determined that the closed meeting held by the Board fell within the legal exceptions provided by A.R.S. § 33-1804, specifically regarding personnel matters and confidential information.

Case Overview and Procedural History

The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety under A.R.S. 41-2198.01 (B). The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent held a closed meeting to vote on board realignment, refusing homeowner participation in violation of Community Bylaws (Section 3.14) and A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

08F-H089001-BFS

Petitioner

Lon James

Respondent

Corte Bella Country Club Association

Hearing Date

September 16, 2008

Presiding Judge

Lewis D. Kowal

Final Action

Petition Dismissed

Analysis of Legal Issues and Rulings

1. Alleged Violation of Section 3.14 of Community Bylaws

The Petitioner argued that the Respondent failed to adhere to the open meeting requirements established in the community’s own bylaws.

• Respondent’s Defense: The Respondent moved for dismissal of this claim, citing Article XVII of the CC&Rs, which mandates that disputes relating to the interpretation or enforcement of governing documents must be resolved via ADR.

• Petitioner’s Counter-Argument: The Petitioner contended that ADR provisions only applied to the design or construction of property improvements.

• Judicial Conclusion: The ALJ found that the ADR provisions should be read in the “disjunctive.” The provisions apply not only to construction improvements but also to claims arising from the “interpretation, application or enforcement” of the Respondent’s governing documents. Consequently, the claim was precluded from the administrative hearing.

2. Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law)

The core of the dispute involved a meeting held on May 5, 2008, from which homeowners were excluded.

• Legal Exceptions: Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), boards may hold closed meetings for specific reasons. The Respondent cited the following exceptions:

◦ A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2): Pending or contemplated litigation.

◦ A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(3): Personal, health, or financial information about an individual member, employee, or contractor.

◦ A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(4): Matters relating to job performance, compensation, or specific complaints against an individual employee or contractor.

3. Evidentiary Review and Methodology

To determine if the closed meeting was legal without disclosing confidential information to the Petitioner, the ALJ utilized an in camera review process.

• Review of Documents: The Respondent submitted eleven documents under seal. The Respondent argued that presenting this evidence in open court would force the disclosure of information they were legally required to keep confidential.

• Judicial Precedent: The ALJ cited Griffis v. Pinal County and Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. (2006) as guidance for performing an in camera review to balance the principles of public hearings against the necessity of preserving confidentiality.

• Findings: Following the review, the ALJ informed the parties that the meeting was “properly held as a closed meeting” because the purpose fell within at least one of the statutory exceptions.

• Petitioner’s Offer of Proof: The Petitioner was allowed to make an “Offer of Proof” regarding the evidence he would have presented. The ALJ noted that some of the information in the Petitioner’s own offer actually supported the conclusion that the meeting involved a personnel matter, which is a permissible reason for a closed session.

Final Determinations and Financial Rulings

Dismissal of the Petition

The ALJ issued a ruling from the bench dismissing the petition. The Petitioner was not considered the prevailing party and was therefore denied reimbursement for his filing fee.

Request for Attorneys’ Fees

In its response to the petition, the Respondent requested an award for attorneys’ fees and costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. The ALJ denied this request based on the following:

• Definition of “Action”: Citing Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., the ALJ noted that an administrative proceeding is not considered an “action” in the context of A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

• Governing Documents: The Respondent failed to cite any specific provision within its own governing documents that would provide for an award of fees in such a proceeding.

Final Order

The petition was dismissed. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.04(A), this order constitutes the final administrative decision. While it is not subject to a request for rehearing, it may be appealed to the Superior Court within thirty-five days of service.

Administrative Law Study Guide: Lon James v. Corte Bella Country Club Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law proceedings between Petitioner Lon James and Respondent Corte Bella Country Club Association (No. 08F-H089001-BFS). It examines the legal interpretations of association bylaws, open meeting statutes, and the procedural mechanisms used by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to resolve disputes within a country club association.

Section 1: Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. What primary allegation did the Petitioner make regarding the board meeting held on May 5, 2008?

2. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge preclude the claim regarding the violation of Section 3.14 of the Bylaws?

3. How did the Respondent’s interpretation of Article XVII of the CC&Rs differ from the Petitioner’s interpretation?

4. What was the Respondent’s justification for requesting an “in camera review” of specific documents?

5. Which Arizona Supreme Court case did the ALJ use as guidance for conducting an in camera review, and what was that case about?

6. According to A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), what are the three specific exceptions cited by the Respondent for holding a closed meeting?

7. What is an “Offer of Proof,” and how did the Petitioner’s offer impact the ALJ’s decision?

8. Why did the ALJ determine that the Respondent was not entitled to an award for attorney’s fees?

9. What is the finality status of the Order issued by ALJ Lewis D. Kowal, and is it subject to a rehearing?

10. What are the specific requirements and timelines for a party wishing to appeal this final administrative decision?

——————————————————————————–

Section 2: Answer Key

1. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent held a closed Board Meeting to discuss and vote on a proposal to realign the Board. He argued that refusing homeowners permission to attend or participate violated Community Bylaws 3.14 and A.R.S. § 33-1804.

2. The ALJ precluded this claim because Article XVII of the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) requires such disputes to be resolved by alternative dispute resolution (ADR). This mandatory provision barred the claim from being adjudicated in the current administrative hearing.

3. The Petitioner argued that the ADR provisions in Article XVII only related to the design or construction of property improvements. The Respondent argued the provisions should be read disjunctively, applying to any claims relating to the interpretation, application, or enforcement of the governing documents.

4. The Respondent asserted that the evidence justifying the closed meeting was inextricably intertwined with confidential information that could not be disclosed publicly. They requested an in camera review so the ALJ could verify the meeting’s legality without exposing protected data.

5. The ALJ cited Griffis v. Pinal County and Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. (2006). In that case, the Supreme Court remanded the matter for an in camera review to determine if personal emails on a government system were considered public records.

6. The exceptions included: (2) pending or contemplated litigation; (3) personal, health, or financial information about an individual member, employee, or contractor; and (4) matters relating to job performance, compensation, or specific complaints against an individual employee.

7. An Offer of Proof is a summary of testimonial and documentary evidence a party would have presented; in this case, the Petitioner’s offer actually supported the conclusion that the meeting fell under a personnel matter exception. It did not change the ALJ’s finding that the closed meeting was held in accordance with the law.

8. The ALJ ruled that an administrative proceeding is not an “action” under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, which is necessary for attorney’s fees to be awardable. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to cite any provision in its own governing documents that provided for such an award in this type of proceeding.

9. The Order is the final administrative decision and is not subject to a request for rehearing under A.R.S. § 41-2198.04(A). It is considered enforceable through contempt of court proceedings.

10. A party may appeal by filing a complaint within thirty-five days of the date the decision was served. Service is considered complete upon personal delivery or five days after the final decision is mailed to the party’s last known address.

——————————————————————————–

Section 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the case details to provide in-depth analysis for the following prompts.

1. Mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Analyze the significance of the ALJ’s decision to dismiss the Bylaw violation claim based on the CC&Rs. Discuss how the interpretation of “disjunctive” language in governing documents can impact a member’s right to an administrative hearing versus mandatory mediation or arbitration.

2. Transparency vs. Confidentiality: Evaluate the tension between the “open meeting” requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 and the exceptions allowed for board meetings. Discuss whether the in camera review process is an effective compromise for protecting individual privacy while ensuring association accountability.

3. The Role of Judicial Precedent in Administrative Law: Examine how the ALJ utilized Griffis v. Pinal County to justify procedural steps in this case. Why is it important for administrative law judges to look to Supreme Court decisions regarding public records when handling private association disputes?

4. Statutory Interpretation of “Action”: Contrast the legal definitions of an “administrative proceeding” and an “action” as they relate to the recovery of attorney’s fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. What are the implications for litigants who prevail in one forum versus the other?

5. Burden of Proof and the “Offer of Proof”: Discuss the procedural purpose of an Offer of Proof in a hearing. Analyze the irony in this case where the Petitioner’s own offer of proof reinforced the Respondent’s legal standing regarding the “personnel matter” exception.

——————————————————————————–

Section 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1804

The Arizona Revised Statute governing the requirement for open meetings within certain associations, including specific legal exceptions.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

A process, such as mediation or arbitration, required by governing documents to resolve disputes outside of traditional court or administrative hearings.

Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that outline the rules and regulations of a planned community or association.

In Camera Review

A private review of sensitive or confidential documents by a judge in their chambers (or “in chambers”) to determine their relevance or admissibility without disclosing them to the opposing party or the public.

Offer of Proof

A presentation made to the judge for the record when a party is not permitted to introduce certain evidence or testimony, describing what that evidence would have shown.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a petition or legal claim in an administrative hearing (in this case, Lon James).

Respondent

The party against whom a petition or legal claim is filed (in this case, Corte Bella Country Club Association).

Under Seal

Records or documents that are kept confidential and are not available for public inspection, often used during an in camera review.

Prevailing Party

The party in a legal proceeding that wins the case; here, the ALJ determined the Petitioner was not the prevailing party and thus not entitled to fee reimbursement.

Disjunctive

A grammatical or legal term indicating that items in a list (often separated by “or”) should be considered separately or as alternatives rather than collectively.

Behind Closed Doors: What a Recent Arizona HOA Ruling Reveals About Your Rights as a Homeowner

Most homeowners buy into a community under the comforting illusion that their dues purchase a front-row seat to the governance of their neighborhood. There is a common expectation that transparency is the default setting and that “open meeting” laws provide an unbreakable shield against secret governance.

In the arena of HOA law, however, transparency is often the first casualty of a well-drafted executive session. The case of Lon James vs. Corte Bella Country Club Association serves as a sobering cautionary tale of a “legal lockout.” When James challenged a closed-door meeting held to “realign the board,” he discovered that the legal framework governing HOAs often prioritizes board confidentiality over homeowner participation, leaving residents on the outside looking in.

This ruling highlights four critical takeaways that reveal just how tilted the playing field can be when a homeowner dares to challenge the association’s inner workings.

Takeaway 1: The “Open Meeting” Law Has Serious Loopholes

While A.R.S. § 33-1804 generally mandates that board meetings remain open to all members, the law provides broad exceptions that act as a legal shield for boards. In the Corte Bella case, the board met privately to discuss a proposal to “realign the board.” To a homeowner, a structural change in leadership sounds like a matter of public interest. To the law, however, it is frequently a protected personnel matter.

The ultimate irony in this case? The Petitioner’s own “Offer of Proof”—the evidence he intended to use to win—actually backfired. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that James’s own testimony unintentionally supported the HOA’s claim that the meeting was legally closed as a personnel matter. It is a high-value lesson for any litigant: sometimes your own evidence proves the board’s right to exclude you.

Takeaway 2: The Judge Can See Evidence You Can’t (The In Camera Review)

One of the most significant tactical disadvantages a homeowner faces is the “In Camera Review.” To determine if the board’s secrecy was justified, the judge reviewed 11 sealed documents privately. James was never allowed to see the very evidence being used to dismiss his case.

This “secret” review is not an automatic right for associations; it is a hard-fought legal maneuver. In fact, the ALJ initially refused the HOA’s request for the review. It was only after a persuasive oral argument that the judge pivoted, balancing public hearing principles against the board’s need for confidentiality. Using the precedent of Griffis v. Pinal County, the court confirmed that a judge can review documents behind a “black box” to determine if they fall under public record exceptions. For the homeowner, this means fighting an opponent when the most critical evidence is invisible to you.

Takeaway 3: Your Right to Sue May Be Precluded by Your Own CC&Rs

Before you ever get to argue the merits of your case, you must survive the trapdoors buried in your own governing documents. In this case, James’s claim regarding a violation of Section 3.14 of the Bylaws was dismissed before it even reached the hearing stage.

The HOA successfully argued that Article XVII of the CC&Rs mandated Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The judge applied a “disjunctive” reading of the law—meaning that because the document used the word “or,” the ADR requirement wasn’t restricted to hammers-and-nails construction issues. Instead, it applied to any claim relating to the interpretation or application of the governing documents. This is a common “ADR trap”: if your CC&Rs are written this way, your path to a standard administrative hearing is effectively blocked.

Action Item: Review your CC&Rs specifically for “disjunctive” language in your ADR or arbitration clauses. If the clause applies to construction or interpretation, you may be signing away your right to a public day in court.

Takeaway 4: Winning Doesn’t Mean Your Legal Bills Are Paid

In the administrative arena, victory often feels like a hollow financial win. In the Corte Bella ruling, even though the HOA successfully defended its actions and saw the petition dismissed, the judge denied their request for attorney’s fees.

The reasoning is a technicality that every homeowner should memorize: an administrative proceeding is not considered an “action” under Arizona law. Therefore, the statutes that typically allow a winner to recover fees in a contract-related lawsuit simply do not apply. This creates an administrative dead-end where both sides typically bear their own costs regardless of the outcome, making these battles a “lose-lose” for the bank accounts of both the individual and the community at large.

Conclusion: The Price of Participation

The Corte Bella ruling reinforces the substantial power HOA boards wield. By utilizing statutory exceptions, securing private judicial reviews, and leaning on mandatory ADR clauses, boards can effectively shield their most critical decisions from member oversight.

This leaves us with a difficult reality regarding the price of participation. If the most significant board decisions—those involving board realignment, litigation, and personnel—are legally permitted to occur behind closed doors, how can homeowners truly ensure accountability? Understanding these legal boundaries isn’t just about winning a case; it’s about recognizing the steep climb required to see what’s happening behind the curtain.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Lon James (Petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Angela Potts (Respondent Attorney)
Ekmark & Ekmart, LLC
Esq.

Neutral Parties

Lewis D. Kowal (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Robert Barger (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed on mailing/service list
Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed on mailing/service list

Kayser, William W. -v- Barclay Place Homeowners Association

Posted on May 30, 2008 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	08F-H088006-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2008-05-30
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	Petitioner prevailed on claims regarding failure to conduct outside audits, failure to provide records timely, and failure to provide proper meeting notice. Petitioner lost on claims regarding assessment notices and meeting quorums. Respondent ordered to provide records and refund full filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded	$2,000.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	William W. Kayser	Counsel	—
Respondent	Barclay Place Homeowners Association	Counsel	Heather A. Fazio

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article VII, Section 8(d)
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Bylaws Article III, Section 3

Outcome Summary

Petitioner prevailed on claims regarding failure to conduct outside audits, failure to provide records timely, and failure to provide proper meeting notice. Petitioner lost on claims regarding assessment notices and meeting quorums. Respondent ordered to provide records and refund full filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to accomplish annual audit of 2006

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to conduct annual audits. The ALJ found the Association violated the Bylaws requiring an annual audit by an outside firm, although it complied with statutory monthly compilation requirements.

Orders: Association ordered to comply with Bylaws regarding audits.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1810
Bylaws Article VII, Section 8(d)

Failure to retain and provide Association records

Petitioner requested various financial records and minutes. The Association failed to provide them within the statutory 10-day timeframe and failed to maintain complete records as required by Bylaws.

Orders: Association ordered to provide all existing requested documents at no expense to Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805
Bylaws Article VII, Section 2(a)
Bylaws Article X

Failure to give 30 day notice of assessment

Petitioner alleged failure to receive notice of assessment increases. Respondent provided evidence that notices were sent.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Cited:

CC&Rs Article IV, Section 3
CC&Rs Article IV, Section 6

Failure to provide proper notice for special meeting

Petitioner challenged the notice for the Nov 23, 2007 meeting. ALJ found posting at mailboxes did not satisfy Bylaw notice requirements for a special meeting of members.

Orders: Association ordered to comply with notice provisions.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Bylaws Article III, Section 3

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H088006-BFS Decision – 191832.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:33:20 (113.1 KB)

Briefing Document: Kayser v. Barclay Place Homeowners Association (No. 08F-H088006-BFS)

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative law decision regarding a dispute between William W. Kayser (Petitioner) and the Barclay Place Homeowners Association (Respondent). The case centered on allegations of financial mismanagement, failure to provide corporate records, and violations of meeting notice and quorum procedures.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that while the Petitioner did not prevail on every specific count, he succeeded on the “most substantial issues.” Specifically, the Association was found in violation of its Bylaws for failing to conduct an annual audit by an outside public accounting firm and failing to maintain and provide complete corporate records within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and awarded a reimbursement of his $2,000.00 filing fee. The Association was ordered to provide all requested documents and comply with governing documents and state statutes moving forward.

——————————————————————————–

Procedural Context and Scope

The hearing was conducted on May 12, 2008, under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The scope of the hearing was limited by the effective date of A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 et seq., the enabling legislation for this administrative process.

• Excluded Items: Claims regarding real estate conveyances prior to the statute’s effective date and bank statements lacking specific dates were ruled outside the scope of the hearing.

• Timeframe of Focus: The analysis was limited to acts occurring on or after September 21, 2006, as well as specific events in 2007 and 2008.

