Tag Archives: M. Douglas

The Center Court Condominiums Association vs. Klissas, Katrina

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1313005-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2013-11-13
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome The HOA's petition was dismissed in its entirety. The Tribunal found the balcony board did not constitute a prohibited enclosure and that the HOA was barred by laches from enforcing the rule after a delay of over 10 years. Regarding wind chimes, the HOA failed to prove the homeowner exceeded the permitted number. The homeowner was deemed the prevailing party.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner The Center Court Condominiums Association Counsel Erin McManis
Respondent Katrina Klissas Counsel James B. Rolle III

Alleged Violations

Rule L-9; CC&R Section 9.09
Rule L-8

Outcome Summary

The HOA's petition was dismissed in its entirety. The Tribunal found the balcony board did not constitute a prohibited enclosure and that the HOA was barred by laches from enforcing the rule after a delay of over 10 years. Regarding wind chimes, the HOA failed to prove the homeowner exceeded the permitted number. The homeowner was deemed the prevailing party.

Why this result: The HOA failed to meet the burden of proof for the wind chimes violation and was barred by laches regarding the balcony board due to inexcusable delay.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged unauthorized balcony enclosure

Petitioner alleged Respondent maintained an unauthorized enclosure on her balcony. Respondent argued the board was for privacy and existed since 1998.

Orders: Dismissed due to insufficient evidence that the board constituted an enclosure and the doctrine of laches barring the claim due to unreasonable delay.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Excessive wind chimes

Petitioner alleged Respondent had more than the allowed four wind chimes. Respondent testified she had four chimes and the rest were wind spinners.

Orders: Dismissed due to lack of credible evidence that Respondent exceeded the limit of four wind chimes.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

13F-H1313005-BFS Decision – 369209.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:46:31 (87.6 KB)

13F-H1313005-BFS Decision – 376768.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:46:34 (60.4 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: The Center Court Condominiums Association vs. Katrina Klissas

Executive Summary

This briefing document details the administrative hearing and subsequent final agency action regarding a dispute between The Center Court Condominiums Association ("Center Court") and homeowner Katrina Klissas. The case (No. 13F-H1313005-BFS) centered on alleged violations of Association rules concerning balcony enclosures and wind chimes.

Following a hearing held on October 24, 2013, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas recommended the dismissal of all charges against Ms. Klissas. The ALJ determined that Center Court failed to prove the respondent’s balcony modifications constituted an "enclosure" and, furthermore, that the Association’s decade-long delay in seeking enforcement triggered the legal doctrine of laches, barring their claim. Regarding the wind chimes, the ALJ found no credible evidence of a rule violation or formal noise complaints.

On January 3, 2014, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety after the Department failed to modify or reject the ALJ's recommendation within the statutory timeframe.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Definition and Interpretation of "Enclosure"

A central point of contention was whether a wooden board attached to the balcony railing constituted an "enclosure" under CC&R Section 9.09 and Rule L.9.

  • The Physical Object: The item in question was a board approximately 1/2" thick, 5 feet long, and 3 feet high—matching the dimensions of the existing wooden balcony railings.
  • Purpose: Testimony from the respondent and the previous owner established that the board was installed in 1998 for privacy, as the unit overlooks the entrance to the community swimming pool.
  • Legal Conclusion: The ALJ found the evidence "insufficient" to establish that such a board constitutes a balcony enclosure. The ruling implies that the physical nature of the board did not meet the threshold of an unauthorized structure or modification as defined by the Association's governing documents.
2. The Doctrine of Laches

The most significant legal theme in this case is the doctrine of laches, which prevents a party from asserting a right after an inexcusable delay that prejudices the other party.

  • Timeline of Inaction: Evidence showed the board was installed in 1998. Center Court first notified Ms. Klissas of the alleged violation in October 2001 but did not file a petition for a hearing until May 2013—a delay of nearly 12 years.
  • Tacit Approval: In 2004, the Association painted the board to match the rest of the community's wood trim. This action suggested an acceptance of the board’s presence.
  • Prejudice: The ALJ concluded that the Association’s delay was "unreasonable and prejudicial," making it inequitable to force the removal of the board after such an extended period of relative inaction.
3. Evidentiary Standards for Nuisance and Rule Violations

The dispute regarding wind chimes highlighted the Association’s failure to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard.

  • Rule L.8: Permits one large or four small wind chimes, but requires removal if a noise complaint is made.
  • The Conflict: A neighbor testified the noise was a nuisance and claimed the balcony was being used as a "third bedroom." Conversely, Ms. Klissas and her husband testified they only had four chimes, while other hanging items were "wind spinners" that produce no noise.
  • Outcome: The ALJ ruled that there was no credible proof of more than four small wind chimes and, crucially, no evidence that a formal noise complaint had ever been filed with the Association prior to the petition.

Important Quotes with Context

On the Burden of Proof

"The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim… the standard of proof on all issue in this matter is by a preponderance of the evidence… [which] means that it is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is 'more likely true than not.'"

  • Context: Found in Conclusions of Law Nos. 2 and 3, this establishes the legal framework the Association had to meet to succeed in their petition.
On the Doctrine of Laches

"Laches arises where a party delays making its claim in such a way that another party is unfairly prejudiced. The defense of laches bars a claim when, under the totality of circumstances, the delay in prosecuting the claim ‘would produce an unjust result.’"

  • Context: Quoting Harris v. Purcell, the ALJ used this definition to explain why Center Court could no longer legally challenge a board that had been in place and even maintained (painted) by the Association over a decade prior.
On the Finality of the Decision

"No action by the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety was received by the Office of Administrative Hearings as of December 18, 2013. Therefore… the attached Administrative Law Judge Decision is certified as the final administrative decision."

  • Context: From the Certification of Decision, this confirms that because the governing agency did not intervene within the legal window, the ALJ’s recommendation to dismiss the case became binding.

Key Data Points and Facts

Category Detail
Case Number 13F-H1313005-BFS
Location Center Court Condominiums, Scottsdale, Arizona
Board Installation 1998 (by previous owner Roberta Piatt)
Board Dimensions 1/2" thick, 5' long, 3' high
Initial Violation Notice October 2001
Association Action Painted the disputed board in 2004 to match trim
Petition Filing Date May 28, 2013
Wind Chime Rule 1 large or 4 small permitted; noise complaints require removal
Hearing Date October 24, 2013
Final Decision Date January 3, 2014

Actionable Insights

  • Consistency in Enforcement: Associations must act promptly when a violation is identified. Allowing a violation to persist for several years—especially while performing maintenance on the violating item (e.g., painting)—can lead to the loss of enforcement rights via the doctrine of laches.
  • Evidence Collection: To successfully prosecute a rule violation, an association must provide "credible proof." In this case, the lack of formal noise complaints and the inability to prove the number of noise-making devices (vs. silent spinners) led to the dismissal of the wind chime claim.
  • Definitions Matter: Governing documents should clearly define terms like "enclosure." The ambiguity of whether a single privacy board constituted an enclosure worked in favor of the homeowner.
  • Administrative Timelines: Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08, state agencies have a strict window (in this case, until Dec 18, 2013) to review ALJ decisions. If the agency fails to act, the ALJ’s decision automatically becomes the final agency action.

Case Analysis Study Guide: Center Court Condominiums Association vs. Katrina Klissas

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing and subsequent legal decision involving Center Court Condominiums Association and Katrina Klissas. It outlines the core themes of homeowners' association (HOA) regulations, the legal principles of evidence, and the specific facts of the case heard in the Office of Administrative Hearings for the State of Arizona.

1. Case Overview and Key Entities

The case (No. 13F-H1313005-BFS) originated from a dispute regarding alleged violations of community rules at Center Court Condominiums in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Key Parties and Figures
Entity Role/Description
Center Court Condominiums Association The Petitioner; the homeowners' association (HOA) alleging rule violations.
Katrina Klissas The Respondent; a homeowner and member of Center Court.
The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety The state agency authorized to receive and process HOA-related petitions.
M. Douglas The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the hearing.
Timothy Bartlett President of Center Court; testified regarding the history of the dispute.
John Foster Flynn A neighbor living above Ms. Klissas; testified regarding noise nuisance.
Mike Weber Ms. Klissas’ husband; provided testimony on the board's dimensions and history.
Roberta Piatt Former owner of the unit; testified that she installed the board in 1998 with permission.

2. Core Themes and Specific Allegations

The dispute centered on two primary alleged violations of the Center Court Rules and Regulations.

A. Balcony Enclosures (Rule L-9 and CC&R 9.09)
  • The Allegation: Center Court claimed Ms. Klissas violated the prohibition on balcony enclosures by maintaining a wooden board on her balcony railing.
  • The Evidence: The board was approximately 1/2” thick, 5 feet long, and 3 feet high. It was installed in 1998 as a privacy measure because the unit overlooks the swimming pool entrance.
  • Counter-Argument: The defense argued the board did not constitute an "enclosure." Furthermore, the HOA had painted the board in 2004 to match the trim, suggesting tacit approval or at least recognition of its existence without enforcement.
B. Wind Chimes (Rule Section L-8)
  • The Allegation: Petitioner alleged Ms. Klissas had an excessive number of wind chimes (more than four) and that they created a noise nuisance.
  • The Evidence: Rule L-8 allows one large or four small wind chimes. Ms. Klissas testified she had exactly four wind chimes and that other hanging items were "wind spinners," which are silent.
  • Finding: The ALJ found no credible proof of more than four chimes and noted that no official noise complaints had been filed prior to the hearing.

3. Legal Principles and Framework

The decision was governed by specific Arizona statutes and common law doctrines.

Burden of Proof

In administrative hearings, the party asserting the claim (the Petitioner) carries the burden of proof. The standard used is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the evidence must persuade the judge that the claim is "more likely true than not."

The Doctrine of Laches

This was a critical factor in the ruling. Laches is a legal defense that bars a claim if a party has delayed asserting their rights for so long that it unfairly prejudices the other party.

  • Application: The HOA first noticed the board in 2001 but did not file a petition until 2013. The ALJ ruled this 12-year delay was unreasonable and produced an unjust result.

4. Short-Answer Practice Questions

Q1: What is the specific dimension of the wooden board involved in the enclosure dispute?

  • Answer: The board is approximately 1/2” thick, five feet long, and three feet high.

Q2: According to Section L.9, what materials are permitted for an approved enclosure?

  • Answer: Approved enclosures must consist of see-through materials such as clear plastic, Plexiglas, or wire mesh.

Q3: Who installed the wooden board, and in what year?

  • Answer: Roberta Piatt, the former owner, installed the board in 1998.

Q4: Under Rule L-8, what must happen if a noise complaint is made regarding wind chimes?

  • Answer: The wind chimes must be disabled or removed.

Q5: What was the final outcome of the Administrative Law Judge's decision?

  • Answer: The matter was dismissed, and Ms. Klissas was deemed the prevailing party.

Q6: How long does the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety have to accept, reject, or modify an ALJ decision?

  • Answer: Under the statutes cited, the Department had until December 18, 2013 (roughly 35 days from the transmission of the decision on November 13, 2013).

5. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. Enforcement and Acquiescence: Analyze the impact of the HOA's decision to paint the wooden board in 2004. How did this action weaken the Petitioner’s argument that the board was a violation of the CC&Rs?
  2. The Application of Laches: Discuss why the "Doctrine of Laches" is necessary in property law and community governance. Use the timeline of this case (2001–2013) to justify the ALJ's conclusion that the delay was "unreasonable and prejudicial."
  3. Defining "Enclosure": The ALJ found the evidence failed to establish that a 3’ by 5’ board constitutes an "enclosure." Argue for or against this finding based on the language of CC&R Section 9.09, which lists items like fences, awnings, and ornamental screens.

6. Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01: The Arizona Revised Statute that permits homeowners or associations to file petitions for hearings concerning violations of planned community documents.
  • CC&Rs: Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules for a planned community or condominium association.
  • Certification of Decision: The process by which an ALJ decision becomes the final administrative action if the state agency takes no action within the statutory timeframe.
  • Doctrine of Laches: A legal defense that prevents a party from claiming a right because they waited too long to enforce it, and that delay hurt the other party.
  • Petitioner: The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition (in this case, The Center Court Condominiums Association).
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: A legal standard where a claim is proven if it is shown to be more likely true than not (greater than 50% probability).
  • Prevailing Party: The party in a lawsuit who succeeds on the main issues and is often entitled to specific legal recognitions or orders.
  • Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, Katrina Klissas).
  • Wind Spinner: A decorative hanging device which, unlike a wind chime, does not produce noise.

Wind Chimes, Privacy Boards, and the Law: A Cautionary Tale of HOA Overreach

1. Introduction: The High Stakes of Low-Level Disputes

In the manicured community of Center Court Condominiums in Scottsdale, Arizona, a homeowner's balcony should be a place of desert tranquility. For Katrina Klissas, however, her balcony became a legal battleground. What began as a disagreement over a wooden board and the tinkling of wind chimes escalated into a decade-long saga that eventually landed before an Administrative Law Judge.

This is a classic "David vs. Goliath" story, but with a twist: the "Goliath" in this scenario—the Center Court Condominiums Association—spent twelve years watching the alleged violations before finally deciding to strike. As a property rights advocate, I see this case as a vital lesson in why Homeowners Associations (HOAs) cannot simply "wait and see" when it comes to enforcement. When a Board’s desire for control outpaces its commitment to timely, evidence-based action, the legal system has a way of leveling the playing field.

2. The Case at a Glance: Facts and Allegations

The dispute between Center Court and Ms. Klissas was not a sudden flare-up; letters had been exchanged regarding these issues since 2001. Despite this "simmering" conflict, the Association did not file a formal petition until May 2013.