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving violations by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence showing the fact is more probable than not.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of Key Themes and Findings

1. Financial Accountability and Auditing Requirements

The dispute involved a distinction between internal financial management and formal auditing requirements mandated by the Association’s governing documents.

• Current Practice: R & R Management Company, which manages the Association’s records, performs monthly financial compilations. Testimony indicated that a certified public accountant reviews these records monthly.

• The Violation: The ALJ found that while the Association complied with A.R.S. § 33-1810 regarding monthly financial compilations, it violated Bylaws, Article VII, Section 8 (d). This provision requires an annual audit to be performed by an outside public accounting firm.

• Admission: The management company admitted that while they follow internal processes, they do not have annual audits performed by an independent public accounting firm.

2. Record Retention and Member Access

A central theme of the petition was the Association’s failure to provide documents requested by the Petitioner in a timely and complete manner.

Legal Requirement

Finding

Response Time

A.R.S. § 33-1805 requires records be provided within 10 business days.

Violation: Evidence established documents were not provided within the 10-day window.

Record Maintenance

Bylaws Article VII & X require a complete record of Association acts and corporate affairs.

Violation: The Association failed to maintain complete records. A Board member testified that previous documents were boxed up and could not be located.

Annual Statements

Bylaws Article VII, Section 2(a) requires a statement at annual meetings.

No Violation: Testimony established that statements were provided at the 2006 and 2007 annual meetings.

3. Governance: Meetings, Notices, and Assessments

The Petitioner challenged the validity of assessment increases and the legality of a specific meeting held on November 23, 2007.

• Assessment Increases: The Association’s Board has the authority to increase annual assessments by up to 5% without a vote from the membership. The ALJ found the 2007 and 2008 increases were within this 5% limit; therefore, no membership vote was required.

• The November 23, 2007 Meeting: This meeting was a “rescheduled” meeting due to a lack of quorum at a November 12 meeting.

◦ Nature of the Meeting: The ALJ determined this was a “special meeting of members.”

◦ Notice Violation: The Association posted notice at mailboxes. The ALJ ruled that mailbox postings do not satisfy the notice requirements for a special meeting of members as defined in Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.

◦ Quorum: Despite the notice issue, the action taken (the assessment increase) was valid because it was accomplished by a quorum of the Board of Directors, which did not require a member vote for a sub-5% increase.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion of Law and Final Order

The ALJ reached the following conclusions regarding the prevailing party and required remedies:

Determination of Prevailing Party

Although the Association prevailed on several individual counts (such as the 30-day notice of assessment and the 5% cap on increases), the Petitioner was designated the prevailing party. The ALJ cited the Petitioner’s success on “substantial issues,” specifically:

1. The failure to perform mandatory independent annual audits.

2. The failure to provide access to records within the statutory 10-day timeframe.

3. The failure to maintain complete corporate records.

Mandatory Relief

Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02, the Association was ordered to:

• Document Production: Provide, at no expense to the Petitioner, copies of all previously requested documents within 10 days of the order.

• Reimbursement: Pay the Petitioner $2,000.00 to reimburse his filing fee within 40 days.

• Statutory Compliance: Comply with all provisions of the CC&Rs, Bylaws, and state statutes previously found to be in violation.

Civil Penalties and Administrative Limits

The ALJ declined to impose civil penalties, stating they were not warranted by the particular facts of the case. Furthermore, the ALJ noted that specific directives requested by the Petitioner regarding how the Association should act in the future were outside the scope of the ALJ’s authority.

Study Guide: Administrative Law Case No. 08F-H088006-BFS

This study guide examines the administrative law proceedings and ultimate decision regarding the dispute between William W. Kayser and the Barclay Place Homeowners Association. The document focuses on the legal standards, findings of fact, and conclusions of law presented during the May 2008 hearing.

——————————————————————————–

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. What was the primary conflict regarding the Association’s 2006 annual audit?

2. Why were Items 1 and 2 of the original Petition ruled to be outside the scope of the hearing?

3. What did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclude regarding the HOA’s obligation to provide documents within a specific timeframe?

4. How did the management company, R & R Management, define its responsibility toward non-financial Association records?

5. What was the finding regarding the 30-day notice of annual assessments for 2006 and 2007?

6. Explain the dispute regarding the meeting held on November 23, 2007, at Robb & Stucky.

7. Under what conditions can the Association’s Board of Directors increase annual assessments without a vote from the general membership?

8. Why did the ALJ determine that the posting of meeting notices at mailboxes was legally insufficient for the November 23 meeting?

9. What was the legal definition of “preponderance of the evidence” used to decide this case?

10. Despite not prevailing on every item in his petition, why was William Kayser designated the “prevailing party”?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. While the Association conducted monthly financial reviews, the Petitioner argued that the By-Laws required an audit by an outside public accounting firm. The ALJ found that the Association violated Article VII, Section 8(d) of the By-Laws by failing to secure this external audit.

2. These items pertained to a real estate conveyance that took place before the effective date of the enabling legislation (A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 et seq.). Consequently, the ALJ did not have the statutory authority to address those specific historical claims.

3. The ALJ ruled that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide certain requested financial documents within ten business days. It was established that unapproved copies were eventually provided, but the delay exceeded the legal requirement.

4. R & R Management stated it was contractually obligated to maintain financial records but was not required to keep a complete set of records for all other Association activities. They provided other documents to homeowners only as a “courtesy” rather than a contractual duty.

5. The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of the notice requirements. Evidence from R & R Management’s records indicated that notice was sent, and the ALJ concluded the Association had indeed provided the required 30-day notice for those years.

6. The Petitioner claimed he saw a meeting notice that later disappeared and that there was no record of a meeting at the venue; however, a Board member testified the meeting did occur with a quorum present. The ALJ eventually concluded it was a “special meeting of members” rather than an annual or regular meeting.

7. The Board of Directors has the authority to set an assessment increase as long as the amount does not exceed 5% of the previous assessment. If the increase is within this 5% threshold, no vote of the Association members is required.

8. The ALJ found that while mailboxes were used for posting, this method did not satisfy the specific notice requirements for a “special meeting of members” as dictated by Article III, Section 3 of the By-Laws. The judge noted that special meetings have stricter procedural notice standards.

9. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, as cited in the case, it is evidence that is of “greater weight or more convincing” than the opposing evidence. It effectively means the facts sought to be proved are “more probable than not.”

10. The ALJ determined that Kayser prevailed on the “most substantial issues,” including the requirement for an annual audit and the failure of the Association to maintain and provide complete records. Because these issues were central to the dispute, he was entitled to a reimbursement of his $2,000 filing fee.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the case details to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. Statutory vs. Internal Governance: Analyze the differences between the Association’s violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and violations of its own By-Laws and CC&Rs. How did the ALJ distinguish between these different legal authorities in his decision?

2. The Role of Management Companies: Discuss the complexities of Association record-keeping as evidenced by the testimony of R & R Management and the “lost boxes” mentioned by the Board of Directors. What are the potential legal risks when an HOA delegates record-keeping to a third party?

3. Quorum and Notice Procedures: Evaluate the procedural confusion surrounding the November 2007 meetings. Contrast the requirements for a “regular meeting,” a “special meeting,” and a “Board of Directors meeting” as they apply to member rights and Association authority.

4. Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings: Examine the Petitioner’s burden to prove allegations by a “preponderance of the evidence.” Which claims did the Petitioner fail to prove, and what specific evidence (or lack thereof) led to those failures?

5. Administrative Remedies and Limitations: Discuss the limits of the ALJ’s authority regarding the relief requested by the Petitioner. Why were specific directions and civil penalties denied despite the findings of certain violations?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.A.C.

Arizona Administrative Code; the rules governing administrative proceedings.

A.R.S.

Arizona Revised Statutes; the state laws cited as the basis for many of the legal obligations in the case.

Administrative Law Judge; the official presiding over the hearing and issuing the decision.

Annual Audit

A formal examination of the Association’s financial records, required by the By-Laws to be performed by an outside public accounting firm.

Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions; the primary governing documents that define the rights and obligations of Community members and the Association.

Enabling Legislation

The specific statutes (A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 et seq.) that grant the Office of Administrative Hearings the power to hear HOA disputes.

Financial Compilation

The monthly process of organizing financial records, performed by R & R Management, which the ALJ distinguished from a formal annual audit.

Petitioner

The party who files the petition or complaint; in this case, William W. Kayser.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The legal standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning the evidence is more convincing than the opposition’s.

Prevailing Party

The participant in a legal proceeding who “wins” on the most substantial issues and may be entitled to fee reimbursements.

Quorum

The minimum number of members or directors required to be present at a meeting to make the proceedings and decisions valid.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed; in this case, Barclay Place Homeowners Association.

Special Meeting

A meeting called for a specific purpose that is not part of the regular meeting schedule, often requiring more formal notice to members.

——————————————————————————–

End of Study Guide

The $2,000 Paper Trail: 5 Surprising Lessons from One Homeowner’s Fight Against His HOA

Living in a Homeowners Association (HOA) often feels like navigating a shadow government where transparency is treated as a nuisance rather than a mandate. For many, the governing documents are a dense thicket of “shalls” and “musts” that only seem to apply to the residents, while the Board operates behind a veil of opacity.

The case of William Kayser vs. Barclay Place Homeowners Association serves as a definitive David-vs-Goliath narrative, proving that a single homeowner armed with the law can force an association into compliance. When Mr. Kayser challenged his HOA before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lewis D. Kowal issued a decision that pulled back the curtain on the hidden legal obligations of these organizations. Here are five surprising lessons from that $2,000 legal victory—lessons that every homeowner should memorize.

1. “Lost in Boxes” is Not a Legal Defense

One of the most persistent excuses used to dodge transparency is the claim that records have simply vanished during leadership transitions. In this case, Board member Jack Van Royen testified that a previous Association president had “boxed up documents” and the current leadership was unable to locate them.

As a matter of corporate governance, this is an unacceptable breach of fiduciary continuity. An HOA is a legal entity with a statutory mandate to maintain a historical record of its operations, regardless of who occupies the Board seats. Leadership changes do not reset the clock on these obligations. It was only after the legal pressure of a hearing that the Association suddenly promised to make a “concerted effort” to find the missing files—a clear admission that accountability only arrives when a judge is watching.

2. When an “Audit” Isn’t Actually an Audit

There is a massive distinction between internal financial “compilations” and a true independent audit. Kevin Young of R&R Management testified that his firm prepared monthly financial records and that a CPA, Andrew Carr, reviewed them. However, Young’s testimony was riddled with contradictions regarding whether Carr was an “in-house” accountant or a truly independent third party.

ALJ Kowal’s ruling sharpened the focus on Bylaws, Article VII, Section 8(d), which requires an annual audit to be performed by an “outside public accounting firm.” The Association’s attempt to blur the lines by presenting management-led compilations as a substitute for professional oversight was a failure of transparency. For homeowners, the lesson is clear: internal reviews by the very people managing the money are not a substitute for the procedural safeguards of an external audit.

3. The 10-Day Clock for Transparency

Under A.R.S. § 33-1805, Arizona associations have a strict 10-business-day window to provide requested documents to members. In this case, Mr. Kayser’s requests for bank statements and corporate records were met with delays and excuses.

Perhaps the most common stall tactic used by HOAs is the claim that financial records cannot be shared because they are “unapproved” by the Board. ALJ Kowal effectively dismantled this defense. The statutory right to inspect records is not contingent upon the Board’s final “stamp of approval.” Transparency laws are designed to grant members access to the raw data of their community’s operations, not just the sanitized versions the Board chooses to release.

4. Mailbox Postings Don’t Equal Legal Notice

A central dispute in this case involved a November 23, 2007 meeting where the Board acted to increase assessments. The Association claimed they satisfied notice requirements by posting announcements at the community mailboxes 48 hours in advance.

ALJ Kowal ruled this was legally insufficient. Because a previous meeting lacked a quorum, the November 23 gathering was classified as a “special meeting of members” under Bylaws, Article III, Section 3. This classification carries specific notice requirements that a mere mailbox posting cannot satisfy. Furthermore, the “scavenger hunt” nature of this meeting was highlighted by the fact that it was held at a Robb & Stucky conference room in Scottsdale, yet Mr. Kayser testified that the store had no record of the meeting and he saw no evidence of it occurring when he arrived. Strict adherence to notice procedures is a protection for the members, not a suggestion for the Board.

5. You Don’t Have to Win Every Count to Win the Case

The most significant takeaway for any homeowner considering legal action is the definition of a “prevailing party.” Numerically, Mr. Kayser lost a majority of his claims. For instance, the ALJ found the Association did not violate CC&R Article IV, Section 3 because the assessment increase remained under the 5% threshold that would have required a member vote.

However, ALJ Kowal ruled that winning on “substantial issues”—specifically the failure to conduct an outside audit and the failure to provide record access—outweighed the losses on minor technicalities. This is a critical distinction: you don’t need a perfect scorecard to hold your HOA accountable.

The court ordered the Association to reimburse that $2,000 fee within 40 days. This serves as a powerful deterrent against HOA non-compliance, proving that a Board’s refusal to follow its own Bylaws can be an expensive mistake.

Conclusion: The Power of Accountability

The Kayser vs. Barclay Place case proves that Bylaws and State Statutes are the bedrock of community governance, not mere “best practices” to be ignored when convenient. When a Board fails in its fiduciary duty to maintain records or follow notice procedures, it isn’t just a clerical error—it is a violation of the law.

Real accountability begins when homeowners demand the transparency they are legally owed. Your governing documents are your greatest weapon in ensuring your Association serves its members rather than its own interests.

Final Ponder Point: If you asked for your community’s last external audit tomorrow, would your board provide a report or an excuse?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

William W. Kayser (Petitioner)
Barclay Place Community
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Heather A. Fazio (Respondent Attorney)
Doyle, Berman, Murdy, P.C.
Kevin Young (Property Manager/Witness)
R & R Management Company
Testified regarding financial records and association management
Denise Lehn (Accountant)
R & R Management Company
Oversees financials for the Association
Andrew Carr (CPA)
Reviews and audits financial records monthly
Jack Van Royen (Board Member/Witness)
Barclay Place Homeowners Association Board
Bonnie Braun (Board Member)
Barclay Place Homeowners Association Board
Present at Nov 23, 2007 meeting
Pamela Nicita (Board Member)
Barclay Place Homeowners Association Board
Present at Nov 23, 2007 meeting

Neutral Parties

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

Grossman, Jerry A. -v- Gainey ranch Community Association

Posted on May 13, 2008 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	08F-H078011-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2008-05-13
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	The ALJ ruled in favor of the Association. The homeowner failed to prove the Association violated guidelines. The Association proved the homeowner violated CC&Rs by painting his home and door unapproved colors without prior approval. Homeowner ordered to repaint/restore and reimburse Association's filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jerry A. Grossman	Counsel	—
Respondent	Gainey Ranch Community Association	Counsel	Burton C. Cohen

Alleged Violations

Guideline Section 4, Article 1, Section 2
Article IV, Section 2(a)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Association. The homeowner failed to prove the Association violated guidelines. The Association proved the homeowner violated CC&Rs by painting his home and door unapproved colors without prior approval. Homeowner ordered to repaint/restore and reimburse Association's filing fee.

Why this result: Homeowner did not obtain required Architectural Committee approval before painting. The color used was not approved for home exteriors.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of Architectural Guidelines by Association regarding paint requirements

Homeowner alleged Association violated guidelines by attempting to force him to repaint. Homeowner argued 'Sterling Place' color was approved for stucco and thus should be allowed for home exterior.

Orders: No action required of the Association.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Unapproved exterior alteration (paint color and front door)

Association alleged homeowner painted home and front door unapproved colors without submitting application to Architectural Committee.

Orders: Homeowner must paint exterior with approved color and restore front door to stained light or medium oak within 60 days.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H078012-BFS Decision – 190735.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:32:27 (86.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Grossman v. Gainey Ranch Community Association (Administrative Decision)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive briefing on the consolidated matter of Jerry A. Grossman v. Gainey Ranch Community Association (Nos. 08F-H078011-BFS and 08F-H078012-BFS). The dispute centers on whether a homeowner, Jerry Grossman, violated community CC&Rs by repainting his residence and front door without obtaining prior approval from the Association’s Architectural Committee.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Gainey Ranch Community Association (GRCA) successfully demonstrated that Mr. Grossman violated the Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Consequently, Mr. Grossman was ordered to repaint his home in an approved color, restore his front door to its original stained state, and reimburse the Association for filing fees.

——————————————————————————–

Procedural and Hierarchical Background

The matter involves two primary entities: the Gainey Ranch Community Association (the master association) and “The Greens,” a sub-community within Gainey Ranch.

Level of Authority

Entity

Governance Scope

Superior

Gainey Ranch Community Association (GRCA)

Has superior authority over sub-communities regarding CC&R enforcement and architectural standards.

Subordinate

The Greens

Local Board of Directors and Architectural Committee for Lot 142.

Nature of the Petitions:

• Mr. Grossman’s Petition: Alleged the Association was improperly attempting to force him to repaint his home and door.

• Association’s Petition: Alleged Mr. Grossman violated governing documents by failing to seek approval and using unapproved colors for exterior alterations.

——————————————————————————–

Core Findings of Fact

1. The Exterior Alterations

In September or October 2007, Mr. Grossman performed two significant exterior changes to his residence at Lot 142 of The Greens:

• House Repainting: The home, previously pink, was repainted using a color called “Sterling Place.”

• Front Door Repainting: The front door, which was originally a stained light or medium oak, was painted dark brown.

2. Violations of Approval Processes

The ALJ identified several failures regarding the Association’s established approval protocols:

• Lack of Application: Mr. Grossman did not submit any application to the Association’s Architectural Committee for the home or the front door alterations.

• Improper Color Usage: “Sterling Place” was not an approved color for home exteriors. While it was approved for interior walls and entryways to The Greens, the GRCA Board had specifically denied a previous request by The Greens’ Board to use this color for buildings.

• Superiority of Master CC&Rs: Although The Greens’ Board of Directors expressed support for Mr. Grossman and had internally approved “Sterling Place” for buildings, they also admonished Mr. Grossman for failing to seek the necessary superior approval from the GRCA Architectural Committee.

3. Evidentiary Standards and Testimony

• CC&R Requirements: Article IV, Section (2)(a) explicitly states that no changes altering the exterior appearance of a property (including color schemes) shall be made without the prior approval of the GRCA Architectural Committee.

• Property History: Testimony from Fred Thielen (Executive Director of the Association) established that homes were originally built with stained oak doors. CC&Rs require homes to remain as they existed when built unless a change is approved.

• Grossman’s Defense: Mr. Grossman argued that he believed “Sterling Place” was acceptable because it was approved for stucco walls and claimed ignorance regarding regulations governing front doors. He also raised allegations of selective enforcement and harassment, which the ALJ determined were outside the scope of the hearing.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusions of Law

The ALJ applied the “preponderance of the evidence” standard—meaning the evidence must show the facts are more probable than not.

1. Authority: The Association possesses the legal authority to approve exterior colors (including walls, fences, and doors) and to seek homeowner compliance.

2. Petitioner Failure: Mr. Grossman failed to prove that the Association violated its own guidelines (Section 4, Article 1, Section 2).

3. Association Success: The Association proved that Mr. Grossman violated Article IV, Section 2(a) of the CC&Rs by failing to obtain prior approval for changes to the exterior appearance and color scheme of his home.

4. Rejection of Defense: The argument that approval for stucco usage automatically applied to building exteriors was found “not persuasive” by the court.

——————————————————————————–

Final Administrative Order

The Administrative Law Judge issued the following mandates:

• Grossman’s Petition: Dismissed; no action required by the Association.

• Remediation (House): Within 60 days, Mr. Grossman must repaint the exterior of his home with a color officially approved by the GRCA Architectural Committee.

• Remediation (Door): Within 60 days, Mr. Grossman must restore his front door to a light or medium oak stain.

• Financial Reimbursement: Within 40 days, Mr. Grossman must pay the Association $550.00 to reimburse their filing fee.

Note: This order constitutes the final administrative decision and is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(B).

Study Guide: Grossman v. Gainey Ranch Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case involving Jerry A. Grossman and the Gainey Ranch Community Association (No. 08F-H078011-BFS and No. 08F-H078012-BFS). The materials focus on the enforcement of community covenants, the hierarchy of community governance, and the legal standards applied in administrative hearings regarding property alterations.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2–3 sentences based on the facts and legal conclusions provided in the source context.

1. What was the central conflict that led to the consolidated petitions between Mr. Grossman and the Gainey Ranch Community Association?

2. What does Article IV, Section (2)(a) of the Association’s CC&Rs specifically require regarding exterior alterations?

3. How is the organizational hierarchy structured between “The Greens” community and the Gainey Ranch Community Association?

4. Why was Mr. Grossman’s use of the color “Sterling Place” for his home’s exterior considered a violation?

5. What was the original state of the front doors in the Greens community, and how did Mr. Grossman alter his?

6. What was the stance of the Greens’ Board of Directors regarding Mr. Grossman’s actions?

7. How did the testimony of Patrick Collins clarify the limitations of the color “Sterling Place”?

8. Define the “preponderance of the evidence” standard as applied by the Administrative Law Judge in this case.

9. What was the judge’s final ruling regarding the front door of the property?

10. What financial penalty and timeline were imposed on Mr. Grossman following the decision?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. Central Conflict: The dispute arose because Mr. Grossman repainted the exterior of his home and his front door without obtaining prior approval from the Association’s Architectural Committee. The Association sought to enforce its governing documents, while Mr. Grossman petitioned against being forced to repaint his property.

2. CC&R Requirements: This section mandates that no changes or alterations to the exterior appearance of any property may be made without prior approval from the Architectural Committee. This explicitly includes building walls, residences, and the exterior color scheme of any structure.

3. Organizational Hierarchy: The Greens is a sub-community with its own Board of Directors and Architectural Committee; however, the Gainey Ranch Community Association holds superior authority. The Association’s Board and Architectural Committee oversee and overrule the decisions and guidelines of the Greens’ localized leadership.

4. Sterling Place Violation: While “Sterling Place” was an approved color for interior walls and specific entryway stucco, it was not approved for the exterior of residences. Mr. Grossman failed to submit an application for this color, which differed from the home’s previous pink color and the Association’s approved exterior palette.

5. Front Door Alterations: The front doors in the Greens community were originally constructed as stained light or medium oak. Mr. Grossman changed this exterior feature by painting his door dark brown without seeking the necessary committee approval.

6. Greens’ Board Stance: The Greens’ Board of Directors noted that the color “Sterling Place” was within the community’s general color scheme and agreed to support Mr. Grossman. However, they also admonished him for failing to follow the required protocol of seeking approval from the superior Gainey Ranch Architectural Committee.

7. Patrick Collins’ Testimony: Collins clarified that while “Sterling Place” was an approved stucco color for certain areas, the Greens’ Board had previously tried and failed to get the Master Association to approve it for building exteriors. He confirmed the color was only permitted for interior stucco and the entryway to the Greens.

8. Preponderance of the Evidence: As defined by Black’s Law Dictionary in the ruling, this is evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposing evidence. It demonstrates that the fact sought to be proved is “more probable than not.”

9. Front Door Ruling: The judge concluded that the front door is part of the exterior appearance governed by the CC&Rs. Consequently, Mr. Grossman was ordered to restore the front door to its original state of stained light or medium oak within 60 days.

10. Financial Penalty and Timeline: Mr. Grossman was ordered to reimburse the Association for its $550.00 filing fee within 40 days of the order. Additionally, he was given 60 days to repaint his home in an approved color and restore his front door.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the provided case details to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Importance of Procedural Compliance: Discuss how Mr. Grossman’s failure to submit an application to the Architectural Committee served as the primary catalyst for the legal ruling, regardless of whether the color “Sterling Place” was aesthetically compatible with the neighborhood.

2. Jurisdictional Hierarchy in Managed Communities: Analyze the relationship between the Greens’ local board and the Gainey Ranch Community Association. How does this case illustrate the limitations of a sub-association’s power when its guidelines conflict with a master association’s CC&Rs?

3. Interpreting “Exterior Appearance”: Evaluate the Association’s argument that a front door is subject to the same approval process as the color of the house walls. How did the CC&Rs and the testimony of Mr. Thielen support this interpretation?

4. The Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings: Explain the different burdens of proof placed on the Petitioner and the Respondent in this consolidated matter. How did each party fail or succeed in meeting the “preponderance of the evidence” standard?

5. Good Faith vs. Legal Obligation: Mr. Grossman testified that he believed he was in compliance because the color was approved for stucco. Analyze the legal weight of a homeowner’s “belief” or “intent” versus the explicit requirements found in recorded governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who trios and decides cases involving federal or state agencies; in this case, Lewis D. Kowal of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Architectural Committee

A designated group within a community association responsible for reviewing and approving or denying changes to the exterior of properties to ensure conformity with community standards.

Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, Assessments, Charges, Servitudes, Liens, Reservations, and Easements; the legal documents that govern what a homeowner can and cannot do with their property.

Consolidated Matter

Two or more separate legal cases that are joined together because they involve the same parties or common questions of law or fact.

Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

The state department with which the original petitions in this property dispute were filed.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning the evidence on one side outweighs the evidence on the other; making a fact more likely true than not.

Petitioner

The party who presents a petition to a court or administrative body to initiate a legal action.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed, or the party responding to an appeal.

Selective Enforcement

A defense (though not permitted in this specific hearing) where a party argues they are being unfairly targeted for a violation that others are allowed to commit.

Stucco

A type of plaster used as a coating for exterior walls; a central point of confusion in the case regarding color approval.

Tract Declaration

A legal document recorded to establish specific conditions and descriptions for a particular piece of land or subdivision.

The $550 Paint Job: Lessons in HOA Law from the Gainey Ranch Dispute

For many homeowners, the dream of property ownership is synonymous with the freedom to personalize—to swap a “builder-beige” exterior for a shade that reflects personal style. However, in the high-stakes world of master-planned communities, Jerry Grossman learned the hard way that a paintbrush can quickly become a liability. What began as a simple home improvement project escalated into a “consolidated matter” before the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, ultimately proving that in an HOA, your “logical” choices are no match for a Master Declaration.

The case of Jerry Grossman vs. Gainey Ranch Community Association offers a masterclass in the legal traps of architectural control. It serves as a stark warning: when individual expression meets community governance, the court-ordered “un-doing” is always more expensive than the doing.

1. The “Sub-HOA” is Not Always the Final Authority

One of the most dangerous misconceptions in residential law is the belief that your immediate neighborhood board has the final word. Mr. Grossman lived in “The Greens,” a community within the larger Gainey Ranch development. When he decided to repaint, he found an ally in The Greens’ Board of Directors, who actually supported his color choice and noted it fit the neighborhood’s palette.

However, the administrative ruling clarified a definitive hierarchy of power. Under Finding of Fact #2, the Gainey Ranch Community Association (the Master Association) maintains “superior authority” over the local Greens Board. Think of it as a “federal” versus “local” government structure; while your local neighbors might give you a “green light,” that permission is void if it conflicts with the superior Master Association’s standards. Homeowners often miscalculate by ignoring the master level of governance until a cease-and-desist order arrives.

2. An “Approved Color” Depends on Location, Not Just Hue

The dispute centered largely on a color titled “Sterling Place.” Mr. Grossman argued that because the color was already used and approved within Gainey Ranch, his application of it was legally compliant. This is a common pitfall: the assumption that if a color exists in a community, it is “fair game” for any surface.

The court found that approval is site-specific, not universal. “Sterling Place” was an approved color for interior walls and specific entrance stucco, but it was explicitly forbidden for home exteriors. As the judge noted in Conclusion of Law #5:

3. The “Original State” Catch-22 for Front Doors

The conflict extended to Mr. Grossman’s front door, which he painted dark brown. His defense was simple: he testified he was “unaware” of any specific rule regarding door colors (Finding #11) and noted that other homes featured metal or cherry wood finishes.

The Association countered with a powerful “catch-all” provision found in Article IV, Section 2(a) of the CC&Rs. This rule mandates that no changes can be made that alter the exterior appearance of a property from its “natural or improved state” as it existed when the tract declaration was first recorded. The Executive Director testified that the builder originally installed stained doors of “light or medium oak.” Even without a specific “door rule” in the handbook, the “original state” rule acts as a default; if you haven’t received written approval to change it, you are legally required to keep it exactly as the builder left it.

4. Assumptions of “Stucco Approval” are Legally Precarious

Mr. Grossman’s primary defense rested on a material-based logic: his house is made of stucco, and “Sterling Place” is an approved color for stucco walls in the neighborhood; therefore, the two must be compatible.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found this logic legally insufficient, distinguishing the what (the material) from the where (the specific structure). An HOA board has the legal right to maintain a specific aesthetic by approving a color for a perimeter wall while banning that same color for a primary residence. This highlights a vital lesson: never assume a material’s presence elsewhere in the community grants you a right to use it. In the eyes of the law, the Board’s right to curate the “clean aesthetic” of the community outweighs a homeowner’s logical deduction.

5. The “Un-Doing” is More Expensive Than the Doing

The finality of an ALJ order carries significant financial and logistical pressure. The ruling in the Gainey Ranch dispute didn’t just find Mr. Grossman in violation; it issued a strict, time-sensitive mandate to restore the property to its original state.

The court order included the following requirements:

• 40-Day Deadline: Mr. Grossman was ordered to reimburse the Association $550.00 for its filing fee.

• 60-Day Deadline: The entire home exterior must be repainted in a color specifically approved by the Master Association.

• Restoration of the Door: The front door must be stripped of the dark brown paint and restored to a light or medium oak stain.

Conclusion: Individual Expression vs. Master Declarations

The Gainey Ranch dispute illustrates that personal logic and claims of “selective enforcement” are rarely a match for the “preponderance of evidence” regarding CC&R violations. When a homeowner signs the closing papers in a governed community, they are effectively trading a degree of individual expression for the preservation of a collective aesthetic and property value.

Is the “clean aesthetic” of a community like Gainey Ranch worth the loss of personal choice? For some, the answer is yes, but for those who wish to pick up a paintbrush, the lesson is clear: your first move should never be to the hardware store. It must be to the Master Declaration to secure written approval from the superior authority.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jerry A. Grossman (petitioner)
Homeowner (The Greens within Gainey Ranch)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Burton C. Cohen (attorney)
Gainey Ranch Community Association
Burton C. Cohen, P.C.
Fred Thielen (witness)
Gainey Ranch Community Association
Executive Director; Member of Architectural Committee
Patrick Collins (witness)
Gainey Ranch Community Association
Board Member; former member of Greens' Board/Architectural Committee

Neutral Parties

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

Grossman, Jerry A. vs. Gainey Ranch Community Association (ROOT)

Posted on May 12, 2008 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	08F-H078011-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2008-05-13
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge consolidated the homeowner's petition and the HOA's petition. The Judge ruled in favor of the HOA, finding the homeowner violated the CC&Rs by painting without approval. The homeowner was ordered to remediate the paint and reimburse the HOA's $550 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jerry A. Grossman	Counsel	—
Respondent	Gainey Ranch Community Association	Counsel	Burton C. Cohen

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Section 2(a)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge consolidated the homeowner's petition and the HOA's petition. The Judge ruled in favor of the HOA, finding the homeowner violated the CC&Rs by painting without approval. The homeowner was ordered to remediate the paint and reimburse the HOA's $550 filing fee.

Why this result: Homeowner failed to prove HOA violated guidelines; HOA proved Homeowner violated CC&Rs by making unapproved exterior changes.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Exterior Change (Painting)

Homeowner painted home 'Sterling Place' and front door dark brown without prior approval. Homeowner argued the color was approved for stucco generally. HOA argued approval was required specifically for the home and the color was not approved for house exteriors.

Orders: Homeowner must paint exterior with an approved color and restore front door to stained light or medium oak within 60 days.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Article IV, Section 2(a)
Guideline Section 4, Article 1, Section 2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H078011-BFS Decision – 190735.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T20:29:10 (91.1 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Grossman v. Gainey Ranch Community Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions of a consolidated administrative hearing (No. 08F-H078011-BFS and No. 08F-H078012-BFS) regarding a dispute between Jerry A. Grossman (“Mr. Grossman”) and the Gainey Ranch Community Association (“Association”).

The central conflict involved Mr. Grossman repainting the exterior of his home and front door without obtaining prior approval from the Association’s Architectural Committee. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that Mr. Grossman violated the Association’s Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The ruling requires Mr. Grossman to restore his front door to its original stained oak finish, repaint his home in an approved color, and reimburse the Association for its filing fees.

Case Background and Hierarchy

The dispute arose within “The Greens,” a residential community located within the larger Gainey Ranch development. The case highlights a specific organizational hierarchy regarding architectural control:

• Sub-Association: The Greens has its own Board of Directors and Architectural Committee.

• Master Association: The Gainey Ranch Community Association maintains its own Board and Architectural Committee.

• Superior Authority: The Association’s Board and Architectural Committee hold superior authority over those of The Greens.

Core Legal Provisions

The Association’s authority to regulate property aesthetics is derived from the Certificate of Amendment and Restatement of Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, Assessment, Charges, Servitudes, Liens Reservations and Easements for Gainey Ranch (CC&Rs).