Alleged Violation Specific Association Rule Homeowner’s Defense
Unauthorized Balcony Enclosure Rule L-9 / CC&R Section 9.09 The board is a privacy screen, not a structural enclosure; it was installed by the previous owner in 1998 and even painted by the HOA in 2004.
Excessive Wind Chimes Rule L-8 Only four wind chimes were present; other hanging items were silent "wind spinners." No formal noise complaints were ever documented.
3. The "Enclosure" Debate: When a Board is Just a Board

The Association’s primary target was a wooden board attached to Ms. Klissas’ balcony. Measuring 3’ by 5’ and only ½” thick, the board was roughly the same height and length as the existing balcony railings. The Association claimed this was a prohibited "enclosure" under CC&R Section 9.09.

However, the history of this board revealed a staggering level of inconsistency from the Board. Testimony from a former owner, Roberta Piatt, established that the board was installed in 1998 for privacy, as the balcony directly overlooks the pool entrance. Most damaging to the Association's case was the fact that the Association itself painted the board in 2004 to match the community’s wood trim.

The Judge was not convinced that a thin, five-foot board constituted a structural "enclosure." More importantly, the Board’s decision to paint the item years prior suggested an implicit acceptance of its presence. When an HOA maintains an item for you, they lose the moral and legal high ground to later claim that same item is a violation.

4. The Wind Chime Mystery: Sound vs. Spin

The second allegation involved Rule L-8, which restricts residents to one large or four small wind chimes. A neighbor, John Foster Flynn, testified that he found the noise from the chimes to be a "nuisance." However, this was a personal finding rather than an established fact supported by evidence.

Ms. Klissas provided a clear distinction between her balcony decorations that the Association failed to refute:

  • Wind Chimes: She maintained a strict limit of four chimes, replacing old ones as she bought new ones.
  • Wind Spinners: The other hanging items were "wind spinners"—decorative objects designed for visual movement that produce no sound.

Because the Association could not prove the number of noise-making chimes exceeded the limit, and because there was no evidence of a formal noise complaint filed with the Association, the Judge ruled that they failed to meet the "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

5. The "Doctrine of Laches": The Legal Turning Point

The most significant legal blow to the Association was the "Doctrine of Laches." In Arizona law, laches is an "inexcusable delay in asserting a right" that results in an unfair disadvantage or "prejudice" to the other party.

The Association first flagged these issues in 2001 but waited until 2013 to take formal legal action. This 12-year delay was deemed "unreasonable and prejudicial." Think about the position this put Ms. Klissas in: she continued to live in her home, maintaining her property under the reasonable belief that her privacy screen was acceptable—especially after the HOA painted it for her in 2004. By signaling acceptance through their actions and their decade-long silence, the Association essentially waived their right to enforcement. This serves as a stern warning: if a Board does not "use" its enforcement power in a timely manner, it will "lose" it.

6. The Verdict: A Final Victory for the Homeowner

In Case No. 13F-H1313005-BFS, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decisive ruling: the matter was dismissed, and Katrina Klissas was declared the "prevailing party."

The victory was solidified through the "Certification of Decision" process. The ALJ issued the recommendation on November 13, 2013. The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety had until December 18, 2013, to modify or reject the decision. Because the Department took no action, the ALJ’s ruling became the final administrative decision on January 3, 2014.

7. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and HOAs

This case is a masterclass in the limitations of HOA authority. Here are the three most critical lessons:

  1. The Burden of Proof is High: The Association must prove a violation by a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning they must convince the judge that the violation is "more likely true than not." Vague testimony from a single neighbor is rarely enough to meet this standard.
  2. The Clock is Ticking (Laches): Boards cannot "sit" on violations. An unreasonable delay in enforcement—especially one spanning over a decade—will likely lead to a loss of enforcement rights. If a Board treats a violation as acceptable for years, the law will eventually agree with them.
  3. Consistency and Documentation are Shields: The fact that the HOA painted the board in 2004 was the "smoking gun" for the defense. Homeowners should keep meticulous records of any maintenance performed by the HOA or any verbal permissions granted by past Board members.
8. Closing: Community Harmony Over Litigation

The Center Court case demonstrates that while HOAs have the power to create rules, they do not have the power to enforce them whimsically or after decades of silence. Community harmony is built on clear rules, timely enforcement, and a respect for the history of a property. By understanding the standard of proof and the Doctrine of Laches, homeowners can better defend their rights, and Board members can learn to govern with more efficiency and fairness. At the end of the day, a community is better served by reasonable compromise than by twelve years of legal posturing.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Erin McManis (HOA Attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm P.C.
  • Timothy Bartlett (Board President)
    The Center Court Condominiums Association
    Testified regarding ongoing dispute and letters since 2001
  • John Foster Flynn (Witness)
    Neighbor/Homeowner
    Complained about wind chimes; owns unit above Respondent

Respondent Side

  • Katrina Klissas (Respondent)
    Homeowner
    Accused of violating balcony rules (enclosure and wind chimes)
  • James B. Rolle III (Respondent Attorney)
    Law Offices of James B. Rolle
  • Mike Weber (Witness)
    Respondent's husband
    Testified regarding privacy board installation history
  • Roberta Piatt (Witness)
    Former Owner
    Installed the balcony board in 1998

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Agency Director receiving the decision
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on service list
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed certification mailing

Randall C. & Lori M. Hack Family Trust vs. The Ranch at Prescott HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1313002-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2013-06-27
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge found that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808(F) by prohibiting industry standard wooden sign frames and requiring metal 'H' frames. The statute precludes regulations on 'for sale' signs other than size and commercial production. The Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Randall C. and Lori M. Hack Family Trust Counsel —
Respondent The Ranch at Prescott HOA Counsel D. Reid Garrey

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808(F)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808(F) by prohibiting industry standard wooden sign frames and requiring metal 'H' frames. The statute precludes regulations on 'for sale' signs other than size and commercial production. The Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party.

Key Issues & Findings

Requirement of specific sign frames

Petitioners argued that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808(F) by requiring the use of specific metal 'H' sign frames. The HOA argued the rule was for aesthetics and safety.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1808(F); HOA ordered to pay Petitioner's filing fee of $550.00; HOA ordered to pay a civil penalty of $200.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

13F-H1313002-BFS Decision – 346760.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:45:57 (127.8 KB)

13F-H1313002-BFS Decision – 351822.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:46:05 (58.1 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Randall C. and Lori M. Hack Family Trust vs. The Ranch at Prescott HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive briefing on the administrative hearing (Case No. 13F-H1313002-BFS) between the Randall C. and Lori M. Hack Family Trust (Petitioners) and The Ranch at Prescott HOA (the Ranch). The core of the dispute centered on whether a homeowners’ association (HOA) possesses the legal authority to mandate specific sign frames for real estate "for sale" signs under Arizona Revised Statutes.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Ranch’s requirement for property owners to use a specific metal “H” sign frame violated A.R.S. § 33-1808(F). The ruling emphasizes that state law provides broad protections for homeowners regarding real estate signage, limiting HOA regulation strictly to sign size and commercial production. Consequently, the Ranch was ordered to cease its restrictive sign frame policy, reimburse the Petitioners’ filing fees, and pay a civil penalty to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

Statutory Limitations on HOA Authority

The central theme of the case is the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1808(F). This statute serves as a protective measure for homeowners, preventing associations from prohibiting or over-regulating the display of real estate signs.

  • Permitted Regulations: Under the statute, an HOA may only require that signs be commercially produced and adhere to industry-standard sizes (signs no larger than 18” x 24”; riders no larger than 6” x 24”).
  • Preclusion of Additional Rules: The ALJ concluded that because the statute specifically lists what an association can regulate, it by extension precludes any regulations not mentioned. The Ranch's attempt to regulate the frame of the sign was found to be an unauthorized extension of its power.
Aesthetics and Safety vs. Homeowner Rights

The Ranch argued that its mandate for metal “H” frames was rooted in maintaining community aesthetics and ensuring safety by preventing fallen or damaged wooden frames.

  • HOA Argument: The Ranch contended that since A.R.S. § 33-1808(F) does not explicitly mention "frames," the association retained the right to regulate them for safety and uniform appearance.
  • Petitioner Rebuttal: The Petitioners argued—and the ALJ agreed—that the industry-standard wooden “L” frame was safe and structurally sound. Furthermore, the Ranch already possessed a "Signage Guideline and Policy" to address fallen or neglected signs, making the specific frame mandate unnecessary.
Consistency in Enforcement

A significant point of contention was the perceived lack of uniform enforcement within the community. Testimony revealed that "Unit 8," a section of the Ranch owned by the developer, was not held to the same metal "H" frame requirement as other residents. This inconsistency undermined the HOA’s argument that the rule was essential for community-wide safety and aesthetics.

Important Quotes and Context

Regarding Statutory Interpretation

"The statute plainly provides that the prohibition on regulating 'for sale' signs is broad and generalized, and that the only forms of regulation that are permitted for associations are that they may require commercially produced standard sized signs."

— Arizona Legislative Council Memorandum (6/7/13)

Context: This memorandum was obtained by Randall C. Hack to support the Petitioners' position that the HOA was overstepping its legal boundaries by requiring specific frame types.

Regarding the ALJ's Legal Conclusion

"The statute specifically allows only two restrictions on a property owner’s real estate signs, (1) that they be standard size and (2) that they be commercially produced. Any other requirement by a homeowners association is precluded."

— Administrative Law Judge Decision, Conclusion of Law #4

Context: This statement summarizes the legal basis for the ruling, confirming that the HOA cannot create "workaround" regulations (like frame mandates) to control sign appearance beyond what state law allows.

Regarding HOA Defense Strategy

"Ranch asserts that since A.R.S. § 33-1808(F) does not specifically address sign frames that the Ranch may, in the interest of aesthetics and safety, require the use of the 'H' type sign frames…"

— Administrative Law Judge Decision, Findings of Fact

Context: This captures the HOA's primary legal defense, which relied on the absence of the word "frame" in the statute to justify its regulatory authority.

Actionable Insights

Based on the findings and the final certified decision, the following insights are established for parties involved in HOA governance and property ownership:

For Homeowners’ Associations
  • Adherence to A.R.S. § 33-1808(F): HOAs must ensure that any signage rules do not exceed the two specific criteria allowed by law: size and commercial production.
  • Avoidance of Mandatory Proprietary Equipment: Requiring homeowners to use HOA-provided frames—even if offered for free—is a violation of state law if it prohibits the use of other industry-standard frames.
  • Uniform Enforcement: Rules must be applied consistently across all units, including those owned by developers, to maintain legal standing and avoid claims of unfair treatment.
For Homeowners and Real Estate Professionals
  • Industry Standard Protections: Owners are entitled to use standard real estate signage, including common industry frames like the wooden "L" shape, provided the sign and rider meet the 18” x 24” and 6” x 24” size limits.
  • Recourse for Violations: Homeowners facing fines or violation notices for standard signage have the right to petition the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety for a hearing.
Financial Consequences of Non-Compliance

The decision established clear financial penalties for HOAs that fail to comply with these statutory limits:

Penalty Item Amount Recipient
Filing Fee Reimbursement $550.00 To be paid to the Petitioners
Civil Penalty $200.00 To be paid to the Department

Final Decision Status

On August 5, 2013, the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, Cliff J. Vanell, certified the ALJ decision as the final administrative decision. As the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify the decision by the August 1, 2013 deadline, the ruling became binding.

Study Guide: Randall C. and Lori M. Hack Family Trust v. The Ranch at Prescott HOA

This study guide provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative law case Randall C. and Lori M. Hack Family Trust v. The Ranch at Prescott HOA (No. 13F-H1313002-BFS). It examines the intersection of Arizona statutory law and the regulatory authority of homeowners' associations (HOAs) regarding real estate signage.

Key Concepts and Case Overview

Core Dispute

The primary issue in this case was whether a homeowners' association has the legal authority to require property owners to use a specific type of sign frame (a metal "H" frame) for displaying industry-standard real estate signs.

In January 2012, The Ranch at Prescott HOA (the "Ranch") implemented a rule requiring metal "H" frames. The Petitioners, the Hack Family Trust, utilized a standard white wooden "L" frame provided by their realtor. After receiving a violation notice in January 2013, the Petitioners challenged the rule, asserting it violated state statutes designed to protect a homeowner's right to display for-sale signs.

Statutory Framework: A.R.S. § 33-1808(F)

The central legal pillar of this case is Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1808(F). This statute significantly limits the power of an HOA to regulate real estate signage. Key provisions include:

  • Prohibition of Fees/Bans: Associations cannot prohibit or charge fees for the use, placement, or display of for-sale, for-rent, or for-lease signs and riders.
  • Size Standards: Signs must conform to industry standards (maximum 18" x 24") and riders (maximum 6" x 24").
  • Commercial Production: Associations can require that signs be commercially produced.
  • Limitation of Authority: The statute specifies that an association shall not prohibit or regulate signage in any way other than what is specifically authorized by the section.
Arguments and Perspectives
Party Primary Argument Supporting Evidence/Rationale
Petitioners (The Hacks) The HOA's sign frame requirement is an unauthorized regulation under A.R.S. § 33-1808(F). Legislative intent and Arizona Legislative Council memo stating regulation is limited only to size and commercial production.
Respondent (The Ranch) The HOA has a right to regulate frames for aesthetics and safety. Claimed fallen or neglected frames posed hazards; argued the statute does not explicitly mention "frames," only "signs."
Findings and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that while the statute does not explicitly use the word "frames," the white wooden "L" frame is an industry-standard method for displaying standard signs. The ALJ concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1808(F) provides an exhaustive list of permissible regulations (size and commercial production). Therefore, requiring a specific, HOA-provided frame exceeded the association's authority.

The Ranch was ordered to:

  1. Comply with A.R.S. § 33-1808(F) in the future.
  2. Reimburse the Petitioners' $550.00 filing fee.
  3. Pay a civil penalty of $200.00 to the Department.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. What specific type of sign frame did the Ranch at Prescott HOA require its members to use?
  2. According to A.R.S. § 33-1808(F), what are the maximum dimensions allowed for an industry-standard for-sale sign?
  3. What was the Respondent’s primary justification for enforcing the metal "H" frame rule?
  4. What was the total amount the Ranch was ordered to pay the Petitioners for their filing fee?
  5. Which state agency is authorized to receive petitions for hearings regarding HOA violations in Arizona?
  6. How did the Arizona Legislative Council describe the association's power to regulate "for sale" signs in its memorandum?
  7. What was the significance of "Unit 8" in Mr. Hack’s testimony?
  8. What is the legal standard of proof required in this administrative hearing?
  9. According to the statute, what are the only two characteristics of a sign that an HOA is permitted to regulate?
  10. What happens to an ALJ decision if the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety takes no action within the statutory timeframe?

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. Statutory Interpretation and the Silence of the Law: Analyze the Respondent’s argument that because A.R.S. § 33-1808(F) does not specifically mention "frames," the HOA retained the right to regulate them. Discuss why the ALJ rejected this interpretation in favor of the Petitioners' broader reading of the statute.
  2. Aesthetics vs. Property Rights: Discuss the tension between a homeowners' association's interest in maintaining community aesthetics and safety and an individual owner's statutory rights. How does the ruling in this case clarify the boundaries of HOA authority in Arizona?
  3. The Role of Legislative Intent: Examine the memorandum provided by the Arizona Legislative Council. How does the "plain language" of a statute influence the outcome of administrative disputes, and why did the ALJ find Mr. Hack’s testimony regarding the history of the statute credible?
  4. Consistency in Rule Enforcement: Mr. Hack alleged that the developer-owned "Unit 8" was not held to the same sign frame standards as other residents. Discuss the importance of uniform enforcement of community documents and the legal implications when an HOA is perceived to apply rules inconsistently.

Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808(F): The specific section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that governs the display of for-sale, for-rent, and for-lease signs within planned communities.
  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over an administrative hearing, hears evidence, and issues a decision or recommended order.
  • Community Documents: The declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, and rules of a homeowners' association.
  • Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety: The state department authorized to handle petitions regarding HOA disputes and violations of community documents or statutes.
  • "H" Frame vs. "L" Frame: Different types of sign supports. The "H" frame is a metal stand that goes into the ground, while the "L" frame is a wooden post assembly from which a sign hangs.
  • Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius: A legal doctrine meaning "the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another." It was used to argue that because the statute lists specific allowed regulations, all other regulations are excluded.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, requiring that a proposition be "more likely true than not" (greater than 50% probability).
  • Sign Rider: A smaller, secondary sign attached to a primary real estate sign, typically used to provide additional information like "Pool," "3 Bedrooms," or "By Appointment Only."
  • Waiver Provision: A clause within HOA rules that allows the association to grant an exception to a specific requirement, often subject to review and approval.

Can Your HOA Dictate Your "For Sale" Sign Frame? A Lesson from Prescott, Arizona

1. Introduction: The Battle of the Sign Frames

For many Arizona homeowners, the dream of property ownership is often dampened by the overreaching hand of a Homeowners Association (HOA). What should be a simple act of marketing your home can quickly devolve into a bureaucratic nightmare of violation notices and "aesthetic" mandates. Recently, the cost of one HOA's arrogance was tallied at exactly $750.

In the landmark case of Randall C. and Lori M. Hack Family Trust vs. The Ranch at Prescott HOA, a dispute over a simple sign frame became a battleground for property rights. The core question was clear: Does an HOA have the legal authority to require a specific type of sign frame, even if they offer it for free, if it conflicts with industry standards? As the Hacks discovered, the law has a very specific answer for boards that try to micro-manage the "for sale" process.

2. The Conflict: Industry Standards vs. Association Mandates

The trouble began when the Hacks’ realtor placed an industry-standard, white wooden "L" frame to display a 18” x 24” "For Sale" sign on their property. Rather than facilitating the sale, the HOA issued a violation notice, demanding the homeowners switch to a mandated metal "H" frame.

The HOA attempted to hide behind aesthetic justifications, claiming the metal frames ensured a uniform look and prevented the "danger" of fallen signs. However, the homeowners exposed a glaring double standard: the HOA failed to enforce these same rules on "Unit 8," a property owned by the developer. This "one rule for the residents, another for the developer" approach was the first crack in the HOA's defense. Furthermore, the mandated frames were a functional failure—a horizontal metal bar made them physically difficult to drive into the ground, often requiring the homeowners to hire a handyman just to swap the signage.

Feature Homeowner’s Choice (Wooden "L" Frame) HOA’s Mandate (Metal "H" Frame)
Material/Style White wood, "L" shaped. Metal, "H" shaped.
Industry Status The standard used in the majority of real estate listings. Association-specific mandate.
Functional Experience No structural or placement issues; easy to install. Physically impractical; metal bar interferes with ground placement.
Enforcement Consistency Used by residents following industry norms. Ignored for developer-owned properties (Unit 8).
HOA Justification N/A Aesthetics and safety (despite existing maintenance policies).
3. The Legal Ground Truth: A.R.S. § 33-1808(F)

The protection of a homeowner's right to sell their property is anchored in Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1808(F). This statute is a shield against HOA overreach, establishing what can be called the "Rule of Two." Under this law, an association is strictly limited to only two types of restrictions regarding real estate signs. They may only require that signs be:

  1. Commercially produced.
  2. Standard industry size (18” x 24” for the sign and 6” x 24” for the rider).

Any attempt to regulate beyond these two metrics is a violation of state law. The "hammer" in this case was a memorandum from the Arizona Legislative Council (Exhibit C-8), which clarified that the statutory prohibition on HOA interference is "broad and generalized."

As the statute explicitly commands:

"The association shall not require the use of particular signs indicating an open house or real property for sale and may not further regulate the use of temporary open house or for sale signs that are industry standard size and that are owned or used by the seller or the seller's agent."

4. The Administrative Law Judge's Decision

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas presided over the hearing, applying the "preponderance of evidence" standard. The judge found the Hacks’ testimony highly credible, while the HOA’s defense relied on a desperate legal technicality.

The HOA tried to argue the doctrine of Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius—suggesting that because the statute didn't explicitly mention "frames," the HOA was free to regulate them. The Judge saw right through this. By concluding that the "Rule of Two" precludes any other requirements, the ALJ ruled that the frame is an integral part of the signage protection. You cannot regulate the frame as a loophole to control the sign.

The final penalties for the HOA's overreach included:

  • A formal order to immediately comply with A.R.S. § 33-1808(F).
  • Reimbursement of the homeowners' $550 filing fee.
  • A $200 civil penalty paid to the state.
5. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and HOAs

This ruling is a victory for property rights and a warning to meddlesome boards.

  1. Statutory Supremacy: State law (A.R.S. § 33-1808(F)) is the ultimate authority. It overrides "community documents," bylaws, or board-approved guidelines. If your HOA's rules contradict the statute, the rules are legally void.
  2. Industry Standards Matter: The "Rule of Two" is the only valid yardstick. If your sign is commercially produced and standard size, the HOA generally has no business telling you what it should look like or how it should be framed.
  3. Frames are Protected Signage: Boards cannot use the "frame" as a loophole. Attempting to mandate a specific frame style is an illegal regulation of the sign itself, and the courts have now explicitly rejected this "technicality."
6. Conclusion: Empowering Property Owners

The Hack Family Trust case serves as a powerful reminder that Arizona property owners are not powerless against their associations. While HOAs often claim they are "protecting property values" through rigid aesthetic controls, they must do so within the boundaries of the law.

When an association issues a violation notice for a standard industry tool, they aren't just being "picky"—they are often breaking the law. Understanding A.R.S. § 33-1808(F) is the first step in holding your board accountable. The next time your HOA tries to dictate the hardware in your front yard, remember: the law is on your side, and the "Rule of Two" is your strongest defense.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Randall C. Hack (petitioner)
    Randall C. and Lori M. Hack Family Trust
    Appeared on behalf of the Trust; provided testimony
  • Lori M. Hack (petitioner)
    Randall C. and Lori M. Hack Family Trust
    Provided testimony

Respondent Side

  • D. Reid Garrey (HOA attorney)
    Garrey, Woner, Hoffmaster & Peshek, P.C.
  • Richard John Tetreault (board member)
    The Ranch at Prescott HOA
    Chairman of the Ranch; provided testimony

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Director
  • Cliff J. Vanell (agency director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Director; certified the decision
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision copy
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/faxed copies of the certification

Scheinholtz, Martin F. vs. Corte Bella Country Club Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1313001-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2013-06-19
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent, Corte Bella Country Club Association. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 or the Bylaws. The Board's appointment of a director during the 'new business' portion of a meeting, though not on the written agenda, was found to be permissible as members were allowed to comment prior to the vote.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Martin F. Scheinholtz Counsel Yvette D. Ansel
Respondent Corte Bella Country Club Association Counsel Troy B. Stratman

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent, Corte Bella Country Club Association. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 or the Bylaws. The Board's appointment of a director during the 'new business' portion of a meeting, though not on the written agenda, was found to be permissible as members were allowed to comment prior to the vote.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the existence of a secret meeting or that the omission of the specific item from the agenda violated the statute or bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meeting Law / Agenda Violation

Petitioner alleged that the Board violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by meeting secretly to decide on a board appointment prior to the open meeting and by failing to list the appointment of a new director on the agenda for the December 11, 2012 meeting.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • 4
  • 29
  • 46
  • 49

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

13F-H1313001-BFS Decision – 344903.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:45:45 (151.3 KB)

13F-H1313001-BFS Decision – 350917.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:45:49 (59.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Martin F. Scheinholtz vs. Corte Bella Country Club Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative law case Martin F. Scheinholtz v. Corte Bella Country Club Association (No. 13F-H1313001-BFS). The dispute centered on whether the Corte Bella Board of Directors violated Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) by appointing a new director to fill a vacancy during a meeting where the appointment was not explicitly listed on the written agenda.

The Petitioner, Martin F. Scheinholtz, alleged that four board members reached a secret agreement prior to the December 11, 2012, meeting to appoint William Blake, thereby bypassing proper open board discussion and homeowner notice. The Respondent, Corte Bella Country Club Association, argued that the appointment was a valid exercise of board authority under their Bylaws and that the meeting complied with statutory requirements by allowing member comments before the vote.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of law or association bylaws. The ruling found no evidence of a secret quorum meeting and determined that the Board acted within its rights to introduce the appointment as "new business." The decision was certified as final on July 29, 2013.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Agenda Specificity vs. "New Business"

A central theme of the case was the level of detail required in a board meeting agenda. The Petitioner argued that significant issues, such as the composition of the Board, must be explicitly listed to allow members to decide whether to attend. However, the Association demonstrated that it was common practice to introduce motions not listed on the agenda under the "new business" portion of meetings. The ALJ found that the lack of specific notice regarding the appointment did not invalidate the action, as the Board followed the procedure of allowing member comments before taking a formal vote.

2. Pre-Meeting Communications and Quorum Rules

The Petitioner alleged that a quorum of the Board (four members) had met or decided the issue privately before the open meeting. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)(4), any quorum of the board meeting informally to discuss association business must comply with open meeting provisions.

  • The Evidence: Testimony revealed that only three members (Ray Valle, Walt Kearns, and Vin Petrella) were aware the motion would likely be made.
  • The Legal Finding: Because three members do not constitute a quorum for this six-member board, their private discussions did not trigger a violation of the Open Meeting Law.
3. Statutory Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804

The case scrutinized the state policy regarding planned communities. A.R.S. § 33-1804(E) mandates that notices and agendas provide "reasonably necessary" information to inform members and ensure they have the ability to speak. The ALJ interpreted this in favor of the Association because:

  • Members present at the meeting were permitted to speak.
  • The Board had the legal authority under Bylaw Section 3.6 to fill vacancies.
  • The statutory requirement for specific notice for "special meetings" (A.R.S. § 33-1804(B))—which includes the "proposal to remove a director"—does not explicitly mandate the same level of granular detail for appointing a director during a regular meeting.
4. Member Recourse and Post-Action Validation

The Association highlighted that homeowners had a mechanism for recourse: the recall process. Following William Blake’s appointment, a recall petition was filed. The members of the association voted on this petition, and it failed, effectively ratifying the Board's choice. The ALJ noted this as part of the context in which the Board’s actions remained within the bounds of community governance.

Important Quotes and Context

Speaker Quote Context
Vincent James Petrella "[I] orchestrated the appointment… politics at its best." Written by Petrella on a community blog, admitting he planned the surprise motion to appoint Mr. Blake.
Regina Shanney-Saborsky "Board members were expected to act in the highest fiduciary manner." Testifying as a board member who opposed the vote, arguing that notice should have been provided.
Martin F. Scheinholtz "I saw nothing of significance in the written agenda… if I had been aware… I would have certainly attended." Explaining his grievance that the omission of the appointment from the agenda effectively excluded him.
Ray Valle "The Board had ‘every right’ to rescind the motion made during the August 29, 2012 meeting." Defending the Board’s decision to change its previous plan (to wait for an election) and instead appoint a director immediately.
Administrative Law Judge "There was no credible evidence that any of the other three members of the Board had any knowledge of the expected motion." The finding that cleared the Board of the "secret quorum" allegation.

Legal Provisions Summary

Association Bylaws: Article III, Section 3.6

The Board is empowered to declare a vacancy and appoint a successor to fill that vacancy for the remainder of the director's term in the event of a death, disability, or resignation.

Arizona Revised Statutes: A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • Open Meetings: All board meetings must be open to members.
  • Right to Speak: Members must be permitted to speak after the board discusses an item but before a formal vote is taken.
  • Agenda Access: The agenda must be available to all members attending the meeting.
  • Policy of Openness: Any interpretation of the law should be construed in favor of open meetings.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners' Association Boards
  • Agenda Best Practices: While "new business" motions are legally permissible, omitting significant items (like board appointments) can lead to litigation and community distrust. Listing major items on the agenda is a safeguard against allegations of transparency violations.
  • Quorum Awareness: Board members must be cautious when discussing association business in small groups. If a quorum is reached in private—even via phone or email—it may constitute an illegal "informal" meeting.
  • Member Participation: Always ensure a clear opportunity for member comment after board discussion but before the vote to satisfy A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).
For Homeowners
  • Burden of Proof: In administrative hearings, the petitioner bears the burden of proving a violation by a "preponderance of the evidence" (showing it is more likely true than not).
  • Attendance Matters: If an agenda includes a "new business" or "member comments" section, homeowners should be aware that significant motions can be introduced unexpectedly.
  • Recall Mechanism: The legal system views the recall process as a primary tool for members to challenge board appointments they disagree with. If a recall fails, it serves as evidence of the community's acceptance of the board's action.