Article IV, Section 2(a)

The CC&Rs state that no changes or alterations that affect the exterior appearance of any property from its natural or improved state (as of the date the tract Declaration was first recorded) shall be made without prior approval from the Association’s Architectural Committee. This includes:

• Building walls and fences.

• Residences and other structures.

• Exterior color schemes.

Analysis of the Dispute

Exterior House Color

In late 2007, Mr. Grossman repainted his home, changing the color from pink to “Sterling Place.”

Factor

Detail

Grossman’s Argument

Believed “Sterling Place” was an approved color for stucco and therefore did not require prior approval.

Association’s Position

“Sterling Place” was approved only for interior walls and entryways, not for the exterior of residences.

Evidence

The Greens’ Board of Directors had attempted to get “Sterling Place” approved for buildings by the Master Association but was unsuccessful.

Finding

Mr. Grossman failed to seek prior approval as required by the CC&Rs.

Front Door Alteration

Mr. Grossman painted his front door dark brown, a change from the builder-original state.

• Original Condition: Evidence from the Association’s Executive Director indicated that homes in The Greens were originally constructed with stained doors of light or medium oak.

• Grossman’s Defense: Claimed unawareness of any provision addressing front doors and noted that other homes in the community featured different materials (cherry wood, metal, or different paint colors).

• Legal Determination: The ALJ found that the front door is part of the “exterior appearance” of the home. Under Article IV, Section 2(a) of the CC&Rs, the door must remain as it existed when built unless a change is specifically approved by the Association’s Architectural Committee.

Sub-Association Interaction

The Greens’ Board of Directors noted that while “Sterling Place” fell within colors used in the community and they supported Mr. Grossman’s choice, they officially admonished him for failing to seek the necessary approval from the superior Gainey Ranch Architectural Committee.

Legal Conclusions

The case was decided based on a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning the evidence showed the facts sought to be proved were more probable than not.

1. Burden of Proof: Mr. Grossman failed to prove the Association violated its guidelines. The Association successfully proved Mr. Grossman violated the CC&Rs.

2. Authority: The Association possesses the clear authority to approve or deny paint colors for exteriors, walls, and fences.

3. Violation: Painting the home and door without prior application and approval constituted a direct violation of Article IV, Section 2(a) of the CC&Rs.

Final Order and Remediation

The ALJ issued the following orders to resolve the matter:

• Home Exterior: Within 60 days of the Order (dated May 13, 2008), Mr. Grossman must repaint the exterior of his home with a color approved by the Association’s Architectural Committee.

• Front Door: Within 60 days of the Order, Mr. Grossman must restore the front door to a light or medium oak stain.

• Financial Reimbursement: Within 40 days of the Order, Mr. Grossman must reimburse the Association for its $550.00 filing fee.

• Finality: This decision is the final administrative decision and is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings.

Study Guide: Grossman v. Gainey Ranch Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal dispute between Jerry A. Grossman and the Gainey Ranch Community Association. It examines the enforcement of community covenants, the hierarchy of homeowner association authority, and the legal standards applied in administrative hearings.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

1. What was the primary cause of the consolidated legal matter between Jerry Grossman and the Gainey Ranch Community Association?

2. According to the Association’s CC&Rs, what specific actions require prior approval from the Architectural Committee?

3. How does the hierarchy of authority function between the “Greens” community and the Gainey Ranch Community Association?

4. Why did Jerry Grossman believe that using the color “Sterling Place” for his home’s exterior was permissible without prior approval?

5. What was the testimony provided by Fred Thielen regarding the standard appearance of front doors in the Greens community?

6. What was the stance of the Greens’ Board of Directors regarding Mr. Grossman’s choice of the color “Sterling Place”?

7. How does the document define the “preponderance of the evidence” legal standard?

8. Why was Mr. Grossman’s claim of selective enforcement and harassment excluded from the scope of the administrative hearing?

9. What was the final ruling regarding the front door of Mr. Grossman’s residence?

10. What financial penalties and deadlines were imposed on Mr. Grossman by the Administrative Law Judge’s order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The conflict arose from a consolidated matter where Mr. Grossman challenged the Association’s attempt to force him to repaint his home, while the Association alleged Mr. Grossman violated governing documents by painting his house and front door without prior approval using unapproved colors.

2. Article IV, Section (2)(a) of the CC&Rs states that no changes or alterations to the exterior appearance of any property from its natural or improved state, including building walls, fences, and exterior color schemes, may be made without prior Architectural Committee approval.

3. While the “Greens” community has its own Board of Directors and Architectural Committee, the Gainey Ranch Community Association’s Board and Architectural Committee maintain superior authority over the local “Greens” entities.

4. Mr. Grossman testified that because “Sterling Place” was an approved color for stucco walls and entrance walls within the community, he assumed it was also an approved color for the exterior of his home and therefore did not require a new application.

5. Fred Thielen, the Association’s Executive Director, testified that the front doors in the Greens were originally built as stained doors of light or medium oak; consequently, Mr. Grossman’s decision to paint his door dark brown was an unapproved change of appearance.

6. The Greens’ Board of Directors noted that “Sterling Place” was approved for entrance walls but not house exteriors; however, they initially supported Mr. Grossman because the color fell within the community’s palette, while still admonishing him for failing to seek Association approval.

7. Citing Black’s Law Dictionary, the document defines “preponderance of the evidence” as evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposition, showing that the fact to be proved is more probable than not.

8. The Administrative Law Judge determined that harassment is not a valid defense for the violation in question. Furthermore, the issue was not specifically raised in Mr. Grossman’s original Petition, placing it outside the scope of the hearing.

9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered Mr. Grossman to restore the front door of his home to its original state, specifically requiring it to be stained light or medium oak, rather than the dark brown paint he had applied.

10. Mr. Grossman was ordered to repaint his home in an approved color and restore his door within 60 days of the order. Additionally, he was required to reimburse the Association for its $550.00 filing fee within 40 days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Review

1. The Conflict of Authority: Analyze the legal and practical implications of the hierarchical relationship between a master association and a sub-association (the “Greens”). How did the Greens’ Board’s support of Mr. Grossman fail to provide him a legal defense against the master association’s requirements?

2. Interpretation of Architectural Guidelines: Discuss the difference between “approved colors” and “approved applications.” Why is it critical for homeowners to understand that approval for a color on one surface (e.g., a perimeter wall) does not automatically translate to approval for another surface (e.g., a home exterior)?

3. The Importance of “Original State” in CC&Rs: Examine the role of the “natural or improved state” as a baseline for community standards. How does this standard protect the aesthetic integrity of a community, and what are the potential drawbacks for individual homeowners?

4. The Preponderance of Evidence in Administrative Law: Evaluate the burden of proof placed on both the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case. How did the Association successfully meet its burden while Mr. Grossman failed to meet his?

5. Due Process and Procedural Boundaries: Reflect on the judge’s decision to exclude claims of harassment and selective enforcement from the hearing. How do procedural limitations impact the ability of a homeowner to defend their actions in an administrative setting?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies and administrative regulations.

Architectural Committee

A designated body within a community association responsible for reviewing and approving changes to the exterior appearance of properties.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and limitations for property owners within a specific development.

Consolidated Matter

A legal situation where two or more separate cases involving similar parties or issues are combined into a single proceeding.

Filing Fee

A required payment made to a court or administrative body to initiate a legal petition or claim.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases, requiring that a claim be more likely true than not.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition by filing a complaint or request for a hearing.

Respondent

The party against whom a legal action is brought or a petition is filed.

Stained Oak

A specific wood finish (light or medium) identified as the original standard for front doors in the Greens community.

Sterling Place

The specific paint color used by Mr. Grossman that was approved for interior/entrance walls but not for home exteriors.

Stucco

A type of exterior finish for walls; in this case, the material for which the color “Sterling Place” was partially approved.

Tract Declaration

A legal document recorded to define the original state and restrictions of a specific plot of land or development.

The Price of a Pink House: 4 Surprising Lessons from a $550 Paint Dispute

For many of us, the desire to personalize our home is a fundamental part of the American Dream. We see a dated exterior and imagine a fresh, modern palette that reflects our personal style. However, in the world of common-interest developments, that creative impulse often hits a legal brick wall.

In my years of consulting for community associations, I have seen many well-intentioned homeowners fall into the “renovation trap.” The case of Jerry A. Grossman vs. Gainey Ranch Community Association is a masterclass in this conflict. What started as a homeowner’s desire to move away from his home’s original pink exterior and update his front door resulted in a formal administrative hearing, a mandatory order to undo the work, and a significant financial hit.

Your Neighborhood Board Might Not Have the Final Say

One of the most common legal landmines I see in real estate is the “nested board” trap. Mr. Grossman lived in “The Greens,” a sub-community within the larger Gainey Ranch development. When he decided to repaint, he found support from his local neighborhood board. However, the local board’s blessing was ultimately meaningless.

The legal reality is that most master associations maintain “Superior Authority.” In this case, while the Greens’ Board supported Mr. Grossman, they also explicitly admonished him for not seeking approval from the master association first. They knew what Mr. Grossman ignored: the local board’s power is subordinate to the Master Architectural Committee. As a homeowner, you cannot assume a “yes” from your immediate neighbors is a “yes” from the entity that actually holds the deed restrictions.

“Approved Colors” are Highly Context-Specific

The heart of this dispute involved a color called “Sterling Place.” To a layman, the logic seems sound: if the color is already visible in the community, it must be allowed. To the Association, however, “approved” is a relative term.

Mr. Grossman argued that because “Sterling Place” was used on various stucco entryway walls and interior surfaces within the community, it was naturally an “approved” color for his stucco house. He likely felt emboldened by a specific nuance in the guidelines: if a homeowner repaints with an already approved color, prior approval is not necessary.

The Association’s ruling, however, clarified the “Smoking Gun” in this case. The Greens’ Board had previously attempted to get “Sterling Place” approved for use on residential buildings and were unsuccessful. The color was authorized only for interior walls and specific entryways, never for the “exterior side” of the homes. The lesson here is granular: just because a color exists on a perimeter wall doesn’t mean it’s authorized for your front shutters.

The Front Door is Not Your Canvas

We often think of our front door as the ultimate statement of individuality, but in an HOA, it is often treated as a historical artifact. Mr. Grossman painted his door a solid “dark brown,” noting that other homes in the area featured various materials like metal or cherry wood. He argued he was unaware of any specific regulations governing doors.

The Association relied on the “Natural State” clause found in many CC&Rs. According to the testimony of Executive Director Fred Thielen, the original builder intended for the homes in The Greens to feature stained wood doors. Specifically, the standard was “stained light or medium oak.” By applying paint—regardless of the color—Mr. Grossman violated the requirement to maintain the home as it existed when first built.

The High Cost of Asking for Forgiveness Instead of Permission

Mr. Grossman’s most expensive mistake was his belief that approval was unnecessary because he was “improving” the property. He traded a pink house for a color he preferred, assuming the Association would see the value. Instead, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an order that serves as a sobering reminder of the costs of non-compliance.

The final Order placed a heavy logistical and financial burden on the homeowner:

• Mandatory Repainting: Grossman was ordered to repaint the entire exterior of his home with an officially approved color within 60 days.

• Restoration: He was required to strip the dark brown paint and restore the front door to its original light or medium oak stain.

• Reimbursement: He was ordered to pay the Association $550.00 to cover their filing fees.

Conclusion: The “Natural State” Dilemma

The Grossman case is a definitive victory for community uniformity over individual expression. It highlights the “Natural State” dilemma: most CC&Rs mandate that a property be maintained in the state it existed on the date the tract declaration was first recorded.

This case leaves every homeowner in a managed community with a difficult question to weigh. If your governing documents mandate a return to the aesthetic of decades past—even if that aesthetic is a “pink house”—are you truly the master of your domain? In the eyes of the law, the answer is clear: you are a steward of the builder’s original vision, and any deviation requires a paper trail of permission.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jerry A. Grossman (petitioner)
Homeowner (Lot 142 of the Greens)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Burton C. Cohen (attorney)
Burton C. Cohen, P.C.
Attorney for Gainey Ranch Community Association
Fred Thielen (witness)
Gainey Ranch Community Association
Executive Director and member of the Architectural Committee
Patrick Collins (witness)
Gainey Ranch Community Association
Current Board Member; previously member of Greens' Board and Architectural Committee

Neutral Parties

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

Littell, Roland E. -v- Vista Montana Estates

Posted on May 6, 2008 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	08F-H088005-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2008-05-06
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition and vacated the hearing after the Petitioner decided to withdraw from the proceeding to pursue the matter in civil court,.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Roland E. Littell	Counsel	—
Respondent	Vista Montana Estates	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

Unknown

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition and vacated the hearing after the Petitioner decided to withdraw from the proceeding to pursue the matter in civil court,.

Why this result: Petitioner withdrew from the hearing despite being informed he would lose the opportunity to be reimbursed his filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Unknown

Petitioner withdrew from the hearing during the presentation of evidence to proceed in civil court.

Orders: The petition was dismissed and the hearing vacated.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: dismissed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H088005-BFS Decision – 190449.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:33:04 (51.5 KB)

Briefing Document: Procedural Dismissal of Roland E. Littell v. Vista Montana Estates

Executive Summary

This briefing document details the termination of administrative proceedings in the matter of Roland E. Littell v. Vista Montana Estates (Case No. 08F-H088005-BFS). The matter, overseen by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, concluded with an “Order Dismissing Petition and Vacating Hearing” issued on May 6, 2008. The dismissal was precipitated by the Petitioner’s voluntary withdrawal during the evidentiary phase of the hearing. The Petitioner cited dissatisfaction with the Administrative Law Judge’s rulings on the scope of the hearing and the admissibility of evidence. Consequently, the Petitioner indicated an intent to pursue the matter through civil litigation.

Case Identification and Parties

The administrative action involved the following primary entities and individuals:

Name/Entity

Address

Petitioner

Roland E. Littell

6396 E. Raven Run Loop, Tucson, AZ 85706

Respondent

Vista Montana Estates

c/o Lewis Management Resources, Inc., 180 W. Magee Suite 134, Tucson, AZ 85704

Administrative Agency

Dept. of Fire, Building and Life Safety

1110 W. Washington, Suite 100, Phoenix, AZ 85007

Presiding Judge

Lewis D. Kowal

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, AZ

Procedural History and Hearing Events

The matter officially convened for a hearing on April 30, 2008. During this session, the Petitioner, Roland E. Littell, began the formal presentation of both testimonial and documentary evidence.

However, during the course of the presentation, the Petitioner decided to withdraw from the proceedings. This decision was explicitly linked to two factors determined by Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal:

• The Scope of the Hearing: The defined legal boundaries and issues to be addressed during the proceeding.

• Evidentiary Rulings: Decisions made by the Judge regarding which pieces of evidence would be admitted into the record.

Rationale for Dismissal and Petitioner’s Intent

Following the Petitioner’s expression of his desire to withdraw, the Administrative Law Judge provided an opportunity for reflection. The Petitioner was formally informed of the consequences of this action, specifically that withdrawing would result in the loss of any opportunity to be reimbursed for his filing fee.

Despite this warning, the Petitioner maintained his decision to withdraw. The records indicate a strategic shift in the Petitioner’s approach, as he stated his intention to proceed against the Respondent, Vista Montana Estates, in civil court rather than through the administrative hearing process.

Final Order and Disposition

Based on the Petitioner’s voluntary withdrawal and the circumstances of the hearing, Judge Lewis D. Kowal issued the following orders on May 6, 2008:

1. Dismissal of Petition: The petition originally filed with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety was officially dismissed.

2. Vacatur of Matter: The case was vacated from the docket of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Copies of this order were transmitted to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (directed to Robert Barger and Debra Blake), Brock Quales of Vista Montana Estates (via Lewis Management Resources, Inc.), and Roland E. Littell.

Study Guide: Administrative Proceedings in Roland E. Littell v. Vista Montana Estates

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the legal order issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding the matter of Roland E. Littell v. Vista Montana Estates. It includes a short-answer quiz, essay prompts for deeper analysis, and a glossary of technical terms derived from the case documentation.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer each question in two to three sentences based on the information provided in the case document.

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this legal matter?

2. What occurred during the initial convening of the matter on April 30, 2008?

3. What specific reasons led the Petitioner to withdraw from the hearing?

4. What warning or information was provided to the Petitioner regarding the financial consequences of withdrawal?

5. What was the Petitioner’s stated intent regarding future legal action following the withdrawal?

6. Who presided over this case, and what is their official title?

7. With which department did the Petitioner originally file his petition?

8. What was the final ruling issued by the court on May 6, 2008?

9. Who received copies of the final order on behalf of the Respondent?

10. Where is the Office of Administrative Hearings located?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this legal matter? The Petitioner is Roland E. Littell, and the Respondent is Vista Montana Estates. The document also notes that the Respondent is associated with Brock Quales and Lewis Management Resources, Inc.