Study Guide: Martin F. Scheinholtz v. Corte Bella Country Club Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case Martin F. Scheinholtz v. Corte Bella Country Club Association (No. 13F-H1313001-BFS). It examines the intersection of Arizona statutory law, homeowners' association (HOA) bylaws, and the transparency requirements of open meeting laws.

I. Key Concepts and Case Background

1. Legal Framework: A.R.S. § 33-1804

The central legal issue revolves around Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1804, which governs open meetings for planned communities.

  • Open Meetings: All meetings of the association and the board of directors must be open to all members or their designated representatives.
  • Member Participation: Members must be allowed to speak at an appropriate time during deliberations. Specifically, they must be permitted to speak at least once after the board discusses an item but before a formal vote is taken.
  • Agenda Availability: For meetings held after the termination of declarant control, an agenda must be made available to all members attending the meeting.
  • State Policy: Arizona law favors open meetings. Agendas and notices should contain information reasonably necessary to inform members of matters to be discussed or decided.
2. The Dispute

Petitioner Martin F. Scheinholtz alleged that the Corte Bella Country Club Association violated open meeting laws during a December 11, 2012, board meeting. The board voted 4-2 to appoint William Blake to a vacant director position. This item was not explicitly listed on the written agenda but was introduced as "new business."

3. Fiduciary Duties and Association Bylaws
  • Fiduciary Duty: Board members are expected to act in the highest fiduciary manner regarding the association's interests.
  • Bylaws (Section 3.6): The Corte Bella Bylaws explicitly authorize the board to declare a vacancy and appoint a successor to fill that vacancy for the remainder of a director's term (in cases of death, disability, or resignation).
4. Quorum and Pre-Meeting Discussions

A quorum refers to the minimum number of board members required to make proceedings valid. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)(4), if a quorum meets informally to discuss association business, they must comply with open meeting and notice provisions, regardless of whether a formal vote is taken. In this case, only three members were aware the motion would be made, which did not constitute a quorum.

II. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. Who was the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over this case? Answer: M. Douglas.

2. What specific action did the Petitioner claim was a violation of the law? Answer: The board voted on a significant issue (appointing a new director) that was not placed on the meeting agenda, thereby preventing proper open discussion and notice to homeowners.

3. According to the Corte Bella Bylaws, what is the board's power regarding vacancies? Answer: Under Section 3.6, the board has the power to declare a vacancy (due to death, disability, or resignation) and appoint a successor to fill the remainder of the term.

4. Did the association allow members to speak before the vote on Mr. Blake's appointment? Answer: Yes. Testimony indicated that homeowners were permitted to make comments after the motion was made but before the formal vote was taken.

5. What was the outcome of the recall petition filed against William Blake after his appointment? Answer: The recall petition failed, and the majority of homeowners voted to retain Mr. Blake as a member of the board.

6. How many hours in advance must a board meeting notice be given to members under A.R.S. § 33-1804(C)? Answer: At least forty-eight hours in advance.

7. Why did the Petitioner state he did not attend the December 11, 2012, meeting? Answer: He saw nothing of significance on the written agenda and felt that major issues like board composition should have been listed to allow members to decide whether to attend.

8. What was the final ruling of the Administrative Law Judge? Answer: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof and dismissed the petition, deeming Corte Bella the prevailing party.

III. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The Tension Between Procedural Flexibility and Transparency Analyze the conflict between the board's right to introduce "new business" and the statutory requirement that agendas provide information "reasonably necessary" to inform members. Should a board be allowed to vote on the appointment of a new director if it is not on the agenda, even if bylaws allow the board to fill vacancies? Support your argument using the findings of fact from the case.

2. The Definition of a Meeting and Quorum Ethics Discuss the legal and ethical implications of board members discussing potential motions in small groups prior to an open meeting. At what point does a series of private conversations between board members constitute an informal meeting that violates A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)(4)? Reference the testimony of Mr. Valle and Mr. Petrella regarding their "orchestration" of the vote.

3. The Role of the Membership in Overruling Board Actions Examine the significance of the failed recall election mentioned in the testimony. To what extent does a subsequent member vote (like a recall) validate or invalidate a board's previous procedural choices? Does the failure of a recall suggest that the board's decision was ultimately aligned with the community's will, regardless of the agenda omission?

IV. Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
A.R.S. Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) An official who presides over an administrative hearing and makes findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Burden of Proof The obligation of a party (in this case, the Petitioner) to provide enough evidence to support their claim.
Declarant Control The period during which the developer (declarant) controls the homeowners' association before handing it over to the members.
Fiduciary Duty A legal obligation to act in the best interest of another party (e.g., board members acting for the association).
Motion A formal proposal by a member of a deliberative body that the body take certain action.
Preponderance of the Evidence The standard of proof in civil cases, meaning the proposition is "more likely true than not."
Proxy An authorization given by one person to allow another to act or vote on their behalf.
Quorum The minimum number of members of an assembly or society that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.
Recall Petition A formal process by which members of an association can vote to remove an elected or appointed official from office.
Rescind To revoke, cancel, or repeal a previous action or motion.

Behind the Boardroom Door: Lessons in Transparency from Scheinholtz v. Corte Bella

1. Introduction: The Surprise Agenda Item

Imagine reviewing your Homeowners Association (HOA) meeting agenda and seeing only routine administrative items. You decide to stay home, assuming nothing of consequence will occur. The next day, you discover that during that same meeting, the Board of Directors performed a procedural about-face: they rescinded a previous commitment to hold an election and instead appointed a new member to a vacant seat—a decision that set the community’s leadership for the next 15 months.

This scenario is the basis of the legal dispute in Martin F. Scheinholtz vs. Corte Bella Country Club Association (No. 13F-H1313001-BFS). The case brings a pivotal question to the forefront of community governance: Does an HOA board have the legal right to vote on a major appointment if it is not explicitly listed on the meeting agenda?

2. The Conflict: A Seat at the Table

The Petitioner, Martin F. Scheinholtz, challenged the actions taken by the Corte Bella Board during their December 11, 2012, meeting. He alleged that the board had pre-planned a major leadership change behind closed doors, effectively bypassing the community's right to a transparent process.

"On or before 11/30/12 a meeting was conducted by four Board members as evidenced by Kearns proxy to Petrella to vote on specific issues not placed on the 12/11/12 board meeting agenda. Said actions were unknown to home owners, to other board members and did not allow for proper open board discussion."

Mr. Scheinholtz's claim of a "secret meeting" rested on a proxy from board member Walter Kearns, which indicated that at least some members knew the motion was coming. However, the legal threshold for an illegal meeting is a quorum—which, for this seven-member board, required four directors. While the proxy proved that three members (Kearns, Valle, and Petrella) had discussed the matter, it did not prove that a fourth member had joined them in secret.

The Petitioner testified that he felt systematically excluded. Because the agenda was not descriptive, he chose not to attend the meeting. Had the vacancy appointment—a term running from December 2012 through March 2014—been listed, he stated he "certainly would have attended" to participate in the discussion.

3. The Board’s Defense: Bylaws and "New Business"

The Board's defense highlighted a sophisticated understanding of procedural law. A critical, yet often overlooked, detail of this case is that the Board had to undo its own previous decisions. On August 29, 2012, the Board had passed a motion to fill the vacancy with the "fifth highest vote-getter" from the upcoming 2013 election. To appoint William Blake on December 11, they first had to move to rescind that previous motion during the "new business" portion of the meeting.

The following table compares the Petitioner’s expectations of transparency against the Board’s reliance on their governing documents:

Petitioner's Perspective (Transparency/Notice) Board’s Perspective (Legal Authority/Bylaws)
Major issues like Board composition must be on the written agenda so members can decide whether to attend. Bylaws § 3.6 expressly grant the Board power to declare a vacancy and appoint a successor without a community vote.
The "unknown" nature of the motion and the rescission of the previous election plan prevented open discussion. Board members have the right to introduce motions under "new business" even if they are not on the pre-printed agenda.
The lack of notice was an "orchestrated" attempt to exclude members from a "huge" leadership issue. Because members present were allowed to speak before the vote, the "open meeting" requirement was satisfied. (Bylaws § 3.6)

Vincent James Petrella, who admitted to "orchestrating" the appointment, even referred to the maneuver in a community blog as "politics at its best." Despite this admission of political strategy, the Board argued that their technical compliance with the law superseded the Petitioner's desire for better notice.

4. The Legal Framework: Understanding A.R.S. § 33-1804

To understand why the Board’s actions held up in court, we must look at the specific nuances of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1804. As a legal expert, I must point out a vital distinction: the law treats Board Meetings and Special Meetings of the Membership differently. While notice for a special membership meeting must explicitly state a purpose like "removing a director," the rules for regular board meetings are more flexible.

Key provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804 include:

  • The Right to Speak: The board is legally required to permit a member to speak once after the board has discussed a specific item but before the board takes a formal vote on that item.
  • Information Standards: Agendas must be available to those attending and should contain information "reasonably necessary" to inform members of the matters to be discussed.
  • The Policy of Openness: Arizona law directs that these statutes be construed in favor of open meetings. However, the ALJ noted that "reasonably necessary" does not strictly forbid a board from raising new business that wasn't anticipated when the agenda was posted.
  • Bylaw Seniority: Section 3.6 of the Corte Bella Bylaws specifically empowered the board to fill vacancies, providing a clear legal track for their actions independent of the state's general preference for elections.
5. The Verdict: Why the Petition Was Dismissed

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard. In the HOA context, this means the burden of proof is on the homeowner. Mr. Scheinholtz had to prove it was "more likely than not" that a violation occurred. His feeling of being excluded, while understandable, was not enough to overcome the Board’s technical adherence to the law.

The ALJ’s dismissal was based on three primary findings:

  1. No Illegal Quorum: There was no evidence that four or more members met secretly. The "orchestration" by three members did not constitute a "meeting" under the law.
  2. The "Right to Speak" Was Honored: Despite the item not being on the agenda, two homeowners who were present were allowed to comment on the motion before the vote was taken. This single act satisfied the statutory requirement for an open meeting.
  3. Community Resolution: The ALJ noted that the community later attempted to recall the appointee, Mr. Blake. That recall petition failed, and the majority of homeowners voted to retain him, suggesting a level of finality to the Board’s controversial but legal action.
6. Critical Takeaways for Homeowners and HOA Boards

The Scheinholtz case offers three vital lessons for anyone involved in community governance:

  1. The Power of Bylaws (The "Election" Myth): Homeowners often assume that major leadership changes must involve a community-wide election. However, Bylaws (like Corte Bella’s § 3.6) often grant boards the absolute authority to fill vacancies by appointment. The written Bylaws are the final authority.
  2. The "New Business" Loophole: While state policy encourages detailed agendas, boards are legally permitted to introduce and vote on significant motions during "new business" without prior notice. As long as a quorum didn't decide the matter in a secret meeting beforehand, "pre-planning" by a minority of the board is legally permissible.
  3. The Importance of the "Right to Speak": For a Board, allowing public comment after a motion is made but before the vote is a powerful legal shield. It transforms a potentially "closed-door" maneuver into a legally compliant "open meeting" action, even if the public is surprised by the topic.
7. Conclusion: The Balance of Power

Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, and the Board’s actions were deemed legal. Scheinholtz v. Corte Bella demonstrates that "politics at its best" is not necessarily "governance at its worst" in the eyes of the law. While the Board's decision to rescind their election plan and appoint a member via a non-agenda motion was controversial, it stayed within the bounds of Arizona law and the Association’s Bylaws.

For homeowners, the lesson is clear: to have a voice, you must be present. Because "New Business" can change the course of a community in minutes, staying informed requires reading the fine print of both State Law and your Association Bylaws. Understanding these rules is the only way to ensure the "Boardroom Door" remains open to everyone.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Martin F. Scheinholtz (petitioner)
    Corte Bella Country Club Association (Member)
    Homeowner alleging violation of open meeting laws
  • Yvette D. Ansel (attorney)
    Hymson Goldstein & Pantiliat, PLLC

Respondent Side

  • Troy B. Stratman (attorney)
    Mack Watson & Stratman, P.L.C.
  • Regina Shanney-Saborsky (witness)
    Corte Bella Country Club Association
    Board Member; testified she voted against the appointment
  • William Blake (board member)
    Corte Bella Country Club Association
    Appointed to fill vacant director position
  • Robert Moberly (witness)
    Corte Bella Country Club Association
    Board Member
  • Ray Valle (witness)
    Corte Bella Country Club Association
    Former Board Member; testified regarding the motion to appoint Blake
  • Walter E. Kearns (board member)
    Corte Bella Country Club Association
    Mentioned in testimony/proxy
  • Vincent James Petrella (witness)
    Corte Bella Country Club Association
    Former Board Member; admitted to 'orchestrating' the appointment
  • Robert Rosenberg (board member)
    Corte Bella Country Club Association
    Mentioned in testimony as not being aware of the motion beforehand
  • James R. Williams (witness)
    Corte Bella Country Club Association
    Board President

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Joni Cage (recipient)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/faxed the certification

Park, Denise vs. Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1213010-BFS-rhg
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2014-01-17
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome The Director accepted the ALJ's decision on rehearing. The Petitioner prevailed on 2 of 4 issues (maintenance and elections). The Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $1,000.00 (half the filing fee) and provide proof of weed control in common areas.
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Denise Park Counsel J. Roger Wood
Respondent Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association Counsel Jonathon V. O’Steen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1247
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 33-1250
A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The Director accepted the ALJ's decision on rehearing. The Petitioner prevailed on 2 of 4 issues (maintenance and elections). The Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $1,000.00 (half the filing fee) and provide proof of weed control in common areas.

Why this result: Petitioner lost the open meetings issue due to failure to attend despite notice, and the financial records issue due to the one-year statute of limitations.

Key Issues & Findings

Maintenance of common areas

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to maintain common areas, citing a broken wall, weeds, and overflowing trash containers. The Tribunal found credible evidence of these conditions.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with statute; eliminate or control weeds within 90 days and provide proof.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 73
  • 76
  • 133
  • 138
  • 139

Open meetings

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to conduct open meetings. The Tribunal found notice was mailed but Petitioner failed to attend.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Cited:

  • 73
  • 134

Proper elections

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold proper elections. The Tribunal found no election was held at the annual meeting.

Orders: HOA ordered to fully comply with election statutes in the future.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 73
  • 135
  • 138

Financial information

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide requested financial information. While the HOA failed to provide records within 10 days, the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Cited:

  • 73
  • 136
  • 137

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

12F-H1213010-BFS Decision – 334123.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:44:57 (205.6 KB)

12F-H1213010-BFS Decision – 370568.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:45:04 (41.0 KB)

12F-H1213010-BFS Decision – 376532.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:45:08 (209.2 KB)

Legal Analysis: Denise Park vs. Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

The case of Denise Park vs. Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association (No. 12F-H1213010-BFS-rhg) involved a series of administrative hearings before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings to address alleged violations of state statutes and association bylaws. The Petitioner, Denise Park, an owner of three units within the seventeen-unit complex, asserted that the association failed to maintain common areas, conduct open meetings, hold proper elections, and provide financial records.

Following an initial hearing in March 2013 and a subsequent rehearing in November 2013, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety determined that the association had violated two of the four charged provisions: A.R.S. § 33-1247 (maintenance of common elements) and A.R.S. § 33-1250 (proper elections). A third violation regarding financial records was factually established but ultimately dismissed due to the expiration of a one-year statute of limitations. The final order required the association to remediate common area issues, conduct lawful elections, and reimburse the Petitioner for half of her filing fees ($1,000.00).

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Maintenance of Common Elements (A.R.S. § 33-1247)

The Petitioner alleged a systematic failure to maintain the association's common areas. Evidence presented during the hearings identified several specific deficiencies:

  • Infrastructure Damage: A broken wall in the common area had remained damaged since 2003 after being struck by a vehicle.
  • Sanitation: The association provided only two family-sized trash containers for seventeen units, leading to constant overflowing.
  • Landscaping and Aesthetics: Common areas were overgrown with high weeds, and the exterior of the buildings suffered from peeling paint.

Association Defense: The Respondent argued that financial struggles, exacerbated by the Petitioner’s own delinquency in paying association dues for over two years, prevented them from performing "cosmetic" maintenance.

Legal Ruling: The Tribunal rejected the association's defense, noting that while the association eventually performed repairs (using back-dues paid by the Petitioner after the initial hearing), the violation existed at the time of the filing. The association's statutory duty to maintain common elements was not waived by financial hardship or member delinquency.

2. Election Procedures and Governance (A.R.S. § 33-1250)

The Petitioner charged that the association had not held a proper election for officers during her entire tenure as a member.

Association Defense: Testimony from the association treasurer, Carol Ann Klagge, revealed that at the May 24, 2012 meeting, only three members were present. All three were existing officers who "agreed to continue in their current capacity." The association argued that because only three members attended, no formal election was required or purposeful.

Legal Ruling: The Tribunal found this practice to be a violation of both A.R.S. § 33-1250 and the association's own bylaws. Specifically:

  • Bylaw Requirements: Section 5 of the Bylaws requires officers to be elected by a majority vote of eligible voters present.
  • Procedural Failure: The association admitted it did not conduct a formal nomination or election process, despite the ability of those present to do so. The ALJ ruled that the association must hold proper elections regardless of low attendance.
3. Financial Record Disclosure (A.R.S. § 33-1258)

The Petitioner requested financial records in August 2011 to investigate the association's financial status.

Legal Nuance: While the Tribunal found that the association failed to provide these records within the statutorily mandated 10-day period (records were not provided until early 2012), the timing of the legal filing became the deciding factor.

Statute of Limitations: Under A.R.S. § 12-541(5), actions upon a liability created by statute must be commenced within one year. Since the Petitioner did not file her petition until November 14, 2012—more than a year after the initial request and subsequent 10-day failure—the Tribunal concluded the statute of limitations precluded a finding of violation on this count during the rehearing.

4. Open Meeting Compliance (A.R.S. § 33-1248)

The Petitioner claimed she was not notified of the May 24, 2012 association meeting. However, the Respondent provided evidence that notice was mailed to her address and not returned as undeliverable. The Tribunal ruled that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof for this violation, noting that the failure of a unit owner to receive actual notice does not necessarily invalidate the meeting if proper notice was sent.

Important Quotes

On Maintenance and Financial Resources

"Montezuma stated that Montezuma had been unable to perform some cosmetic maintenance work because Petitioner and two other members had failed to pay their association dues." — Respondent's Answer to the Petition

Context: The association attempted to shift the blame for property neglect onto the Petitioner, though the Tribunal later ruled that the association maintains the power to impose special assessments and a statutory duty to maintain the property regardless of individual delinquencies.

On Election Informality

"Ms. Klagge testified that they did not want to vote for themselves and that there appeared to be no purpose to have a vote when only three members were present and all three present members were willing to continue in their capacity as officers." — Testimony of Carol Ann Klagge

Context: This quote highlights the association's informal approach to governance, which the ALJ determined was a direct violation of the formal election requirements set forth in the bylaws and state law.

On the Standard of Proof

"Proof by 'preponderance of the evidence' means that it is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is 'more likely true than not.'" — ALJ Conclusions of Law, citing In re Arnold and Baker Farms

Context: This establishes the legal threshold used by the Tribunal to evaluate the conflicting testimony regarding notice and maintenance.

Summary of Final Order

The Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety issued a Final Order on January 17, 2014, with the following mandates:

Requirement Deadline
Direct Payment to Petitioner $1,000.00 (half of filing fee) to be paid within 30 days.
Proof of Payment Submit to the Department within 30 days.
Weed Remediation Written proof of elimination/control within 90 days.
Continued Weed Control Follow-up proof of continued control within 180 days.
Future Compliance Strict adherence to A.R.S. §§ 33-1247 (Maintenance) and 33-1250 (Elections).

Actionable Insights

  • Statutory Timelines are Rigid: Members seeking to file petitions for violations must be cognizant of the one-year statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-541. Even if a violation is factually proven, delay in filing can result in dismissal.
  • Dues Delinquency vs. Association Duty: An association's obligation to maintain common areas is not contingent upon every member being current on dues. Boards should utilize special assessments or collection actions rather than allowing the physical property to deteriorate.
  • Formalism in Small HOAs: Small associations (such as this 17-unit complex) must still adhere strictly to bylaws regarding elections. "Agreements" to continue in office without a formal vote are legally insufficient and expose the board to litigation.
  • Notice Delivery Evidence: The use of mailing lists and affidavits of notice serves as prima facie evidence of notice being given. Members should ensure their current mailing address is on file in writing to contest notice issues effectively.

Study Guide: Legal and Regulatory Oversight of Condominium Associations

This study guide provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative legal proceedings in the matter of Denise Park v. Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association. It explores the statutory obligations of homeowners associations (HOAs) in Arizona, the rights of individual unit owners, and the procedural mechanics of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

I. Core Concepts and Legal Framework

1. Statutory Responsibilities of the Association

The case centers on several key provisions of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) that govern the operation of condominium associations:

  • Maintenance of Common Elements (A.R.S. § 33-1247): The association is responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of common areas, while individual owners are responsible for their units.
  • Open Meetings (A.R.S. § 33-1248): All meetings of the unit owners' association and the board of directors must be open to all members or their designated representatives. Notice must be provided at least 10 but no more than 50 days in advance.
  • Voting and Elections (A.R.S. § 33-1250): This statute outlines how votes are allocated and cast. Notably, after the period of "declarant control" ends, votes may not be cast via proxy; they must be cast in person or by absentee ballot.
  • Availability of Records (A.R.S. § 33-1258 / § 33-1805): Associations must make financial and other records available for examination by a member within ten business days of a request.
2. Burden and Standard of Proof

In administrative hearings of this nature, the following legal standards apply:

  • Burden of Proof: Falls upon the party asserting the claim (in this case, the Petitioner).
  • Standard of Proof: Preponderance of the Evidence. This is defined as evidence sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that a proposition is "more likely true than not."
3. Statute of Limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541)

Legal actions regarding liabilities created by statute (other than penalties or forfeitures) must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrues. In this case, the failure to meet this timeline resulted in the dismissal of a previously upheld violation.

II. Case Summary: Park v. Montezuma Fairway Villas

The Dispute

Petitioner Denise Park, owner of three units in a 17-unit complex, alleged that the Montezuma Fairway Villas HOA violated four specific statutes related to maintenance, open meetings, elections, and financial disclosures.

Findings of Fact
  1. Maintenance: The common areas suffered from a broken wall (damaged since 2003), high weeds, overflowing trash containers, and peeling paint. The HOA argued financial inability due to delinquent dues (including the Petitioner's).
  2. Meetings: An association meeting was held on May 24, 2012. While the Petitioner claimed a lack of notice, the HOA provided evidence that notice was mailed to her various addresses and was not returned.
  3. Elections: No formal election was held during the May 2012 meeting. The three attending members (who were already officers) simply agreed to continue their roles because no other members were willing to serve.
  4. Financial Records: The Petitioner requested records in August 2011 but did not receive them until January/February 2012, exceeding the 10-day statutory limit.
Procedural Outcomes

The case involved an initial hearing (March 2013), a rehearing (November 2013), and a Final Order (January 2014).

Issue Initial Decision (March 2013) Rehearing/Final Order (Jan 2014) Reason for Change
Maintenance Violation Found Violation Found Physical evidence of neglect.
Open Meetings No Violation No Violation Notice was mailed per statute.
Elections Violation Found Violation Found Failure to hold formal elections.
Financial Records Violation Found No Violation Barred by 1-year Statute of Limitations.

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. According to A.R.S. § 33-1258, how many business days does an association have to fulfill a request for the examination of records?
  2. What was the HOA's primary defense for failing to maintain the common areas of the Montezuma Fairway Villas?
  3. Why was the violation regarding the failure to provide financial records overturned during the rehearing?
  4. Under A.R.S. § 33-1250, what are the two primary ways votes must be cast after the termination of declarant control?
  5. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) define "preponderance of the evidence"?
  6. In the Final Order, what specific maintenance tasks was the HOA ordered to provide proof of completing?
  7. What percentage of the Petitioner's filing fee was the HOA ultimately ordered to pay?
  8. What is the definition of "Period of Declarant Control" as found in A.R.S. § 33-1250(I)?

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Interplay of Financial Delinquency and Statutory Duty: Analyze the HOA’s argument that it could not fulfill its maintenance duties under A.R.S. § 33-1247 because the Petitioner and others failed to pay their dues. Does financial hardship excuse an association from statutory compliance? Support your argument with details from the ALJ's decision.
  2. Governance vs. Participation: In the Montezuma case, the HOA failed to hold elections because only three members attended the meeting and no one else was willing to serve. Discuss the legal implications of a "willingness to serve" vs. the statutory requirement to hold formal elections. How should an association handle a total lack of volunteer interest?
  3. The Importance of Procedural Timelines: Evaluate the impact of A.R.S. § 12-541(5) on this case. How does the one-year statute of limitations protect entities, and what does its application in the Park case suggest about the responsibilities of a Petitioner in monitoring their own legal claims?

V. Glossary of Important Terms

  • Absentee Ballot: A ballot used to cast a vote without being physically present at a meeting; required for HOA elections after declarant control ends.
  • A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes): The codified laws of the state of Arizona.
  • By-Laws: The internal rules and regulations that govern the administration of an association.
  • Common Elements: Portions of the condominium other than the units (e.g., landscaping, exterior walls, trash areas), for which the association is responsible for maintenance.
  • Declarant Control: The period during which the developer (declarant) or their designees have the power to appoint or elect the members of the board of directors.
  • Final Order: The definitive administrative decision issued by the Director of the Department, which may accept, modify, or reject the ALJ's recommended order.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in administrative hearings; means a proposition is more likely true than not.
  • Proxy: A grant of authority by a member to another person to vote on their behalf. Note: A.R.S. § 33-1250 prohibits the use of proxies in most condominium elections after declarant control.
  • Quorum: The minimum number of members or votes that must be present at a meeting to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.
  • Special Assessment: A fee collected from unit owners for a specific purpose (e.g., a major repair) above and beyond regular monthly dues.

HOA Governance and Homeowner Rights: Lessons from the Montezuma Fairway Villas Dispute

Introduction: A Cautionary Tale of Small Association Management

In the quiet community of Lake Montezuma, Arizona, a legal battle between a homeowner and a small condominium association serves as a stark reminder that size does not exempt an organization from strict legal compliance. The dispute involved Denise Park, an owner of three units, and the Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association, a 17-unit complex.

What began as frustration over visible property neglect escalated into a multi-year legal conflict processed through the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). This case underscores a common breakdown in small association governance, where financial struggles and a lack of volunteer interest lead to the abandonment of statutory duties. By examining the progression from the initial March 2013 decision to the Director’s Final Order in January 2014, we can identify the non-negotiable legal obligations HOAs hold regarding maintenance, democratic elections, and financial transparency.