2. What occurred during the initial convening of the matter on April 30, 2008? The hearing officially convened, and the Petitioner began the process of presenting testimonial and documentary evidence. However, during this presentation, the Petitioner decided to withdraw from the proceedings.

3. What specific reasons led the Petitioner to withdraw from the hearing? The Petitioner’s decision to withdraw was based on the scope of the hearing as determined by the Administrative Law Judge. Furthermore, the Petitioner was dissatisfied with the rulings made regarding the admission of evidence.

4. What warning or information was provided to the Petitioner regarding the financial consequences of withdrawal? The Petitioner was given an opportunity to reflect on his decision to withdraw and was explicitly informed of the consequences. Specifically, he was told that by withdrawing, he would lose the opportunity to be reimbursed for his filing fee.

5. What was the Petitioner’s stated intent regarding future legal action following the withdrawal? Upon withdrawing from the administrative hearing, the Petitioner indicated that his departure was not the end of the dispute. He stated his intention to proceed against the Respondent in civil court.

6. Who presided over this case, and what is their official title? The case was presided over by Lewis D. Kowal. His official title is Administrative Law Judge.

7. With which department did the Petitioner originally file his petition? The Petitioner originally filed the petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The Director of this department at the time was Robert Barger.

8. What was the final ruling issued by the court on May 6, 2008? The Administrative Law Judge ordered the dismissal of the petition filed with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. Additionally, the matter was vacated from the docket of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

9. Who received copies of the final order on behalf of the Respondent? The order was transmitted to Brock Quales for Vista Montana Estates. This was sent care of Lewis Management Resources, Inc., located in Tucson, Arizona.

10. Where is the Office of Administrative Hearings located? The Office of Administrative Hearings is located in Phoenix, Arizona. Its specific address is 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the case details to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Role of Judicial Discretion: Analyze how the Administrative Law Judge’s rulings on the scope of the hearing and the admission of evidence influenced the trajectory of this case. Discuss the importance of these procedural boundaries in administrative law.

2. Administrative vs. Civil Remedies: The Petitioner chose to abandon the administrative process in favor of civil court. Explore the potential reasons a party might prefer a civil court over an administrative hearing, despite the loss of filing fees.

3. The Petition Process: Trace the life cycle of the petition in this case, from its filing with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety to its eventual dismissal and removal from the docket.

4. Implications of Voluntary Withdrawal: Discuss the procedural and financial risks a petitioner faces when choosing to withdraw from a hearing after it has already convened and evidence has been partially presented.

5. Administrative Oversight: Based on the entities mentioned in the document, describe the framework of administrative oversight in Arizona involving the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety and the Office of Administrative Hearings.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A government official who presides over administrative hearings, makes rulings on evidence, and issues orders to resolve disputes between individuals and agencies or other parties.

Civil Court

A court of law where disputes between private parties (individuals or organizations) are resolved, as opposed to criminal or administrative proceedings.

Dismissal

A formal order by a judge that terminates a case or petition without further hearing or a full trial on the merits.

Docket

The official schedule or list of cases pending before a court or administrative body.

Documentary Evidence

Any relevant documents, records, or written materials presented during a hearing to support a party’s claims.

Filing Fee

A required payment made to a government agency or court to initiate a legal proceeding or petition.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition seeking relief or a hearing from an administrative body.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or who is required to answer the claims made by the petitioner.

Scope of Hearing

The defined limits and boundaries of the legal issues and facts that will be considered and decided upon during a specific proceeding.

Testimonial Evidence

Oral statements made under oath by witnesses during a hearing to provide facts or information relevant to the case.

Vacating

The act of cancelling or setting aside a scheduled hearing or a previous legal order.

The Exit Strategy: What Happens When a Legal Hearing Doesn’t Go Your Way?

The Hook: The Moment of Truth in the Hearing Room

The air in a formal administrative hearing room in Tucson is often thick with the scent of old paper and high stakes. On April 30, 2008, Roland E. Littell sat across from the representatives of Vista Montana Estates and Lewis Management Resources, Inc., ready to present his case. He had the documents, the testimony, and a narrative of justice. But as the proceedings began, the atmosphere shifted. With every “inadmissible” ruling and every narrowing of the “scope” by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the walls began to close in on his original strategy.

It is a sobering moment for any litigant when they realize the current forum is no longer a path to victory, but a corridor to a dead end. In that moment of truth, the question isn’t just about the facts of the case, but whether the venue itself has become an obstacle. The case of Roland E. Littell vs. Vista Montana Estates (No. 08F-H088005-BFS) serves as a masterclass in mid-hearing decision-making—a study in knowing when to fight and when to execute a tactical retreat.

Takeaway 1: You Have the Right to Walk Away (Even Mid-Stream)

In the administrative realm, the Petitioner often holds a surprising, yet volatile, piece of leverage: the right to walk away. Littell began presenting testimonial and documentary evidence on April 30, but as the evidentiary hurdles mounted, he made a high-stakes move. He chose to withdraw after the hearing had already convened.

From a strategist’s perspective, this is a maneuver fraught with “prejudicial risk.” To withdraw mid-stream is to risk being viewed as a “bad faith” litigant if one ever tries to return to the same forum. However, it is also a powerful tool to prevent a final, binding judgment on the merits that could preclude future litigation. Littell recognized that a flawed administrative outcome would be harder to overturn than a voluntary dismissal would be to explain.

Takeaway 2: The “Scope” of the Hearing is a Dealbreaker

The Administrative Law Judge serves as a gatekeeper, and the “scope” of the hearing is the gate itself. In administrative law, jurisdictional limits are often frustratingly narrow. The ALJ’s role is to determine which issues are legally relevant to the specific department—in this case, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety—and which are not. When the ALJ’s rulings on the admission of evidence diverge from a Petitioner’s core theory, the strategy is effectively derailed.

Littell realized that the administrative “scope” was too restrictive for the justice he sought. As the official order reflects:

This highlights a critical lesson for any strategist: if the judge defines the playing field so narrowly that your best evidence is sidelined, the venue is no longer a tool; it is a liability.

Takeaway 3: Walking Away Has a Literal Price Tag

Legal strategy is rarely free, and walking away mid-hearing carries a specific “sunk cost.” In this matter, the ALJ was careful to ensure the record reflected “informed consent.” Littell wasn’t just allowed to quit; he was forced to stare at the financial consequences. He was explicitly “informed that by withdrawing from the proceeding Petitioner would lose an opportunity to be reimbursed his filing fee.”

The strategic significance here lies in the “reflection period.” While the hearing took place on April 30, the final Order Dismissing Petition was not signed by ALJ Lewis D. Kowal until May 6, 2008. This six-day gap represents a window of reflection provided to the Petitioner. For many, the psychological weight of the filing fee—a classic sunk cost—forces them to stay in a losing hearing. Littell’s decision to proceed with the withdrawal anyway signals a high-conviction shift in strategy, valuing his long-term legal standing over immediate, minor financial loss.

Takeaway 4: The Administrative Hearing as a Prelude, Not an End

Choosing to dismiss an administrative petition is frequently a pivot, not a surrender. By bypassing the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, a Petitioner can avoid being trapped by the statutory limits of a regulatory body. Littell’s exit was a calculated move to seek a broader stage.

The source context reveals a clear intent: Littell intended to “proceed against Respondent in civil court.” By vacating the matter from the administrative docket, the Petitioner successfully side-stepped a potential administrative defeat that might have had a preclusive effect on a future civil suit. He traded the specialized, narrow focus of an administrative hearing for the general jurisdiction of a civil court, where the rules of evidence and the scope of claims are often more expansive.

Conclusion: The Calculated Retreat

The case of Littell vs. Vista Montana Estates reminds us that administrative efficiency is often at odds with a litigant’s personal pursuit of justice. Knowing when a venue has outlived its usefulness is as vital as the evidence you carry into the room. A calculated retreat, while painful in the short term, allows a strategist to preserve their resources for a more favorable environment.

“In the pursuit of justice, is it better to finish a flawed hearing or to walk away and start over on different ground?”

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Roland E. Littell (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Brock Quales (property manager)
Lewis Management Resources, Inc.
Listed c/o for Respondent Vista Montana Estates

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

Draper, Lee -v- Villas On North Mountain Condominium

Posted on March 1, 2008 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	08F-H088001-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2008-03-01
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was granted. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the issue of the assessment increase was integral to a prior final judgment in Justice Court, invoking res judicata and collateral estoppel. Furthermore, the Petitioner lacked standing because the challenged act occurred in 2003, prior to the Petitioner becoming a unit owner in 2007.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Lee Draper	Counsel	—
Respondent	Villas on North Mountain Condominium	Counsel	Beth Mulcahy

Alleged Violations

Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions

Outcome Summary

Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was granted. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the issue of the assessment increase was integral to a prior final judgment in Justice Court, invoking res judicata and collateral estoppel. Furthermore, the Petitioner lacked standing because the challenged act occurred in 2003, prior to the Petitioner becoming a unit owner in 2007.

Why this result: Case dismissed due to res judicata, collateral estoppel, and lack of standing.

Key Issues & Findings

Challenge to increase of assessment

Petitioner challenged Respondent's authority to increase the assessment in August 2003. Respondent argued the claim was barred by res judicata/collateral estoppel and lack of standing.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H088001-BFS Decision – 187338.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:32:37 (58.1 KB)

Briefing Document: Draper v. Villas on North Mountain Condominium (Case No. 08F-H088001-BFS)

Executive Summary

This briefing document details the final administrative decision issued by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Petitioner Lee Draper and Respondent Villas on North Mountain Condominium. The Petitioner sought to challenge a 2003 assessment increase, despite only becoming a member of the condominium association in 2007.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lewis D. Kowal dismissed the petition on two primary legal grounds:

1. Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel: The issue of assessment authority had already been determined in a prior Justice Court proceeding.

2. Lack of Standing: The Petitioner was not a unit owner or member at the time the contested assessment increase occurred and therefore lacked the legal standing to challenge it.

The order granted the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, vacated the hearing, and established that the decision is not subject to a request for rehearing.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Detailed Findings and Legal Arguments

1. Arguments for Dismissal (Respondent’s Position)

The Respondent (Villas) filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the following assertions:

• Prior Adjudication: The issue regarding the August 2003 assessment increase was previously decided in the Moon Valley Justice Court (Case No. CC 2007023371). Consequently, the doctrines of res judicata (a matter already judged) and collateral estoppel (prevention of re-litigation of an issue) apply.

• Dismissed Appeal: While the Petitioner had initially appealed the Justice Court judgment to the Superior Court, that appeal was subsequently dismissed.

• Standing: The Respondent argued that the Petitioner lacked standing because the assessment increase took place in August 2003, whereas the Petitioner did not become a unit owner or member until February 2007.

2. Petitioner’s Counter-Arguments

The Petitioner, Lee Draper, contested the Motion to Dismiss with the following points:

• Inurement of Rights: As a current unit owner, the Petitioner argued that all rights and benefits of the prior owner “inure to him.”

• Current Impact: He claimed that because he is currently affected by the assessment increase, he should have the authority to challenge the Respondent’s original power to take that action.

• Scope of Prior Litigation: The Petitioner asserted that the specific issue of the authority to increase assessments was not raised in the earlier Justice Court matter.

3. Evidentiary and Factual Clarifications

During oral arguments, several key facts were established or confirmed:

• Timeline: There was no factual dispute that the assessment increase occurred in August 2003 and the Petitioner joined the association in February 2007.

• Prior Counter-claim: In the Justice Court matter, the Petitioner had raised a counter-claim regarding the Respondent’s failure to provide financial information; that counter-claim was dismissed.

• Evidence in Justice Court: It was undisputed that during the Justice Court trial, the Respondent presented evidence regarding assessments and referred to the same provisions of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) cited in the current petition.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Conclusions and Final Order

Application of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel

The ALJ concluded that the Respondent’s authority to increase the assessment was “integral to the judgment awarded” in the Justice Court matter. Because the issue was inextricably linked to the previous final judgment, the legal doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply, precluding the Petitioner from re-litigating the same issue in the administrative forum.

Principle of Standing

The ALJ further ruled that the Petitioner lacked standing based on long-standing legal principles. Specifically:

• The action being challenged (the assessment increase) occurred nearly four years before the Petitioner acquired the property.

• The Petitioner was not affected by the act at the time it occurred.

• One cannot contest an act that took place prior to being in a position (as an owner or member) to challenge said act.

Final Order

The Office of Administrative Hearings issued the following mandates:

• The Motion to Dismiss is granted.

• The Petition is dismissed and the matter is vacated from the docket.

• Under § 41-2198.02(B), this order constitutes the final administrative decision and is not subject to a request for rehearing.

Study Guide: Draper v. Villas on North Mountain Condominium

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the legal proceedings between Lee Draper and the Villas on North Mountain Condominium (Case No. 08F-H088001-BFS). It focuses on the application of specific legal doctrines, the concept of standing in property disputes, and the finality of administrative rulings.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in two to three sentences, based strictly on the provided case text.

1. What was the primary action challenged by Lee Draper in his petition to the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety?

2. On what two primary legal grounds did the Respondent (Villas) base its Motion to Dismiss?

3. According to the Respondent, why did Lee Draper lack “standing” to challenge the assessment increase?

4. What was the Petitioner’s counter-argument regarding his rights as a unit owner relative to the actions of previous owners?

5. What happened to the appeal the Petitioner filed in Superior Court regarding the Justice Court matter?

6. What was the focus of the Petitioner’s counter-claim in the original Moon Valley Justice Court matter, and what was its outcome?

7. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the issue of assessment authority had already been determined in the Justice Court?

8. How did the timeline of the Petitioner’s property ownership compare to the timeline of the contested assessment increase?

9. What specific documents or evidence did the Villas present in the Justice Court trial that linked that case to the current petition?

10. What is the status of the Order Dismissing Petition regarding requests for a rehearing?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. Primary Challenge: Lee Draper challenged an increase in assessments made by the Villas on North Mountain Condominium. This specific increase occurred in August 2003, several years before the Petitioner became an owner.

2. Legal Grounds for Dismissal: The Respondent argued that the petition was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Additionally, they asserted that the Petitioner lacked standing to bring the claim.

3. Lack of Standing: The Respondent argued that because the assessment increase occurred in August 2003 and Draper did not become a unit owner until February 2007, he was not a member at the time of the act. Therefore, he was not personally affected by the action when it took place.

4. Petitioner’s Counter-Argument: Draper asserted that as a current unit owner, all rights and benefits of the prior owner inure to him. He argued that because he is currently affected by the assessment increase, he should have the authority to challenge the legality of the act regardless of when it occurred.

5. Status of Appeal: During oral arguments, it was confirmed by both the Respondent’s counsel and the Petitioner that the appeal of the Justice Court judgment to the Superior Court had been dismissed.

6. Justice Court Counter-Claim: The Petitioner’s counter-claim in the Justice Court addressed the Villas’ failure to respond to his requests for financial information. This counter-claim was ultimately dismissed by the Justice Court.

7. Conclusion on Prior Judgment: The Administrative Law Judge found that the authority to increase assessments was “integral” to the judgment awarded in the Justice Court. Because the issue was essential to the previous final judgment, the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel prevented it from being litigated again.

8. Ownership Timeline: The contested assessment increase took place in August 2003. Lee Draper did not become a unit owner or a member of the Respondent organization until February 2007, nearly four years later.

9. Evidence Presented: During the Justice Court trial, the Villas presented evidence regarding assessments and referred to the same provisions of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) cited in the current Petition.

10. Rehearing Status: The Order signed by Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal is the final administrative decision. Pursuant to § 41-2198.02(B), it is not subject to a request for rehearing.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Format Questions

Instructions: Use the case facts to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts. (Answers not provided).

1. Analyze the Principle of Standing: Discuss the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning for determining that Lee Draper lacked standing. How does the timeline of an action versus the timeline of property acquisition affect a person’s right to pursue a legal remedy in an administrative setting?

2. The Application of Res Judicata: Explain how the previous litigation in the Moon Valley Justice Court impacted the Office of Administrative Hearings’ ability to hear the new petition. Why is it legally significant that the assessment authority was deemed “integral” to the prior judgment?

3. Succession of Rights and Benefits: Evaluate the Petitioner’s argument that the rights and benefits of a prior owner “inure” to the current owner. Contrast this argument with the court’s final determination regarding the ability to challenge past actions of a homeowners association.

4. The Role of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs): Based on the document, how do the CC&Rs serve as the foundation for both the Respondent’s authority and the Petitioner’s challenge? Discuss how these documents influence assessment disputes.

5. Administrative Finality: Examine the implications of the Order being a “final administrative decision” not subject to rehearing. Why is finality important in the context of administrative law and disputes between residents and condominium associations?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding officer (in this case, Lewis D. Kowal) who hears evidence and issues rulings in administrative law proceedings.