The Four Pillars of the Complaint

The Petitioner, Denise Park, alleged that the Association failed to meet its legal obligations under four specific Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). These statutes form the backbone of condominium governance and homeowner protections:

  • Common Area Maintenance (A.R.S. § 33-1247): The legal requirement for an association to maintain, repair, and replace common elements.
  • Open Meeting Requirements (A.R.S. § 33-1248): The mandate that all meetings of the association and board must be open to all members, with proper notice provided.
  • Proper Election Procedures (A.R.S. § 33-1250): The requirement to follow specific procedures for casting votes and conducting elections, as defined by statute and association bylaws.
  • Access to Financial Records (A.R.S. § 33-1258): The right of members to examine and receive copies of association records within ten business days of a request.
Maintenance vs. Financial Reality: The Association’s Defense

The core of the dispute centered on the physical deterioration of the property. The Petitioner testified to a grim scene: common area weeds "high," peeling exterior paint, and trash containers that were constantly overflowing. Most notably, a wall in the common area had remained broken since it was hit by a car in 2003.

The Association’s defense rested on a "financial reality" argument. The board treasurer, Carol Ann Klagge, testified that the association was struggling, largely because the Petitioner and other owners had failed to pay their dues for over two years. They argued that maintenance was deferred due to a lack of funds and a lack of member interest. Regarding the broken wall, the Association offered a unique—and legally insufficient—perspective:

"The broken wall had been hit by a car… Montezuma had not repaired the damaged wall because Montezuma could not afford to repair the wall. Ms. Klagge stated that the broken wall was still functional as a wall."

This defense illustrated a significant gap between the board's perception of "functionality" and the legal requirement for the prompt repair and maintenance of common elements. Notably, the Association was only able to perform the repairs—fixing the wall and painting—after the Petitioner paid her delinquent dues during the course of the litigation.

The Verdict: Legal Realities of HOA Governance

The legal proceedings saw a shift in the "prevailing party" status. While the Administrative Law Judge initially found the Association in violation of three of the four counts in March 2013, a subsequent Rehearing and the Final Order reduced this to two violations.

Allegation Court Finding Reasoning Stage of Litigation
Maintenance Violation Found Visible neglect was proven; financial hardship does not excuse the statutory duty to maintain. Final Order
Open Meetings No Violation Notice was mailed to the Petitioner’s address on file; her failure to attend did not invalidate the meeting. Final Order
Elections Violation Found Lack of a quorum does not authorize an illegal extension of terms. "Agreeing to continue" is not a valid election. Final Order
Financial Records No Violation (Statutory Bar) A violation occurred (late delivery), but the claim was barred by a one-year statute of limitations. Changed on Rehearing
The Affirmative Defense: Application of the One-Year Statute of Limitations

The most significant legal maneuver in this case involved the "Statutory Bar." In the initial hearing, the Association was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 because it took six months to fulfill a record request. However, on Rehearing, the Association successfully raised an affirmative defense under A.R.S. § 12-541(5).

Arizona law establishes a strict one-year limit for bringing actions based on a liability created by statute. In this instance, the "cause of action" accrued in August 2011, when the Association missed the 10-day legal window to provide records. Although the records were eventually provided in February 2012, the Petitioner did not file her petition until November 2012—more than one year after the initial violation occurred. Consequently, the court ruled that the claim was barred. This serves as a vital command to homeowners: legal remedies for statutory violations must be pursued within one year of the accrual, or the right to recovery is lost.

The Final Order: Restoring Order to Montezuma Fairway Villas

The Director’s Final Order, dated January 17, 2014, modified the previous recommendations to reflect the Association's remedial actions and the updated prevailing party count (2 of 4 counts).

  1. Future Compliance: The Association is mandated to strictly comply with maintenance (A.R.S. § 33-1247) and election (A.R.S. § 33-1250) statutes moving forward.
  2. Direct Financial Reimbursement: Because the Petitioner prevailed on only half of her claims, the Association was ordered to pay her $1,000 (one-half of the $2,000 filing fee). The Director specifically ordered that this payment be made directly to the Petitioner within 30 days.
  3. Specific Maintenance Mandates: As the Association had already repaired the wall and performed painting prior to the Final Order, those requirements were removed. The HOA was ordered to provide proof of weed control within 90 days, with follow-up proof of continued control at 180 days.
Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Board Members
  • For Boards (The Quorum Trap): A lack of attendance at an annual meeting does not grant the board the power to simply "agree to continue" their terms indefinitely. Boards must follow their Bylaws for nominations and notice. Financial hardship or a lack of volunteer interest never waives the statutory duty to maintain the community.
  • For Homeowners (The Delinquency Factor): There is a measure of "unclean hands" irony here. While the Petitioner won her maintenance claim, the Association proved it literally could not afford the repairs until she paid her dues. Homeowners must maintain good financial standing to effectively hold their boards accountable for property neglect.
  • For Both (The One-Year Bar): The application of A.R.S. § 12-541(5) is a "hard" deadline. Whether you are a board member defending a claim or a homeowner filing one, the timing of the filing is as critical as the facts of the case.
Conclusion

The Montezuma Fairway Villas case demonstrates that small associations are held to the same rigorous legal standards as large-scale developments. Governance cannot be treated casually, and financial struggles do not permit a board to bypass statutory duties or democratic processes. Ultimately, transparency, adherence to election cycles, and proactive maintenance—supported by timely assessment payments from owners—are the only ways to prevent costly and time-consuming administrative hearings.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Denise Park (petitioner)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association (Member)
    Owner of three condominium units
  • J. Roger Wood (attorney)
    J. Roger Wood PLLC
    Represented Petitioner in rehearing

Respondent Side

  • Carol Ann Klagge (witness)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association
    Treasurer; owns three units
  • Jay Klagge (board member)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association
    Secretary
  • Tony Sturgeon (board member)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association
    Vice-President
  • Helen Bartels (witness)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association
    Became board member after March 28, 2013 hearing
  • Jonathon V. O’Steen (attorney)
    O’Steen & Harrison, PLC
    Represented Respondent in rehearing; listed as Petitioner's attorney in initial hearing decision
  • Kevin R. Harper (attorney)
    Harper Law, PLC
    Represented Respondent in initial hearing; Final Order mailing list lists 'Denise Park c/o Harper Law PLC'

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Joni Cage (Complaint Program Manager)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

Kirschner, Stuart vs. Trilogy at Vistancia Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112008-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-03-20
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome The ALJ dismissed the petition, concluding that the HOA acted reasonably and within its authority under the CC&Rs and Fine Policy when it suspended the homeowner's club privileges for 60 days following a code-of-conduct violation where the homeowner used profane language and aggressive behavior.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Stuart Kirschner Counsel Kevin R. Harper
Respondent Trilogy at Vistancia Community Association Counsel Todd M. Allison

Alleged Violations

Fine Policy and Appeal Process

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, concluding that the HOA acted reasonably and within its authority under the CC&Rs and Fine Policy when it suspended the homeowner's club privileges for 60 days following a code-of-conduct violation where the homeowner used profane language and aggressive behavior.

Why this result: The Petitioner was found to have violated the code of conduct, and the HOA followed proper procedures in imposing the suspension; the Petitioner also waived his right to a hearing during the internal process.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to adhere to discipline policies regarding code-of-conduct violation

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent failed to adhere to its policies when it disciplined him for an alleged personal code-of-conduct violation involving a confrontation with a developer's employee at the community club.

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lost

Cited:

  • Fine Policy and Appeal Process
  • CC&Rs 5.3
  • Rule 3.3.2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

11F-H1112008-BFS Decision – 289547.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:38:40 (115.2 KB)

11F-H1112008-BFS Decision – 292439.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:38:44 (62.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Kirschner v. Trilogy at Vistancia Community Association (Case No. 11F-H1112008-BFS)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing and subsequent final decision regarding a dispute between Stuart Kirschner (Petitioner) and the Trilogy at Vistancia Community Association (Respondent). The case centered on a "code-of-conduct" violation occurring on September 18, 2011, at the Kiva Club, a social hub within the Trilogy at Vistancia planned community.

The Petitioner was sanctioned with a 60-day suspension of community club privileges following an aggressive confrontation with a developer's sales associate over parking. The Petitioner challenged the association’s disciplinary process, alleging a failure to adhere to established policies. On March 20, 2012, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas ruled in favor of the Respondent, finding the suspension reasonable and the association's procedures compliant with its governing documents. This decision was certified as the final administrative action on May 10, 2012.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Behavioral Standards and Community Governance

The core of the dispute rests on the enforcement of the association's "code of conduct." Under the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the association's specific rules, members are held to standards of decorum in common areas.

  • Rule 3.3.2: Explicitly prohibits "loud, profane, indecent or abusive language" and "harassment or physical abuse."
  • Board Authority: The CC&Rs grant the Board of Directors authority to adopt rules protecting the health, safety, and welfare of residents and employees.
2. The Nature of the Incident

The incident involved a verbal confrontation between the Petitioner and Kelly Young, a sales associate for the developer (Shea Homes).

  • Petitioner’s Perspective: He was recovering from hip surgery and was frustrated by a lack of handicapped parking. He admitted to being "testy" and using the word "damn" but claimed he was not abusive.
  • Respondent’s Evidence: Testimony from Ms. Young and the general manager, Mr. Williams, suggested a more aggressive encounter. Ms. Young reported being yelled and cursed at in front of prospective buyers, leaving her "shaken" and "fearful."
3. Procedural Due Process in HOAs

The case highlights the importance of the internal "Fine Policy and Appeal Process."

  • Investigation: The onsite manager, Jeffrey Dixon, conducted an investigation, reviewed incident reports, and spoke with parties involved to determine "sufficient probable cause" before proceeding with disciplinary action.
  • Right to Hearing: The Petitioner was initially granted a hearing, which was postponed at his request. However, the Petitioner eventually waived his right to this hearing via email on October 10, 2011.
  • Finality of Decisions: Once the Board makes a decision following a waiver or a hearing, the association's policy states that such decisions are final and not subject to further internal appeal.
4. Administrative Oversight and Certification

The matter was adjudicated through the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) as permitted by A.R.S. § 41-2198.01.

  • ALJ Recommendation: The ALJ found the Petitioner violated the code of conduct and that the 60-day suspension was "reasonable and justified."
  • Final Certification: Because the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify the ALJ decision by May 9, 2012, the decision became the final administrative action of the Department.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote Context
"Get your god damn golf cart out of the front of the club." Testimony of Ms. Young describing the Petitioner's opening statement during the confrontation.
"[Petitioner] admitted that he had taken pain medication and was tired and testy and that he was upset because it would have been beneficial to him if he could have parked in front of the Kiva Club." Finding of Fact No. 12, explaining the Petitioner's physical and mental state at the time of the incident.
"Petitioner testified that he chose not to go ahead with the hearing because he felt Respondent had already made up its mind about the September 18, 2011 incident." Finding of Fact No. 26, explaining why the Petitioner waived his right to a formal association hearing.
"The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s decision to temporarily suspend Petitioner’s Kiva Club membership for a period of sixty days was reasonable and justified and in accordance with the provisions of the Fine Policy and Appeal Process." Conclusion of Law No. 10, the primary legal determination justifying the HOA's disciplinary action.
"Respondent’s refusal to grant Petitioner an appeal of the Board of Directors’ decision in this matter is in accordance with the terms of the Fine Policy and Appeal Process." Conclusion of Law No. 11, confirming that the HOA did not violate due process by denying a post-decision appeal.

Legal Findings and Conclusions

The OAH established several key legal benchmarks during this proceeding:

  • Standard of Proof: The burden of proof lies with the party asserting a claim (the Petitioner), and the standard is "preponderance of the evidence"—meaning the claim must be "more likely true than not."
  • Scope of Authority: The Respondent (HOA) has the statutory and contractual right to manage common areas and implement rules for the safety of employees and residents (A.R.S. § 41-2141 (B) and CC&Rs 5.3).
  • Board Discretion: The Fine Policy and Appeal Process gives the Board "sole and absolute discretion" to determine if a violation constitutes a "material danger to persons or property."
  • Reasonableness of Sanction: The 60-day suspension was deemed a "temporary sanction" appropriate for a code-of-conduct violation involving erratic and inappropriate behavior.

Actionable Insights

For Community Associations (HOAs)
  • Documentation is Critical: The success of the Respondent’s case relied heavily on written incident reports, internal emails, and a clearly defined "Fine Policy and Appeal Process."
  • Follow Established Procedures: The HOA avoided liability by strictly adhering to the timeline and notification requirements set forth in their own governing documents.
  • Investigatory Neutrality: Having an onsite manager (Mr. Dixon) conduct an investigation to find "probable cause" before moving to a Board decision adds a layer of procedural fairness that withstands legal scrutiny.
For Association Members
  • Consequences of Waivers: Waiving a right to a hearing is a significant legal step. The Petitioner’s choice to waive his hearing effectively finalized the Board’s ability to rule based on the available investigation.
  • Conduct in Common Areas: Private community rules often grant Boards broad discretion to interpret "abusive" or "profane" language as a safety issue, justifying immediate suspension of privileges.
  • Finality of HOA Appeals: Membership should be aware that internal association appeal processes are often finite; once a Board issues a final decision under an approved policy, the next step is typically external administrative or legal action.

Case Study Guide: Kirschner v. Trilogy at Vistancia Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Stuart Kirschner and the Trilogy at Vistancia Community Association. It explores the intersection of homeowners association (HOA) governance, code-of-conduct enforcement, and the administrative legal process in Arizona.

I. Case Overview and Key Concepts

Central Dispute

The case centers on whether the Trilogy at Vistancia Community Association ("Respondent") properly adhered to its policies when disciplining Stuart Kirschner ("Petitioner") for an alleged code-of-conduct violation occurring on September 18, 2011, at the Kiva Club.

Core Entities
Entity Role/Description
Stuart Kirschner Petitioner; a resident and member of the Association.
Trilogy at Vistancia Community Association Respondent; an age-restricted, planned community in Arizona.
Kiva Club A 35,000 square-foot social hub including fitness centers, pools, and a library.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) The body responsible for hearing petitions from members of homeowners associations.
Board of Directors The governing body of the Association responsible for final disciplinary decisions.
Governing Documents
  • CC&Rs (Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions): Provides the authority to adopt rules protecting the health, safety, and welfare of residents and employees.
  • Fine Policy and Appeal Process: The "controlling document" for the disciplinary matter, outlining how violations are investigated and appealed.
  • Code of Conduct (Rule 3.3.2): Prohibits loud, profane, indecent, or abusive language, and harassment.