Collateral Estoppel

A legal doctrine that prevents a party from re-litigating an issue that has already been decided in a previous legal proceeding.

Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The legal documents that lay out the rules and guidelines for a planned community or condominium.

To take effect or to serve to the use, benefit, or advantage of a person (e.g., rights passing from a previous owner to a new owner).

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request for a court or judge to terminate a case without further testimony or a trial, often due to legal deficiencies.

Petitioner

The party who presents a petition to a court or administrative body (in this case, Lee Draper).

Res Judicata

A principle that a matter may not be relitigated once it has been judged on the merits; also known as “claim preclusion.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, Villas on North Mountain Condominium).

Standing

The legal right of a person or party to bring a lawsuit or challenge an action, based on having a sufficient connection to and harm from the action.

Vacate

To cancel or render void a scheduled hearing or a previous legal order.

Why You Can’t Always Sue Your HOA: 3 Critical Lessons from a Real-World Legal Battle

In the eyes of the law, your right to complain has an expiration date—and it may have passed before you even signed your closing papers. Many homeowners view their Homeowners Association (HOA) as an entity that can be held accountable for any past overreach, but the legal reality is far less forgiving.

The case of Lee Draper vs. Villas on North Mountain Condominium (No. 08F-H088001-BFS) serves as a stern cautionary tale. When Mr. Draper attempted to challenge the validity of an HOA assessment through the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, he found himself blocked by rigid legal doctrines. His experience highlights why challenging “the way things have always been done” is often an uphill—and potentially impossible—battle.

Takeaway #1: The “Standing” Trap—Your Ownership Timeline Matters

One of the most significant hurdles in any administrative or judicial challenge is “standing.” To have standing, you must be the party directly affected by an action at the time it occurs.

In this case, Mr. Draper challenged an assessment increase that the HOA board enacted in August 2003. However, he did not purchase his unit or become a member of the association until February 2007—nearly four years after the board’s action. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lewis D. Kowal dismissed the claim, noting that legal harm is not a “rolling” right that a new owner can pick up years later. The ALJ’s conclusion was definitive:

Analysis: This is a vital distinction for real estate investors and homeowners alike. Even if you feel the financial weight of a previous board’s decision every month in your dues, you are often legally barred from challenging the original validity of that decision if you weren’t “in the room” (or on the deed) when it happened.

Takeaway #2: The “One-Shot” Rule—Understanding Res Judicata

The court also applied the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. These principles essentially dictate that you don’t get a “second bite at the apple” once a court has reached a final judgment on a matter.

Before reaching the administrative level, the HOA had already secured a judgment in the Moon Valley Justice Court (Case No. CC 2007023371). Draper argued that the specific validity of the 2003 assessment hadn’t been fully litigated there. However, the ALJ found that during the Justice Court trial, the HOA had presented evidence regarding the assessments and the relevant provisions of the CC&Rs. Therefore, the authority to increase the assessment was “integral” to the previous judgment.

Analysis: This is where many homeowners trip up. If an HOA wins a judgment against you for unpaid assessments, the validity of those assessments is often legally “baked into” that victory. You cannot later argue the assessment was illegal in a different venue because that defense should have been your primary weapon in the first case. In the legal world, if an issue is “integral” to a prior ruling, the door is closed forever.

Takeaway #3: Rights Don’t Always “Inure” the Way You Think

Mr. Draper’s primary counter-argument was a common one in real estate: the concept of “inuring” rights. He believed that when he purchased the unit, all the rights and benefits of the previous owner transferred to him. Under this logic, if the previous owner had the right to challenge an illegal assessment, that right should have passed to Draper upon closing.

Analysis: The ALJ rejected this interpretation, and for good reason: the need for “finality.” If rights to challenge administrative acts “inured” indefinitely to every subsequent buyer, an HOA would face perpetual legal liability. A board decision made 20 years ago could be challenged by a buyer who moved in yesterday. To maintain the stability of the association’s finances and operations, the law favors a “cutoff” where past acts become settled history. You step into the seller’s shoes regarding property rights, but you don’t inherit their expired right to sue.

Closing: The Price of Due Diligence

The dismissal of Lee Draper’s petition was absolute. Under the ALJ’s order, the matter was vacated and, per A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(B), the decision was final and not subject to a request for rehearing.

This case underscores the absolute necessity of rigorous due diligence. When purchasing a property within an HOA, looking at the current monthly fee is not enough. You must investigate the association’s assessment history and review board minutes for past disputes before you sign. Once you take title, you are often legally bound by the history of that association—flaws and all.

Final Thought Question: If you discovered a hidden legal flaw in your HOA’s history from five years ago, would you have the standing to change it, or are you simply paying for the past?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Lee Draper (Petitioner)
Unit owner,

Respondent Side

Beth Mulcahy (attorney)
Mulcahy Law firm, P.C.
Listed on mailing list; document references Respondent's counsel,

Neutral Parties

Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
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

Mackey, John E. & Ikuko vs. Continental Ranch Community Association

Posted on February 7, 2008 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	08F-H078009-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2008-02-07
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge determined the Association acted appropriately in enforcing the Guidelines and CC&Rs. The Petitioner failed to maintain the front yard in accordance with the Guidelines and failed to prove the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B). The petition was dismissed.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John E. Mackey	Counsel	—
Respondent	Continental Ranch Community Association	Counsel	David A. McEvoy

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge determined the Association acted appropriately in enforcing the Guidelines and CC&Rs. The Petitioner failed to maintain the front yard in accordance with the Guidelines and failed to prove the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B). The petition was dismissed.

Why this result: The Petitioner admitted to not having the required tree or bushes and failed to submit an application to the Architectural Review Committee for a variance regarding the Ocotillo cactus.

Key Issues & Findings

Imposition of fines for failure to maintain front yard landscaping (missing trees/bushes)

Petitioner contested fines imposed for not having a tree or bushes in the front yard. Petitioner argued vegetation attracted snakes and that an Ocotillo cactus should count as a substitute.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed. No action required of the Association.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lost

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
CC&Rs 1.28
CC&Rs 4.5

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H078009-BFS Decision – 185133.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:31:59 (80.2 KB)

Briefing Document: John E. Mackey vs. Continental Ranch Community Association (Case No. 08F-H078009-BFS)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive synthesis of the administrative law judge (ALJ) decision regarding a dispute between John E. Mackey (Petitioner) and the Continental Ranch Community Association (Respondent). The Petitioner contested fines imposed for non-compliance with the Association’s landscaping Design Guidelines. The presiding judge, Lewis D. Kowal, ruled in favor of the Association, dismissing the petition. The core finding was that the Association acted within its legal authority under its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arizona Revised Statutes to enforce landscaping standards and impose reasonable monetary penalties for non-compliance.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 08F-H078009-BFS

• Petitioner: John E. Mackey

• Respondent: Continental Ranch Community Association

• Administrative Law Judge: Lewis D. Kowal

• Hearing Date: January 30, 2008

• Final Order Date: February 7, 2008

Landscaping Requirements and Violations

The Association’s Design Guidelines establish specific minimum requirements for front yard landscaping. These standards were the primary point of contention in the dispute.

Minimum Landscape Package Standards

According to the Guidelines in effect during the violation period, each unit must include:

• At least one (1) 24” box tree.

• One (1) shrub per every 20 square feet of the front yard.

• Rock or other materials intended to aid in dust abatement.

• Installation must be completed within thirty days of the close of escrow.

Timeline of Violations and Enforcement

Evidence presented during the hearing established a pattern of non-compliance and the Association’s adherence to its internal enforcement policies:

• September 2006: During a community patrol, the Association’s Assistant Manager, Karen Mathews, observed that the Petitioner lacked a tree and bushes in his front yard.

• September 6, 2006: The Association issued the first notice of violation.

• November 2, 2006: A third notice was issued, informing the Petitioner that no application had been submitted to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to rectify the landscaping.

• 2006–2007: The Association issued multiple violation notices and subsequently imposed fines.

Penalty Structure

The Association follows a specific policy for escalating fines:

• First and Second Notices: Warnings for the same violation within a calendar year.

• Third Notice: Imposition of a $25.00 fine.

• Subsequent Notices: Increasing fine amounts up to a maximum of $100.00.

Petitioner Arguments and Evidence

The Petitioner, John E. Mackey, provided several justifications for the state of his landscaping, though these were ultimately found insufficient to override the Association’s requirements.

Argument Category

Petitioner’s Position

Environmental Issues

Contended that a previous tree died and became an “eyesore,” and that the front yard area does not support new vegetation.

Safety Concerns

Stated that he and his wife avoided bushes (specifically Texas Rangers) because they believed such vegetation attracts snakes.

Substitutions

Argued that an Ocotillo cactus planted in the yard should serve as a substitute for the required 24” box tree.

Initial Compliance

Believed that he was in compliance when he first moved into the community in 1993 and hired a professional landscaper.

Legal Analysis and Conclusions of Law

The ALJ’s decision was based on the Petitioner’s failure to meet the burden of proof required under Arizona law.

Statutory and Contractual Framework

• A.R.S. § 33-1803(B): This statute allows the board of directors of an association to impose reasonable monetary penalties for violations of declarations, bylaws, and rules after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard.

• CC&Rs Section 4.5: Grants the Association the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal design guidelines to interpret and supplement the CC&Rs for the property.

• CC&Rs Section 1.28: Defines the Association’s Design Guidelines as those referenced within the CC&Rs.

Findings of the Court

The court reached several critical conclusions that led to the dismissal of the petition:

1. Failure of Proof: The Petitioner failed to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association violated state law or its own CC&Rs.

2. Lack of Procedural Engagement: While the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) has occasionally allowed an Ocotillo to substitute for a tree, the Petitioner never submitted a formal request for such a substitution.

3. Authority to Enforce: The weight of the evidence showed that the Petitioner lacked the required tree and shrubs during the relevant period. The Association had the clear authority to issue violations and impose fines for this non-compliance.

Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petition be dismissed. The ruling confirmed that the Association is not required to take any further action regarding the Petitioner’s claims. This decision constitutes the final administrative action and is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(B).

Case Study Analysis: Mackey v. Continental Ranch Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case John E. Mackey v. Continental Ranch Community Association. It explores the legal standards for community association enforcement, the specific requirements of residential landscaping guidelines, and the procedural requirements for homeowners to seek variances or exemptions.

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 primary parties involved in this administrative hearing?

2. What specific landscaping requirements did the Petitioner fail to meet according to the Association’s Design Guidelines?

3. What was the Petitioner’s primary defense regarding why he could not maintain a tree in his front yard?

4. What safety concern did the Petitioner cite as a reason for not planting bushes?

5. According to the Association’s policy, what is the sequence of actions before a fine reaches the maximum amount of $100.00?

6. What is the significance of the Ocotillo cactus in this dispute?

7. What did the Association’s Architectural Review Committee require from the Petitioner that he failed to provide?

8. Under A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), what must the board of directors provide before imposing monetary penalties?

9. How is “preponderance of the evidence” defined within the context of this legal proceeding?

10. What was the final ruling issued by Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing? The Petitioner is John E. Mackey, a resident and member of the community since 1993. The Respondent is the Continental Ranch Community Association, represented by legal counsel David A. McEvoy.

2. What specific landscaping requirements did the Petitioner fail to meet according to the Association’s Design Guidelines? The Guidelines required a minimum landscape package consisting of at least one 24” box tree and one shrub per every 20 square feet of the front yard. Additionally, the yard was required to have rock or other materials to assist in dust abatement.

3. What was the Petitioner’s primary defense regarding why he could not maintain a tree in his front yard? The Petitioner testified that a previous tree had died and became an eyesore, leading him to cut it down. He further claimed that he attempted to plant other vegetation, but that specific area of his yard does not support plant life.

4. What safety concern did the Petitioner cite as a reason for not planting bushes? The Petitioner and his wife expressed concerns that having bushes in the front yard would attract snakes. They argued that this created a safety issue for their household, which influenced their decision not to comply with the shrub requirement.

5. According to the Association’s policy, what is the sequence of actions before a fine reaches the maximum amount of $100.00? The Association issues two notices of violation for the same issue within a calendar year before imposing a $25.00 fine. Subsequent letters increase the fine amount incrementally until the maximum penalty of $100.00 is reached.

6. What is the significance of the Ocotillo cactus in this dispute? The Petitioner contended that his remaining Ocotillo cactus should serve as a substitute for the mandatory 24″ box tree. While the Architectural Review Committee has allowed such substitutions in the past, the Petitioner never officially requested this consideration.

7. What did the Association’s Architectural Review Committee require from the Petitioner that he failed to provide? The Association informed the Petitioner that he needed to submit an application to the Architectural Review Committee to bring his yard into compliance or request a substitution. As of the November 2, 2006, notice, the Petitioner had not submitted any such application.

8. Under A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), what must the board of directors provide before imposing monetary penalties? The board of directors is authorized to impose reasonable monetary penalties for violations of association rules, but only after providing the member with notice and an opportunity to be heard. This ensures due process within the community’s governing framework.

9. How is “preponderance of the evidence” defined within the context of this legal proceeding? Drawing from Black’s Law Dictionary, the decision defines it as evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposing evidence. It is evidence that shows the facts sought to be proved are “more probable than not.”

10. What was the final ruling issued by Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal? The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Association acted appropriately under the CC&Rs and Guidelines, and that the Petitioner failed to prove his case. Consequently, the Petition was dismissed, and no further action was required of the Association.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the information from the case to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Authority of CC&Rs: Explain the legal relationship between the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Association’s Design Guidelines. How does Section 4.5 grant the Association the power to evolve its standards over time?

2. Homeowner Obligations vs. Environmental Limitations: Analyze the conflict between the Petitioner’s claim that his land could not support vegetation and the Association’s requirement for a minimum landscape package. How might the Petitioner have better addressed these environmental challenges within the Association’s legal framework?

3. The Enforcement Process: Evaluate the Association’s enforcement protocol, from the initial patrol by the Assistant Manager to the final imposition of fines. Is this process designed to encourage compliance or punish non-compliance?

4. Due Process and Administrative Remedies: Discuss the role of the Architectural Review Committee as a mechanism for variance. How did the Petitioner’s failure to engage with this administrative body affect the outcome of his legal challenge?

5. Burden of Proof in Administrative Law: Describe the burden of proof placed on the Petitioner in this matter. Why is it significant that the Petitioner had to prove the Association violated specific statutes or CC&R sections rather than the Association proving he was in violation?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

The Arizona Revised Statute that allows an association’s board of directors to impose reasonable monetary penalties after notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judicial officer who presides over hearings and makes decisions regarding disputes involving government agencies or administrative bodies.

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

A body within a community association responsible for reviewing and approving or denying homeowners’ requests for property modifications or landscape substitutions.

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the legal governing documents that outline the rules and requirements for a planned community.

Design Guidelines

A set of standards adopted by an association that interpret and supplement the CC&Rs, specifically regarding the aesthetic and physical development of property.

Dust Abatement

Measures taken to reduce or eliminate dust, which in this case includes the use of rocks or other specific materials in landscaping.

Ocotillo

A type of desert plant (cactus) that was at the center of the debate regarding whether it could serve as a substitute for a required tree.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition; in this case, John E. Mackey.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning the evidence is more convincing and has a higher probability of being true than the opposing evidence.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, the Continental Ranch Community Association.

The Snake in the Grass: How a Single Tree and an Ocotillo Cactus Led to a Legal Showdown in the Arizona Desert

1. Introduction: The Front Yard Battleground

For many, the dream of homeownership includes a patch of land to call one’s own—a personal sanctuary in the stark Arizona landscape. But for those living within a Homeowners Association (HOA), that sanctuary is often governed by a thick binder of rules designed to ensure every pebble and petal remains in its designated place. The tension between a resident’s practical fears and a board’s rigid aesthetic standards is a staple of suburban life, but rarely does it escalate as dramatically as it did in Mackey vs. Continental Ranch Community Association.

What began as a simple case of a dying tree in the Tucson heat spiraled into a multi-year legal saga. For John Mackey, a resident of the community since 1993, the conflict was defined by a mounting pile of violation letters and a fundamental disagreement over what a “safe” yard looks like. His story is a poignant reminder that in the eyes of an HOA, the dread of a $100 fine can often grow faster than the plants in your garden.

2. The “Snake Defense” and the Safety vs. Aesthetic Dilemma

At the heart of the dispute was a stark choice: visual uniformity or personal safety. Mr. Mackey testified that he was hesitant to plant additional vegetation in his front yard because of a very specific desert predator. While he maintained “Texas Ranger” bushes on the right side of his yard, he argued that adding more shrubs to the front would create a haven for snakes—a genuine safety hazard for himself and his wife.

This “snake defense” highlights the recurring clash between a homeowner’s lived experience and the community’s “design package.” To the Association, the lack of greenery wasn’t a safety precaution; it was a violation of a specific mathematical formula. According to the Association’s Guidelines:

For the Board, the desert’s wildlife was a secondary concern to the community’s “look.”

3. The Power of the “Paper Trail”: Why Asking Matters

Perhaps the most frustrating revelation of the Mackey case was that the homeowner was closer to compliance than he realized. Mr. Mackey argued that a large Ocotillo cactus he had planted should have satisfied the Association’s tree requirement.

In a surprising moment of testimony, Ms. Mathews, the Association’s Assistant Manager, admitted that the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) actually had a history of permitting Ocotillos as substitutes for traditional trees. However, there was a procedural catch-22: the homeowner had to ask for permission through a formal application before the substitution could be recognized. Because Mackey never filed the paperwork, his Ocotillo remained, legally speaking, a “non-tree.”

The Administrative Law Judge emphasized this lack of a “paper trail” in the Findings of Fact:

4. Living under “Living Documents”: The Evolution of Guidelines

One of the most persistent myths in HOA living is the idea of being “grandfathered in.” Mr. Mackey pointed out that when he moved in back in 1993, he had even hired a professional landscaper to ensure his property met every standard of the time. He believed that if he was compliant then, he should be compliant now.

The legal reality, however, is far more fluid. Under Section 4.5 of the CC&Rs, the Association is granted the explicit authority to “amend, supplement, and repeal” design guidelines as they see fit. This means the rules are “living documents.” What was acceptable in the early 90s can become a violation a decade later as community standards evolve. For homeowners, this means that “compliance” is not a one-time achievement, but a continuous—and sometimes exhausting—obligation.

5. When Nature Doesn’t Cooperate with the Rules

There is a certain irony in a legal mandate to maintain life in a landscape that actively resists it. Mr. Mackey testified to the existence of what one might call “killer soil,” claiming that he had attempted to plant trees and shrubs in the past only to watch them perish because the front yard area “does not support vegetation.”

Despite this environmental struggle, the law offers little sympathy. The Administrative Law Judge noted that while the Petitioner had his “reasons for not maintaining” the landscape, those reasons did not override the Association’s authority. Under A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), boards are permitted to impose “reasonable monetary penalties” for violations regardless of the homeowner’s personal frustrations with the soil. The law views the CC&Rs as a contract: if the rules say a tree must be there, the homeowner must find a way to make it grow or pay the price.

6. The Progressive Cost of Non-Compliance

The Association’s enforcement is not a one-off event but a calculated progression. The Mackey case shows how quickly a few missing bushes can turn into a financial drain. Per the Association’s policy, the fines are triggered by a specific timeline:

• Initial Warnings: The first and second notices of violation serve as warnings to the homeowner.

• The Fine Trigger: If a third notice is issued for the same violation within a calendar year, a $25.00 fine is imposed.

• The Escalation: Subsequent notices continue to increase the financial penalty.

• The Ceiling: Fines can continue to climb until they reach a maximum of $100.00 per violation notice.

7. Conclusion: The Final Word on Curb Appeal

In the end, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed Mr. Mackey’s petition, confirming that the Association was within its rights to enforce the rules and collect the fines. The ruling serves as a stark reminder of the “collective power” inherent in community living. When you sign those closing papers, you aren’t just buying a house; you are agreeing to a vision of a neighborhood that may, at times, conflict with your own common sense or safety concerns.

It leaves us to ponder a difficult question: Is the pristine, uniform “look” of a desert street worth the legal friction and the financial burden placed on a homeowner? While the HOA argues that these rules protect property values for everyone, the Mackey case reveals the human cost of maintaining that perfect curb appeal. Is a single tree worth a battle in court? In the world of HOAs, the answer is almost always a resounding “yes.”

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John E. Mackey (Petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf
Ikuko Mackey (Petitioner's wife)
Agreed that John Mackey be the designated Petitioner at commencement

Respondent Side

David A. McEvoy (Respondent Attorney)
Continental Ranch Community Association; McEvoy, Daniels & Darcy, P.C.
Karen Mathews (Assistant Manager/Witness)
Continental Ranch Community Association
Testified regarding violations and fines

Neutral Parties

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

Sellers, John and Deborah -v- The Crossings At Willow Creek

Posted on December 13, 2007 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	08F-H078005-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2007-12-13
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, determining that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide unredacted records. The ALJ rejected the Association's argument that the records contained confidential personal information.
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John and Deborah Sellers	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Crossings at Willow Creek	Counsel	Maria R. Kupilas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, determining that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide unredacted records. The ALJ rejected the Association's argument that the records contained confidential personal information.

Key Issues & Findings

Records Request Violation

Petitioners requested unredacted copies of a 'Courtesy Notice' regarding ATV usage. The Association withheld the document claiming it contained personal information protected under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4). The ALJ found the information was not personal in nature and should have been disclosed.

Orders: Association ordered to provide unredacted copy of Courtesy Notice dated July 12, 2007 within 40 days and reimburse $550 filing fee.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H078005-BFS Decision – 181959.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T04:47:10 (100.0 KB)

Briefing Document: Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek (Case No. 08F-H078005-BFS)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in the matter of John and Deborah Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek. The central dispute concerned the Association’s refusal to provide unredacted copies of community records, specifically “courtesy notice” letters regarding ATV usage, citing the “personal records” exemption under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805(B)(4).

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, establishing that the names and addresses of lot owners receiving violation notices do not constitute “personal information” that would justify withholding records from other members. The decision clarified the narrow scope of the personal records exemption and reinforced the Association’s statutory obligation to provide records within ten business days. The Association was ordered to produce the unredacted documents and reimburse the Petitioners’ filing fees.

Case Overview

Attribute

Details

Case Name

John and Deborah Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek

Case Number

08F-H078005-BFS

Hearing Date

December 3, 2007

Administrative Law Judge

Lewis D. Kowal

Primary Statute at Issue

A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Disclosure)

Findings of Fact

The dispute originated from a document request submitted by John and Deborah Sellers on August 16, 2007. The following timeline and status of records were established:

• Compliant Disclosures: The Association timely provided draft records of the Board of Director’s June 7, 2007 meeting and documents related to the retention of legal counsel (Mr. Adams).

• Non-Compliant Disclosures: The Association failed to provide correspondence or notices relating to “the Behns.”

• The Redacted Document: On October 24, 2007 (exceeding the 10-day statutory limit), the Association sent copies of letters regarding ATV usage. However, these documents were redacted to hide “personal information,” specifically the names and addresses of the lot owners receiving the notices.

• The “Courtesy Notice”: After the petition was filed, the Association provided a redacted courtesy notice letter dated July 12, 2007. The core issue of the hearing was the Association’s withholding of the unredacted version of this document.

Legal Analysis and Interpretation

Statutory Requirements (A.R.S. § 33-1805)

The ALJ emphasized that under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), all financial and other records of an association must be made “reasonably available for examination” within ten business days of a request. An association may only charge a maximum of fifteen cents per page for copies.

The Scope of the “Personal Records” Exclusion

The Association argued that names and addresses in violation notices are “personal information” excluded from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4). The ALJ rejected this interpretation based on several factors:

• Contractual Context: When individuals join a homeowner’s association, they enter a contract and agree to be bound by the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Enforcement of these rules is a business function of the Association.

• Publicly Available Information: The ALJ noted that the identity of a lot owner is public information available through various public entities.

• Business vs. Private Information: The ALJ distinguished between “personal records” and “business records”:

◦ Protected (Confidential): Sensitive information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, and specific times when a member might be away from home.

◦ Unprotected (Disclosable): Citations, notices of violations, and documents reflecting the general business of the Association.

• Policy Implications: If violation notices were considered private, a complaining member would be unable to verify if the Association had taken any action against an offending lot owner.

Limitations of Administrative Jurisdiction

The ALJ clarified that the Office of Administrative Hearings has limited jurisdiction. It cannot consider:

• The Arizona Constitution.

• A.R.S. Title 10 (Corporations).

• Common law or inherent powers.

• California case law (e.g., Chantiles v. Lake Forest II), as it is distinguishable and outside the ALJ’s statutory authority.

The ALJ’s role is strictly limited to determining violations of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9 or 16, or the planned community’s specific governing documents.

Final Decision and Order

The ALJ concluded that the Association failed to meet its burden of proof and violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Specifically, the Association did not provide the requested documents within the ten-day limit and improperly withheld unredacted copies of business-related notices.

Mandated Actions

1. Unredacted Disclosure: The Association was ordered to provide the Petitioners with an unredacted copy of the July 12, 2007 Courtesy Notice within forty days.

2. Financial Restitution: As the prevailing party, the Petitioners were awarded their filing fee of $550.00, to be reimbursed by the Association within forty days.

This decision is the final administrative action and is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings.

Study Guide: Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek

This study guide examines the administrative law proceedings and legal interpretations regarding the disclosure of association records under Arizona law. It focuses on the specific case of John and Deborah Sellers versus The Crossings at Willow Creek, highlighting statutory requirements, jurisdictional boundaries, and the definition of personal information in community management.

1. What was the central dispute between the Petitioners and the Association in this case? The primary conflict involved a records request filed by the Petitioners for various Association documents, specifically regarding a “Courtesy Notice” about ATV usage. While some documents were provided, the Association withheld an unredacted copy of one notice, claiming that the names and addresses of lot owners constituted protected personal information.

2. According to A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), what are the time requirements and potential costs for fulfilling a records request? The statute requires an association to fulfill a request for the examination of records within ten business days. If the member requests copies of these records, the association also has ten business days to provide them and may charge a fee of no more than fifteen cents per page.

3. What is the legal standard for “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the document? Drawing from Black’s Law Dictionary, the document defines a preponderance of the evidence as evidence that carries greater weight or is more convincing than the opposing evidence. It essentially means that the facts sought to be proved are shown to be more probable than not.

4. Under what specific conditions does A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) allow an association to withhold records? Records may be withheld to the extent they relate to the personal, health, or financial information of an individual member of the association, an employee of the association, or an employee of a contractor for the association. This includes records directly related to such sensitive individual data.

5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determine that the Chantiles v. Lake Forest II Master Homeowner’s Assoc. case was not applicable? The ALJ found the case distinguishable because the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has limited jurisdiction and cannot consider constitutional privacy rights as the California court did. The OAH is strictly confined to determining violations of specific Arizona statutes and planned community documents.

6. How does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) derive its authority, and what are the limits of that authority? The OAH is an administrative agency whose powers are limited to those granted by statute; it possesses no common law or inherent powers. In this context, its jurisdiction is limited to determining if an association violated its own governing documents or specific chapters of A.R.S. Title 33.

7. How did the ALJ define the term “personal” in the context of A.R.S. § 33-1805? Using a dictionary definition, “personal” was defined as “of or relating to a particular person.” However, the ALJ emphasized that the term must be interpreted within the context of what is being regulated, namely the business and records of a homeowner’s association.

8. What reasoning did the ALJ provide for concluding that violation notices do not constitute confidential “personal” records? The ALJ noted that the identity of lot owners is public information and that the Association’s own policy reveals the identity of complainants in initial notices. Furthermore, by analogy, legal proceedings involving violations are generally public unless specifically made confidential by statute.

9. What types of information did the ALJ identify as legitimately falling under the “personal records” exclusion? The ALJ specified that sensitive information a reasonable person would expect to remain confidential—such as social security numbers, birth dates, and specific schedules of when a member will be away from their home—would be subject to the disclosure exclusion.

10. What was the final order issued by the ALJ regarding the “Courtesy Notice” and the filing fees? The ALJ ordered the Association to provide the Petitioners with an unredacted copy of the July 12, 2007, Courtesy Notice within forty days. Additionally, the Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for their $550.00 filing fee within the same timeframe.

Answer Key

1. The dispute concerned the withholding of unredacted records (names and addresses) in an association notice regarding ATV usage.

2. The deadline is ten business days for both examination and copies, with a maximum copy fee of fifteen cents per page.

3. It is evidence that is more convincing or has greater weight than the opposition, making a fact more probable than not.

4. When records contain personal, health, or financial information of an individual member or employee.

5. The OAH lacks the jurisdiction to apply constitutional privacy balancing tests used in other states, as it is restricted to specific Arizona statutes.

6. Authority is granted strictly by statute; the OAH cannot consider legal authorities like the Arizona Constitution or Title 10 in these cases.

7. It means “of or relating to a particular person,” interpreted specifically within the context of association management.

8. Lot owner identities are already public, and the Association’s own compliance policies disclose such information during enforcement.

9. Social security numbers, birth dates, and sensitive details like home vacancy schedules.

10. The Association had to provide the unredacted document and pay the Petitioners $550.00 to cover the filing fee.

Essay Questions

1. The Scope of Administrative Jurisdiction: Discuss the limitations placed on the Administrative Law Judge in this case. How does the restricted jurisdiction of the OAH impact the types of legal arguments (e.g., constitutional vs. statutory) that can be successfully used in homeowner association disputes?

2. Defining Privacy in a Contractual Community: Analyze the Association’s argument regarding the privacy of its members versus the ALJ’s conclusion that homeowners enter into a contract that necessitates certain disclosures. How does the act of moving into a planned community alter an individual’s expectation of privacy regarding rule violations?

3. Statutory Interpretation of “Personal Records”: Evaluate the ALJ’s method of defining “personal” information. Compare the types of data the ALJ deemed “sensitive” (like SSNs) versus data deemed “business-related” (like violation notices). Is this distinction sufficient to protect members?

4. Transparency in Association Governance: A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) mandates that records be “reasonably available.” Explore the importance of this transparency in the context of a member’s ability to verify that an association is fairly enforcing its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

5. The Consequences of Non-Compliance: Using the case as a reference, discuss the legal and financial repercussions for an association that fails to adhere to the ten-day statutory window for records requests. What does this suggest about the legislature’s intent regarding the promptness of association transparency?

Glossary of Key Terms

• A.R.S. § 33-1805: The Arizona Revised Statute that governs the inspection and copying of association records by members, including specific exceptions for withholding information.

• In Camera: A legal term referring to a judge’s private review of evidence (such as the redacted document in this case) to determine its admissibility or status before it is shown to the other parties.

• Limited Jurisdiction: A legal principle where a court or tribunal’s authority is restricted to specific types of cases or specific statutory violations, rather than having broad or inherent power.

• Planned Community Documents: The collective term for the governing rules of an association, including the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

• Preponderance of the Evidence: The burden of proof in civil and administrative cases, requiring that a claim be more likely true than not.

• Redacted: The process of censoring or obscuring specific parts of a document (such as names or addresses) before it is released to a requesting party.

• Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, The Crossings at Willow Creek.

• Summary Judgment: A legal motion where one party asks the judge to decide the case based on written arguments and stipulated facts without a full trial or evidentiary hearing.

Case Title: John and Deborah Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek Case No.: 08F-H078005-BFS Forum: Office of Administrative Hearings Date of Decision: December 13, 2007

Proceedings and Key Facts On December 3, 2007, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal presided over a hearing regarding a records request dispute1. The Petitioners, John and Deborah Sellers, submitted a request to the Respondent, The Crossings at Willow Creek (the “Association”), on August 16, 20072. While the Association provided some records, it withheld an unredacted copy of a “Courtesy Notice” letter dated July 12, 2007, regarding ATV usage3. The Association had redacted the names and addresses of the lot owners to whom the letters were addressed34.

Main Issues The primary legal issues were:

1. Whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide requested records within the statutory ten-day period56.

2. Whether the redacted names and addresses constituted “personal… records” under the statutory exception in A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4), thereby justifying the Association’s refusal to disclose them78.

Key Arguments

• Petitioners: Argued that the Association failed to comply with the statute by not providing all requested documents within ten business days8.

• Respondent: Argued that the names and addresses of members receiving violation notices constitute “personal information.” They contended that disclosure was prohibited under the A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) exception for personal records8. The Association cited Chantiles v. Lake Forest II Master Homeowner’s Assoc. and constitutional privacy rights to support withholding the information9.

Legal Analysis and Findings The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected the Association’s arguments on the following grounds:

• Jurisdiction: The ALJ noted that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to specific statutes (A.R.S. Title 33) and does not extend to constitutional privacy claims or common law; therefore, the Chantiles case was distinguishable and not controlling1011.

• Definition of “Personal”: The ALJ determined that “personal records” in the context of the statute refers to sensitive data such as social security numbers, health information, or dates a member is away from home12.

• Public Nature of Violations: The identity of lot owners is public information13. The ALJ reasoned that violation notices regarding Association rules are not inherently “personal” or confidential14. Furthermore, allowing the Association to withhold such information would prevent members from verifying if the Association is properly enforcing rules against other members13.

Final Decision and Outcome The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, concluding that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)6. The Tribunal found that the document in question did not fall within the “personal records” classification and was subject to disclosure15.

1. The Association was ordered to provide the Petitioners with an unredacted copy of the July 12, 2007 Courtesy Notice within 40 days6.

2. The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00 within 40 days16.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John Sellers (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf
Deborah Sellers (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf; deferred presentation to husband

Respondent Side

Maria R. Kupilas (HOA attorney)
Elmark & Elmark, L.L.C.
Listed in distribution; Respondent filed Motion for Summary Judgment
Mr. Adams (attorney)
Subject of records request regarding retention as legal counsel

Neutral Parties

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

Stevens, Marilyn A. vs. Cliffs Condominium Association

Posted on November 6, 2007 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	08F-H078001-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2007-11-06
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove violations regarding the meeting date (due to waiver) and the election terms (valid amendment found).
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marilyn A. Stevens	Counsel	—
Respondent	Cliffs Condominium Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 4.08; By-Laws Article II, Section 1
By-Laws Article III, Section 3; Article VII, Section 1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove violations regarding the meeting date (due to waiver) and the election terms (valid amendment found).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated CC&Rs or By-Laws; specific objections were waived or based on incorrect legal premises regarding recordation.

Key Issues & Findings

Improper Annual Meeting Date

Petitioner alleged the Association held the annual meeting on an improper date (Jan 10) rather than in March or May.

Orders: Dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Election of Directors to 3-Year Terms

Petitioner alleged that the By-Laws were not properly amended or recorded to allow for 3-year director terms.

Orders: Dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H078001-BFS Decision – 179590.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T04:46:38 (94.1 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Stevens v. Cliffs Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative adjudication of a dispute between Marilyn A. Stevens (“Petitioner”) and the Cliffs Condominium Association (“Respondent”). The case, heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (No. 08F-H078001-BFS), centered on allegations that the Association violated its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and By-Laws.

The Petitioner raised two primary challenges: the improper scheduling of the January 10, 2004, annual meeting and the election of Association directors to three-year terms rather than one-year terms. Following hearings in late 2007, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the petition. The decision was based on the Petitioner’s failure to provide specific evidence of timely objections regarding meeting irregularities and the determination that the Association had legally amended its By-Laws to permit three-year director terms in 2001.

Case Overview and Procedural History

The matter was presided over by Administrative Law Judge Michael K. Carroll and later reassigned to Lewis D. Kowal. The case involved the following foundational elements:

• Parties: Marilyn A. Stevens, a member of the Cliffs Condominium Association, acting on her own behalf; and the Cliffs Condominium Association, represented by John Caldamone.

• Regulatory Context: The petition was filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

• Procedural Ruling: Despite an objection from the Association regarding the verification of documents, the ALJ ruled that the CC&Rs and By-Laws attached to the Petition were the governing documents for the matter, as both parties relied upon them during the proceedings.

Analysis of Primary Issues

Issue 1: Improper Scheduling of the January 10, 2004, Annual Meeting

The Petitioner contended that the annual meeting held on January 10, 2004, was improperly scheduled based on historical precedent (March meetings) and specific governing provisions.

Governing Provisions and Evidence:

• CC&R Section 4.08 and By-Laws Article II, Section 1: These specify that the annual meeting date should be the anniversary of the initial meeting held within 120 days of the first unit conveyance.

• Petitioner’s Argument: Witnesses testified to a lack of notice and proxy vote information. The Petitioner cited a deposition from the Association president, John Caldamone, where he admitted the meeting date violated the By-Laws.

The “Waiver” Determination: The ALJ’s decision rested on Article II, Section 9 of the By-Laws, which states:

The ALJ found that while the Petitioner claimed protests occurred, the testimony provided by witnesses (such as Connie Luckenbach) was “vague and general.” There was no reliable evidence that a specific objection regarding the meeting date was made at the January 10, 2004, meeting. Consequently, any right to object to the timing was legally waived.

Issue 2: Election of Directors to Three-Year Terms

The Petitioner challenged the validity of electing directors to three-year terms at the 2004 meeting, asserting that the By-Laws required one-year terms and that no valid amendment existed or was recorded.

Key Findings on Term Length:

• The 2001 Amendment: The Association presented evidence that a special meeting was held on April 26 or 27, 2001, where the By-Laws were amended to change director terms from one year to three years.

• Amendment Requirements: Under CC&R Section 4.07 and By-Laws Article VII, Section 1, the By-Laws may be amended by a majority of a quorum (at least 25% of total votes). The ALJ determined the weight of the evidence established that this vote occurred in April 2001.

• Recordation Dispute: The Petitioner argued the amendment was invalid because it was not “registered” or recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office. The ALJ concluded that since the CC&Rs and By-Laws did not contain an explicit requirement for amendments to be recorded to be effective, this was not a valid basis for a violation.

Legal Conclusions

The ALJ dismissed the Petition based on the following legal standards and conclusions:

Conclusion Category

Determination

Burden of Proof

The Petitioner bore the burden of proving violations by a preponderance of the evidence but failed to meet this standard for either issue.

Scope of Authority

The Petitioner requested the court to provide specific directions and monitoring of the Association. The ALJ ruled that this relief was outside the tribunal’s authority; the tribunal’s function is not to monitor and enforce compliance.

Meeting Validity

Violations regarding the 2004 meeting date were waived per Article II, Section 9 of the By-Laws.

Director Terms

The Association successfully demonstrated that the By-Laws were amended in 2001 to allow for three-year terms.

Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that no action was required of the Association and the Petition was dismissed in its entirety on November 6, 2007.

Study Guide: Stevens v. Cliffs Condominium Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case Marilyn A. Stevens vs. Cliffs Condominium Association (Case No. 08F-H078001-BFS). It examines the legal disputes regarding association governance, the interpretation of community bylaws, and the procedural requirements of administrative hearings.

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case and what was the core of their dispute?

2. What procedural objection did the Cliffs Condominium Association raise regarding the documents attached to the Petition?

3. According to the By-Laws and CC&Rs, how is the date for the annual meeting of unit owners determined?

4. What specific evidence did the Petitioner provide to support the claim that the January 10, 2004 meeting date was improper?

5. Explain the significance of Article II, Section 9 of the Association’s By-Laws in the context of the January 10 meeting.

6. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) find the testimony of Connie Luckenbach insufficient to prove an objection was made?

7. What were the Petitioner’s four main arguments regarding the illegitimacy of the three-year term for directors?

8. According to Section 4.07 of the CC&Rs, what are the requirements for a valid amendment to the By-Laws?

9. Why did the ALJ refuse to rule on whether the By-Law amendments needed to be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office?

10. What was the ALJ’s reasoning for denying the specific relief requested by the Petitioner in her closing argument?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. Parties and Dispute: The Petitioner, Marilyn A. Stevens, filed a case against the Respondent, Cliffs Condominium Association. The dispute centered on allegations that the Association violated its CC&Rs and By-Laws by holding an annual meeting on an improper date and incorrectly electing directors to three-year terms.

2. Procedural Objection: The Association objected to the inclusion of Association documents attached to the Petition, asserting there was no verification they were the versions existing as of January 10, 2004. However, the ALJ overruled this, finding that the parties relied on these provisions during the hearing and the Association was not prejudiced by their consideration.

3. Annual Meeting Timing: Section 4.08 of the CC&Rs and Article II, Section 1 of the By-Laws state that the annual meeting date is the anniversary of the initial meeting. That initial meeting was required to be held within 120 days from the date the first conveyance of a unit from the Association to an owner was recorded.

4. Evidence of Improper Date: The Petitioner relied on a deposition from Association President John Caldamone, where he admitted that holding the meeting on January 10, 2004, violated the By-Laws. Additionally, witnesses testified that meetings were historically held in March or should have been held on the third Thursday in May.

5. Article II, Section 9 (Waiver): This provision states that any informalities or irregularities in meeting notices or calls are deemed waived if no objection is made at the meeting. The ALJ concluded that because the Petitioner could not prove a specific objection was raised during the January 10 meeting, any right to challenge the meeting date was legally waived.

6. Luckenbach Testimony: While Connie Luckenbach testified that objections were raised, the ALJ found her statements to be vague and general. When asked for specifics, she described issues regarding the timing of the annual meeting relative to a special meeting rather than a direct objection to the validity of the annual meeting date itself.

7. Arguments Against Director Terms: The Petitioner argued that members did not receive copies of the amendment or meeting minutes, she received outdated By-Laws when purchasing a second unit, and the amendment was not recorded. She contended that without recording the amendment with the County Recorder, the change from one-year to three-year terms was ineffective.

8. Amendment Requirements: Section 4.07 and Article VII, Section 1 dictate that By-Laws may be amended by a majority of a quorum of voting owners (at least 25% of total votes present). Furthermore, written notice of the intention to amend the By-Laws must be provided in the official notice of the meeting.

9. Recording of Amendments: The ALJ concluded that the issue of recordation was outside his jurisdiction because the Petitioner failed to cite any specific provision in the CC&Rs or By-Laws that required amendments to be recorded to be valid. Therefore, it was not a “proper issue” for the administrative tribunal to address.

10. Denial of Relief: The Petitioner requested that the ALJ provide specific directions on how the Association should act and how it should be monitored. The ALJ ruled that such oversight was outside his authority, noting that the tribunal’s role is not to monitor and enforce ongoing compliance.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

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

1. The Role of Procedural Waivers: Discuss how Article II, Section 9 of the By-Laws functioned as a “statute of limitations” for internal Association grievances. How did this provision impact the ALJ’s ability to rule on the merits of the meeting date, despite the President’s admission of a violation?

2. The Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings: Explain the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as applied in this case. Analyze how the Petitioner’s reliance on verbal testimony and lack of specific documentation led to the dismissal of her claims.

3. Corporate Governance and Recordkeeping: Evaluate the Association’s defense regarding the 2001 amendment of director terms. How did the conflicting testimonies between John Caldamone and the unit owners illustrate the importance of maintaining clear, accessible, and “registered” corporate records?

4. Jurisdictional Limits of the ALJ: Explore the boundaries of the Administrative Law Judge’s authority as defined in this decision. Specifically, contrast what the Petitioner requested in terms of relief versus what the ALJ was legally empowered to provide.

5. Interpretation of Governing Documents: Analyze the interplay between the CC&Rs and the By-Laws in determining Association operations. How does the ALJ prioritize the written text of these documents over historical practices or verbal admissions?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding official who conducts hearings and issues decisions for state or federal agencies, in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings.

By-Laws

The internal rules and regulations that govern the daily operations and management of an organization or association.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the legal governing documents that dictate the rules for a real estate development or condominium association.

Conveyance

The legal process of transferring the title or ownership of real property from one party to another.

Deposition

Formal, out-of-court oral testimony of a witness that is reduced to writing for later use in court or for discovery purposes.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition; in this matter, Marilyn A. Stevens.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases, meaning the evidence shows that a fact is more likely true than not true.

A written authorization allowing one person to act or vote on behalf of another person, typically used in association meetings.

Quorum

The minimum number of members of an assembly or organization 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 matter, the Cliffs Condominium Association.

Waiver

The voluntary or automatic relinquishment of a known right or claim, often resulting from a failure to object in a timely manner.

The HOA Trap: 5 Hard Truths About Homeowner Rights (and How to Protect Yours)

1. Introduction: The High Stakes of the “Boring” Annual Meeting

Imagine you are standing in a hearing room, facing the Board of Directors of your Homeowners Association. You have a “smoking gun”: a deposition where the Board President openly admits that the Association held its annual meeting on a date that violated the By-Laws. You assume the case is over. In any logical world, an admission of a violation leads to a victory for the petitioner.

However, as the case of Marilyn A. Stevens v. Cliffs Condominium Association (No. 08F-H078001-BFS) at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings proves, logic and administrative law are often at odds. Despite the President’s admission, the homeowner still lost. This case serves as a masterclass in how procedural traps can strip homeowners of their rights, even when they are factually correct. To survive a conflict with your HOA, you must understand that the “rules of engagement” are often more important than the rules themselves.

2. The “Silence Trap”: Your Presence Is Your Consent

The most dangerous provision in many HOA By-Laws is the waiver clause. In the Cliffs Condominium case, the Board relied on Article II, Section 9, which contains what I call the “Silence Trap.” The text is devastatingly broad:

The Failure of Informal Protests Petitioner Marilyn Stevens argued that “protests” were made regarding the meeting. However, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed these because they lacked formality. From a legal governance perspective, “complaining” is not “objecting.” Informal protests—such as grumbling to neighbors or airing grievances during a community forum—are legally insufficient because they do not provide the Association with a formal opportunity to “cure” the irregularity on the spot. If you attend a meeting and fail to enter a specific, formal objection into the record, the law deems that you have consented to every procedural error the Board committed.

3. Why an “Admission of Guilt” Isn’t a “Get Out of Jail Free” Card

The most shocking turn in the Stevens case involved Exhibit 8: a deposition from a separate Superior Court action where Association President John Caldamone admitted that holding the meeting on January 10, 2004, violated the By-Laws.

In administrative law, however, procedural waivers can render substantive truths irrelevant. Because the Petitioner failed to make a formal objection at the meeting, the ALJ determined in Finding of Fact #6 that it was “not necessary… to address” whether the meeting date was actually valid. The “Silence Trap” ended the inquiry before the President’s admission could even be considered. This is a brutal reality of HOA governance: a Board can admit to breaking the law, but if you missed the procedural window to object, that admission becomes legally moot.

4. The Recording Myth: Internal Rules vs. Public Records

Homeowners often fall into the trap of seeking legal advice from the wrong sources. In this case, witness Donna Nutter testified that a clerk at the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office told her that By-Law amendments must be “registered” to be valid. Relying on this, the Petitioner challenged a 2001 amendment that changed Director terms from one year to three years.

The ALJ rejected this “myth of recordation.” The “Hard Truth” is that administrative courts only care about the specific text of your governing documents, not the informal advice of a government clerk. The ALJ noted that recordation was “not a proper issue” because the Petitioner failed to cite any provision in the existing CC&Rs that required amendments to be recorded.

Under Section 4.07 of the CC&Rs and Article VII, Section 1 of the By-Laws, the only things that truly mattered were:

1. A quorum of 25% was met.

2. A “written notice of intention to amend By-Laws” was provided in the meeting notice.

3. A majority vote was obtained. If these internal hurdles are cleared, the amendment is law—whether the County Recorder has a copy or not.

5. Vague Testimony is the Enemy of Justice

Under A.A.C. R2-19-119, the burden of proof rests entirely on the homeowner. To win, you must provide “reliable evidence,” a standard the Petitioner failed to meet due to poor witness preparation.

Witness Connie Luckenbach testified that objections were raised at the meeting, but the ALJ dismissed her account as “vague and general in nature.” When pressed for specifics, Luckenbach focused on the fact that the annual meeting was held 90 minutes before a special meeting—a logistical grievance—rather than the specific legal violation regarding the meeting date.

Analyst’s Advisory: To defeat an HOA, you cannot rely on “general feelings” of unfairness. You must create a paper trail. If you believe a meeting is illegal, you must hand a written objection to the Board Secretary during the meeting and demand it be included in the minutes. This bypasses the “vague testimony” trap and creates a record that a judge cannot ignore.

6. The “Judge as a Manager” Delusion

Perhaps the most frustrating realization for homeowners is the limited scope of judicial power. Marilyn Stevens concluded her case by requesting that the Judge monitor the Association and provide specific directions on how they should operate in the future.

The ALJ flatly denied this, noting that such relief was “outside the scope” of the Tribunal’s authority. As stated in the decision’s footnote:

Homeowners often view the court as a “super-manager” that will fix a broken neighborhood. In reality, the court can only rule on whether a specific violation occurred. It will not act as a long-term watchdog. If you win, the Board is simply ordered to comply; the burden of ensuring they actually do so remains with the homeowners.

7. Conclusion: The Power of the Paper Trail

The Stevens v. Cliffs Condominium Association case is a stark reminder that in the world of community governance, the written word and the timely objection are the only real currencies of power. A Board President’s admission of guilt is worthless if you have already waived your right to complain through silence.

To protect your home and your rights, you must move beyond informal protests. You must read your governing documents with a critical eye, specifically looking for waiver clauses that trade your silence for consent.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Marilyn A. Stevens (petitioner)
Cliffs Condominium Association (Member)
Appeared on her own behalf
Connie Luckenbach (witness)
Cliffs Condominium Association (Unit Owner)
Testified regarding objections at the January 10, 2004 meeting
Donna Nutter (witness)
Testified regarding information received from Maricopa County Recorder's Office

Respondent Side

John Caldamone (respondent representative)
Cliffs Condominium Association (President)
Appeared on behalf of the Association

Neutral Parties

Michael K. Carroll (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presided over September 4, 2007 hearing; left OAH before decision
Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presided over October 22, 2007 hearing; authored decision
Robert Barger (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed on mailing distribution
Joyce Kesterman (staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed on mailing distribution