II. Summary of Facts and Testimony

The September 18 Incident

The dispute arose from a confrontation near the entrance of the Kiva Club regarding the parking of a developer's golf cart.

  • Petitioner’s Perspective: Recovering from hip surgery and in pain, Kirschner was frustrated by the lack of handicapped parking. He admitted to using the word "damn" and raising his voice but denied being abusive or spitting.
  • Ms. Young’s Perspective: An employee of the developer (Shea Homes), Young testified that Kirschner yelled profanities at her in front of prospective buyers, leaving her "embarrassed and shaken."
  • The Investigation: Jeffrey Dixon, the onsite manager, determined there was "sufficient credible evidence" to proceed with a violation notice after speaking with those involved.
Procedural Timeline
  1. September 20, 2011: Association notifies Kirschner of the alleged violation and possible sanctions.
  2. September 26, 2011: Kirschner requests to postpone the hearing until after November 3.
  3. September 30, 2011: Association approves the delay but suspends Kirschner’s Kiva Club privileges pending the hearing.
  4. October 10, 2011: Kirschner waives his right to a hearing via email.
  5. October 21, 2011: The Board issues a final decision, suspending privileges for 60 days (effective back to Sept 30).
  6. November 30, 2011: Privileges are fully reinstated.

III. Legal Conclusions and Standards

Burden and Standard of Proof

Under A.A.C. R2-19-119, the party asserting a claim (the Petitioner) carries the burden of proof. The standard is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the proposition must be shown to be "more likely true than not."

Judicial Findings

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reached the following conclusions:

  • Violation Confirmed: Evidence demonstrated that Kirschner confronted Ms. Young in a loud and profane manner, violating Rule 3.3.2.
  • Reasonableness of Sanction: The 60-day suspension was deemed reasonable and justified given the Board’s determination that the behavior constituted a danger to others.
  • Finality of Board Decision: Per the Fine Policy, once the Board makes a decision, it is final. The Association was within its rights to deny Kirschner's subsequent request for an appeal after he had waived his original hearing.

IV. Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. What is the "Kiva Club" and why was it significant in this case?
  • Answer: It is a 35,000 square-foot social hub for the community. It was the site of the alleged code-of-conduct violation and the facility from which the Petitioner was suspended.
  1. What specific rule did the Petitioner allegedly violate?
  • Answer: Rule 3.3.2 of the Association’s Rules, which prohibits "loud, profane, indecent or abusive language" and "harassment."
  1. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, as cited in the case, what does "preponderance of the evidence" mean?
  • Answer: Evidence of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition; showing a fact is "more probable than not."
  1. Why did the Petitioner initially request a delay for his hearing?
  • Answer: He requested a delay until after November 3, 2011 (though the specific personal reason for the delay is not explicitly detailed in the source beyond the dates).
  1. What was the final outcome of the petition filed by Stuart Kirschner?
  • Answer: The ALJ ordered that no action was required of the Respondent and the Petition was dismissed.

V. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Impact of Waivers: Analyze the legal consequences of Stuart Kirschner waiving his right to a hearing on October 10. How did this decision affect his ability to contest the Board’s final ruling on October 21?
  2. Balancing Rights and Safety: The Board of Directors has the "sole and absolute discretion" to determine if a violation constitutes a "material danger to persons or property." Discuss the balance between an individual member's rights and an association’s authority to maintain community safety as presented in this case.
  3. The Role of Context in Conduct Violations: Consider the Petitioner’s defense regarding his medical condition (hip replacement) and pain medication. To what extent should an individual’s physical or emotional state mitigate the enforcement of a community code of conduct?

VI. Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) A presiding officer who hears evidence and makes recommended orders in administrative legal proceedings.
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 The Arizona Revised Statute that permits members of homeowners associations to file petitions against their associations.
CC&Rs Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the legal documents that lay out the guidelines for a planned community.
Certification The process by which an ALJ's decision is officially recognized as the final administrative decision of an agency (e.g., the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety).
Petitioner The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition (Stuart Kirschner).
Respondent The party against whom a petition is filed (Trilogy at Vistancia Community Association).
Stay of Privileges The temporary suspension of membership rights (e.g., access to the Kiva Club) pending the resolution of a dispute.

Community Conduct and HOA Authority: Lessons from the Kirschner v. Trilogy Case

1. Introduction: A Parking Dispute That Went Too Far

The Kiva Club is designed to be the 35,000-square-foot social heart of the Trilogy at Vistancia community—a sanctuary for fitness, relaxation, and neighborly engagement. But on September 18, 2011, this hub of tranquility became the backdrop for a hostile confrontation that would eventually redefine the boundaries of resident behavior and association authority.

What began as a mundane frustration over a lack of handicapped parking escalated into a protracted legal battle in Stuart Kirschner v. Trilogy at Vistancia Community Association. This case provides a masterclass in the legal weight of community codes of conduct and the expansive discretionary powers held by Homeowners Associations (HOAs). For residents and board members alike, the saga is a cautionary tale about how a few moments of "testy" behavior can lead to a complete loss of community privileges.

2. The Kiva Club Incident: Two Sides of the Story

The conflict was sparked when Petitioner Stuart Kirschner, recovering from hip replacement surgery and only three days removed from using a walker, arrived at the Kiva Club. Frustrated by the lack of available handicapped parking, he noted a developer’s golf cart parked near the entrance. He entered the club to confront the person he believed was responsible: Ms. Kelly Young.

There is a poignant irony in this confrontation: Ms. Young was the very sales associate who had sold Kirschner his home six years earlier. The encounter that followed was viewed through two very different lenses during the administrative hearing:

Feature Petitioner's Account (Kirschner) Witness's Account (Ms. Young) Third-Party Observation (Mr. Williams)
Language Used Admitted to using "damn" and raising his voice. Reported yelling and cursing: “Get your god damn golf cart out of the front of the club.” N/A
Physical Actions Described a 30-second interaction; denied "storming" due to limited mobility. Reported being approached loudly and aggressively during a sales tour for prospective buyers. N/A
Emotional Impact Claimed he was merely "tired and testy" due to pain medication and surgery. Reported being embarrassed, shaken, and genuinely fearful during the encounter. Observed Ms. Young immediately after the incident; testified she was "visibly shaken."

Kirschner argued that his physical state—exhausted by recovery and influenced by prescribed narcotics—should serve as a mitigating factor. However, the Association viewed the outburst not as a medical lapse, but as a clear breach of community standards.

3. The HOA Investigation and Procedural Friction

Following the incident, Onsite Manager Jeffrey Dixon conducted an investigation, reviewing reports and interviewing parties to establish "probable cause" for a violation. The Association's response followed a rigid, yet notably layered, administrative path:

  1. Notification: On September 20, 2011, the Association sent Kirschner a formal notice of the alleged violation.
  2. Administrative Friction: In a detail often seen in community management, Kirschner attempted to speak with the individual who signed the violation letter. That individual denied writing it, admitting that Mr. Dixon was the actual author. While such internal hand-offs are common, they often contribute to a resident's feeling of procedural alienation.
  3. The Suspension: Kirschner requested his hearing be delayed until November. On September 30, the Board approved the delay but concurrently suspended his Kiva Club privileges "until the matter was resolved."
  4. The Point of No Return: On October 10, believing the Board had already reached a predetermined conclusion, Kirschner sent an email waiving his right to a hearing.
  5. Final Sanction: With the hearing waived, the Board issued a final decision on October 21, imposing a 60-day suspension of all Kiva Club privileges.
4. The Legal Framework: CC&Rs as a Private Contract

To evaluate the dispute, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) looked to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 and the community’s governing documents. It is a fundamental principle of community governance that the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) serve as a private contract between the resident and the Association. By purchasing a home, the resident voluntarily contracts away certain absolute freedoms in exchange for community order.

  • CC&R Section 5.3: Grants the Association the authority to implement rules to protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents and staff.
  • Code of Conduct Rule 3.3.2: Explicitly prohibits "loud, profane, indecent or abusive language" and "harassment."
  • The Standard of Proof: The ALJ applied the "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard. This means the facts must simply show that the violation was "more likely true than not."

The "tie-breaker" in this he-said/she-said battle was the testimony of Mr. Williams. His observation of Ms. Young’s "visibly shaken" state tipped the scales, providing the necessary weight to meet the preponderance standard.

5. The Final Ruling: The Power of "Absolute Discretion"

The ALJ ultimately dismissed Kirschner’s petition, ruling that the 60-day suspension was "reasonable and justified." The legal pivot point was the Board’s "sole and absolute discretion."

Under the Association’s Fine Policy, the Board has the power to act immediately if they determine a resident’s behavior constitutes a "material danger" to others. The ALJ did not second-guess the Board’s definition of "danger"; instead, the court deferred to the Board’s discretionary power to categorize erratic, profane, and aggressive behavior as a threat to the community's welfare. Because Kirschner had waived his internal hearing, the Board's decision became final and shielded from further internal appeal, a reality the ALJ upheld.

6. Key Takeaways for Residents and HOA Boards

The Kirschner v. Trilogy case offers several critical lessons for those living in or managing planned communities:

  • Code of Conduct is Non-Negotiable: "Testy" behavior, medical stress, or frustration with parking do not grant a resident a license to use profanity or harass staff. Community rules regarding decorum are enforceable and carry real consequences.
  • Governing Documents are Binding Contracts: The CC&Rs and Fine Policies are the "controlling documents." Courts generally respect the "sole and absolute discretion" clauses within these contracts unless a Board acts with proven malice or outside its authority.
  • Procedural Finality is a Trap for the Unwary: Waiving a hearing is a point of no return. Once a resident waives their right to be heard internally, the Board’s decision is effectively sealed. Residents should engage with the process rather than bypass it out of frustration.
  • The "Preponderance" Standard Favors the Association: Associations do not need to prove a violation "beyond a reasonable doubt." They only need to show it is more likely than not that the incident occurred as described.
7. Conclusion: Building a Respectful Community

The authority of an HOA to suspend a resident's privileges is a significant power, but as this case demonstrates, it is a power rooted in the protection of the collective. The Kiva Club is a shared space, and its utility depends entirely on a foundation of mutual respect. While Mr. Kirschner’s physical frustrations were real, they did not outweigh the community's right to a workplace and social environment free from harassment. For residents, the lesson is clear: the rules you agree to upon move-in are the same rules that will be used to judge your most difficult moments.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Stuart Kirschner (petitioner)
    Trilogy at Vistancia Community Association (Member)
    Homeowner; hip replacement patient
  • Kevin R. Harper (attorney)
    Harper Law P.L.C.

Respondent Side

  • Todd M. Allison (attorney)
    Fennemore Craig, P.C.
  • Kelly Young (witness)
    Shea Homes (Developer)
    Sales associate involved in the altercation
  • Robert Williams (board member)
    Trilogy at Vistancia Community Association
    Also General Manager/Sales Manager for the development
  • Jeffrey Dixon (property manager)
    Management Company
    Onsite manager; investigated the violation

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Director receiving the decision
  • Cliff J. Vanell (agency director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Director certifying the decision
  • Beth Soliere (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of transmitted decision

Cavanaugh, William vs. Agua Dulce Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1213005-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2013-03-11
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome The ALJ dismissed the petition finding that the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not have jurisdiction over zoning code allegations and the Petitioner failed to prove violations of the CC&Rs or statutes.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner William Cavanaugh Counsel —
Respondent Agua Dulce Homeowners Association Counsel Douglas W. Glasson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1205

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition finding that the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not have jurisdiction over zoning code allegations and the Petitioner failed to prove violations of the CC&Rs or statutes.

Why this result: Lack of jurisdiction over local zoning ordinances and failure to meet the burden of proof regarding CC&R violations.

Key Issues & Findings

Applicability of local ordinances

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated zoning laws and CC&Rs regarding approved vegetation types, specifically allowing non-native and high-pollen plants.

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1205
  • Pima County Zoning Code Co9-85-50

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

12F-H1213005-BFS Decision – 329125.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:44:10 (99.4 KB)

12F-H1213005-BFS Decision – 334511.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:44:18 (59.5 KB)

Briefing Document: Cavanaugh v. Agua Dulce Homeowners Association (Case No. 12F-H1213005-BFS)

Executive Summary

This briefing document details the administrative hearing and subsequent final agency action regarding a dispute between William Cavanaugh (Petitioner) and the Agua Dulce Homeowners Association (Agua/Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated Pima County Zoning Laws and its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by permitting the planting of non-native, high-pollen, and high-water-usage vegetation.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety lacks jurisdiction over municipal zoning codes. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to provide credible evidence that the Association violated its own CC&Rs or state statutes. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The decision was certified as the final administrative action on April 17, 2013, after the Department took no action to modify or reject the ALJ's recommendations.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Regulatory Limits

A central theme of the case is the limitation of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety's authority. While A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 allows the Department to hear disputes regarding violations of planned community documents (CC&Rs) and specific state statutes regulating HOAs, it does not extend to the enforcement of county-level zoning ordinances. The Respondent argued successfully that Pima County Zoning Code Co9-85-50 is not a private rule or contract between the Petitioner and the Association, and therefore falls outside the Department’s jurisdiction.

2. Environmental and Health Concerns vs. Property Rights

The Petitioner raised concerns regarding the environmental impact of vegetation choices, specifically targeting non-native and high-pollen plants. He asserted that these choices led to personal health issues. Conversely, other homeowners and the Association Board emphasized:

  • Property Rights: A concern that individual private property rights would be "trampled" by overly restrictive vegetation mandates.
  • Financial Impact: Testimony from Association members suggested that the cost of removing existing vegetation and implementing changes suggested by the Petitioner would be prohibitively high.
3. Architectural Control and ARC Governance

The role of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was a point of contention. The Association maintained that while it is strict regarding front yard vegetation to maintain community value, it provides "guidelines" rather than absolute mandates for private backyards. Evidence suggested that Pima County officials had previously informed the Association that the county was not concerned with vegetation in private backyards, reinforcing the Association's stance on internal governance.

4. Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings

The case highlights the application of the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. Under A.A.C. R2-19-119, the burden rests on the party asserting the claim. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to present credible evidence specifically linking the Association’s actions to a violation of the CC&Rs, leading to the dismissal of the claims that did fall within the Department's jurisdiction.

Participant Summary

Name Role Key Position/Testimony
William Cavanaugh Petitioner Alleged violations of zoning laws and CC&Rs; cited health issues from high-pollen plants.
Linda Ware ARC Member Denied allowing high-pollen plants; emphasized high cost of Petitioner's proposed changes.
Betty Blaylock Board President Confirmed Pima County had no concerns regarding private backyard vegetation.
Terry Anderson Homeowner Expressed concern over the potential for property rights to be infringed and the high cost of plant removal.
M. Douglas ALJ Determined lack of jurisdiction over zoning and dismissed petition for lack of evidence.

Important Quotes with Context

"The Department does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over alleged infractions of the Pima County Zoning Code."

  • Context: Found in the Association's Answer to the Petition, this statement established the primary legal defense regarding the Department's limited scope of authority.

"A zoning, subdivision or building code or other real estate use law, ordinance or rule shall not prohibit a condominium form of ownership or impose any requirement on a condominium which it would not impose on a physically identical development under a different form of ownership."

  • Context: A.R.S. § 33-1205, referenced by the Petitioner to support his argument regarding the applicability of local ordinances to the Association.

"Petitioner failed to present any credible evidence that Agua violated any statutes regulating homeowners’ associations or that Agua violated any of Agua’s CC&Rs."

  • Context: The ALJ's Conclusion of Law No. 5, which served as the factual basis for the dismissal of the petition.

Actionable Insights

  • Jurisdictional Clarity: When filing petitions with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, claims must be strictly tied to violations of CC&Rs or state HOA statutes (A.R.S. Title 33). Allegations involving municipal or county zoning codes must be pursued through the appropriate local government channels rather than administrative HOA hearings.
  • Evidence Substantiation: Petitioners must provide specific, credible evidence that identifies which section of a community's CC&Rs has been violated. General testimony regarding health or environmental preferences is insufficient to meet the "preponderance of the evidence" standard required in administrative law.
  • Internal Resolution: The testimony indicated that the Petitioner had not brought his specific complaints to the Board of the Association before filing the petition. Attempting to resolve disputes through the Board of Directors or the ARC may provide a more direct path to remediation than administrative litigation.
  • Distinction of Property Areas: Associations may legally maintain different standards for front yards (public-facing) versus backyards (private). Homeowners should distinguish between "guidelines" and "rules" when assessing the enforceability of vegetation standards in private areas.

Case Study Guide: Cavanaugh v. Agua Dulce Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between William Cavanaugh and the Agua Dulce Homeowners Association (Case No. 12F-H1213005-BFS). It examines the legal principles regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the burden of proof in administrative hearings, and the enforcement of homeowners' association regulations.

Key Concepts and Case Overview

Case Background

The matter involved a petition filed by William Cavanaugh (Petitioner) against the Agua Dulce Homeowners Association (Agua/Respondent) with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The hearing took place on February 4, 2013, with the record held open until March 5, 2013, to address questions of subject matter jurisdiction.

Central Allegations

The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated Pima County Zoning Laws and the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by:

  • Allowing homeowners to plant non-native vegetation.
  • Allowing plants that were not low-pollen or low-water usage.
  • Failing to follow a plant list approved by Pima County.

The Petitioner claimed these violations resulted in personal health issues and noted that while he was a member of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), the Association failed to exercise its power to remove non-compliant vegetation from individual homes.

Defense and Testimony

The Association’s defense centered on the scope of the Department’s authority and the practicalities of vegetation management:

  • Jurisdiction: The Association argued the Department lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Pima County Zoning Codes, as it is only empowered to interpret private contracts (CC&Rs) and specific state rules.
  • ARC Function: Linda Ware, an ARC member, testified that the committee maintains a list of approved guidelines for backyards but that the cost of implementing the Petitioner's suggested changes would be prohibitive.
  • County Policy: Testimony from Betty Blaylock (Board President) indicated that Pima County officials had expressed no concern regarding vegetation in private backyards within Agua.
  • Property Rights: Homeowner Terry Anderson expressed concerns regarding the potential for private property rights to be "trampled" and the financial burden of removing existing vegetation.
Legal Outcomes

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the petition based on two primary conclusions:

  1. Jurisdictional Limits: The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety does not have the authority to adjudicate violations of county zoning ordinances.
  2. Failure of Evidence: The Petitioner failed to provide credible evidence that the Association violated any state statutes or its own CC&Rs.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

Question Answer
Which state department is authorized to receive petitions for hearings from HOA members in Arizona? The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
What is the specific legal standard of proof required in this administrative matter? A preponderance of the evidence.
Why was the hearing record held open from February 4 to March 5, 2013? To allow parties to file memoranda regarding subject matter jurisdiction.
According to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01, what types of violations can be heard by the Department? Violations of planned community documents (CC&Rs) or violations of statutes regulating planned communities.
What was the primary reason the ALJ determined the Department could not rule on the Pima County Zoning Code? The Department lacks jurisdiction over alleged violations of county zoning codes.
Who bears the burden of proof in these administrative proceedings? The party asserting the claim (in this case, the Petitioner).
What happens to an ALJ decision if the Director of the Department takes no action within the statutory timeframe? The decision is certified as the final administrative decision.
According to A.R.S. § 33-1205, can a zoning ordinance prohibit a condominium form of ownership? No, a zoning or building code shall not prohibit a condominium form of ownership.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Limits of Administrative Jurisdiction: Analyze the distinction between the enforcement of private community documents (CC&Rs) and municipal/county zoning ordinances. Why is it significant that the Administrative Law Judge ruled the Department had no jurisdiction over Pima County laws? Discuss how this limits or defines the scope of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
  2. Evidentiary Standards in Property Disputes: The ALJ noted that the Petitioner failed to present "credible evidence" of a CC&R violation. Based on the testimony provided (including the high cost of removal and the prevalence of non-native plants in the surrounding area), evaluate the challenges a homeowner faces when trying to prove an Association has failed to enforce its own rules under the "preponderance of the evidence" standard.
  3. The Role of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC): Compare the perspectives of the Petitioner and Linda Ware regarding the ARC’s responsibilities. To what extent should an ARC be responsible for retroactive enforcement of vegetation guidelines, and what role do economic factors (such as the cost of plant removal) play in administrative or board decision-making?
  4. The Path to Finality in Administrative Law: Describe the process by which an ALJ recommendation becomes a "Final Agency Action." Include the roles of the Department Director, the statutory timelines involved (e.g., A.R.S. § 41-1092.08), and the subsequent rights of the parties to request a rehearing or seek judicial review in Superior Court.

Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.R.S. § 33-1205: A statute clarifying that local ordinances and building codes apply to condominiums in the same way they apply to physically identical developments under different ownership forms.
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01: The statute permitting owners or planned communities to file petitions for hearings regarding violations of community documents or state regulations.
  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and makes findings of fact and conclusions of law.
  • Architectural Review Committee (ARC): A committee within a homeowners' association responsible for maintaining control over the aesthetic and structural guidelines of the community, such as vegetation and backyard modifications.
  • CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The private contractual rules and regulations that govern a planned community or homeowners' association.
  • Certification of Decision: The process by which an ALJ's decision is formalized as the final agency action, often occurring if the Department Director does not modify or reject the decision within a set period (pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D)).
  • Jurisdiction (Subject Matter): The legal authority of a court or administrative body to hear and decide a particular type of case.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning the evidence shows that a contention is "more probably true than not."
  • Petitioner: The party who initiates the legal action or petition (in this case, William Cavanaugh).
  • Respondent: The party against whom the legal action is brought (in this case, Agua Dulce Homeowners Association).

Understanding HOA Jurisdictional Limits: Lessons from Cavanaugh v. Agua Dulce Homeowners Association

1. Introduction: The Conflict Over the Canopy

In the world of Homeowners Associations, landscaping is rarely just about curb appeal; it is often the front line of a neighborhood "green war." For many residents, the choice of vegetation involves a delicate balance between aesthetics, water conservation, and personal health. But what happens when a homeowner believes the board’s landscaping standards—or lack thereof—violate local laws?

The case of William Cavanaugh vs. Agua Dulce Homeowners Association (No. 12F-H1213005-BFS) offers a masterclass in the complexities of HOA litigation. The dispute began when Mr. Cavanaugh, a homeowner in the Tucson-based Agua Dulce community, challenged the association’s decision to allow non-native, high-pollen, and high-water-usage vegetation. Claiming these choices violated both the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Pima County zoning laws, the conflict eventually escalated to a formal administrative hearing.

2. The Petitioner's Case: Health, Environment, and County Code

William Cavanaugh’s petition to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety was rooted in environmental and personal wellness concerns. During his testimony, he presented a case centered on the association's alleged failure to maintain regulatory standards. His primary grievances included:

  • Failure to Follow Regulatory Lists: Citing Exhibit No. J, the Petitioner argued that the HOA ignored the Pima County-approved plant list and Pima County Zoning Code Co9-85-50, allowing vegetation that was neither low-pollen nor low-water usage.
  • Personal Health Impacts: Mr. Cavanaugh testified that the high-pollen vegetation planted within the community and surrounding areas caused him significant health issues.
  • ARC Indifference: As a member of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) himself, the Petitioner alleged that a fellow committee member expressed an outright lack of concern regarding the specific types of vegetation being approved for the community.
  • A Strategic Legal Misstep: In his attempt to ground his case in state law, the Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 33-1205. However, as any seasoned HOA advocate would notice, this statute is part of the Arizona Condominium Act. Because Agua Dulce is a "Planned Community" governed by Title 33, Chapter 16, relying on a condominium-specific statute created a significant tactical weakness in his legal argument.

3. The Defense: Property Rights and Practical Realities

The HOA’s defense didn't just focus on the plants themselves; they focused on the limits of their authority and the rights of individual homeowners. A critical piece of evidence brought forward by the defense was that the Petitioner had not brought his complaint to the Board of Agua before filing the legal petition—a common oversight that can undermine a homeowner's standing in administrative eyes.

The defense testimony highlighted a clear distinction between the HOA's "very strict" control over front yard aesthetics and the more flexible "guidelines" applied to private backyards.

Witness Key Argument/Concern
Linda Ware (ARC Member) Emphasized the focus on home values; noted that the cost of vegetation removal would be prohibitively high; pointed out that the Petitioner failed to bring the issue to the Board first.
Betty Blaylock (Board President) Testified that Pima County officials were contacted and indicated they were not concerned with vegetation choices within private backyards.
Terry Anderson (Homeowner) Argued that the Petitioner’s demands would "trample" private property rights and impose unfair financial burdens on individual residents.

4. The Legal Turning Point: The Question of Jurisdiction

While the testimony was filled with debate over pollen and property rights, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) focused on a more fundamental question: Did the tribunal even have the power to rule on these issues?

The HOA argued that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01, the Department’s authority is strictly confined to adjudicating violations of planned community documents (like CC&Rs) or specific HOA statutes. It does not have the power to enforce municipal or county zoning codes.

The ALJ’s Conclusion of Law #4 made this clear:

"Petitioner’s testimony and evidence presented at hearing referred to alleged violations of Pima County Zoning Ordinances. The Department does not have jurisdiction over alleged violations of Pima County Zoning Codes."

5. The Verdict: Why the Petition was Dismissed

On March 11, 2013, the ALJ recommended the dismissal of the petition, a decision that was certified as final on April 17, 2013. The ruling rested on the Petitioner’s failure to meet the "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard.

In these hearings, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof, which is defined as providing evidence that makes a contention "more probably true than not" (per Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence). The ALJ concluded that Mr. Cavanaugh failed to provide credible evidence that the HOA had violated its own CC&Rs or any state statutes regulating homeowners' associations. Because the OAH could not rule on the Pima County Code, and no internal HOA rule violations were proven, the case was dismissed.

6. Conclusion: 3 Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

The Cavanaugh case serves as a vital reminder that "being right" about a local ordinance doesn't necessarily mean you have a winning case in an HOA tribunal.

  1. Know Your Venue: Administrative offices (like the OAH) are not "all-purpose" courts. They are specialized forums. If your grievance is based on a county zoning violation rather than a specific CC&R or HOA statute, the OAH is likely the wrong place to seek a remedy.
  2. Exhaust Internal Remedies: As noted in Linda Ware’s testimony, the Petitioner skipped the Board. Always take your dispute to the Board of Directors first. Not only is this often a procedural requirement, but it ensures the record reflects an attempt at a good-faith settlement before litigation.
  3. The Burden of Proof is Precise: To win, you must prove the association violated a rule that governs them as an HOA. Citing the wrong chapter of the law—such as using the Condominium Act for a Planned Community—can be fatal to your case.

Before you file a petition, I strongly advise reviewing your CC&Rs alongside A.R.S. § 41-2198.01. Ensure that your complaint falls squarely within the jurisdictional boundaries of the tribunal, or you may find your case dismissed before the merits are ever truly considered.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William Cavanaugh (Petitioner)
    Agua Dulce Homeowners Association (Member)
    Appeared on his own behalf; former ARC member

Respondent Side

  • Douglas W. Glasson (Attorney)
    The Curl Law Firm, P.L.C.
    Attorney for Agua Dulce Homeowners Association
  • Linda Ware (Witness)
    Agua Dulce Homeowners Association (ARC Member)
    Testified regarding vegetation and property values
  • Betty Blaylock (Board President)
    Agua Dulce Homeowners Association
    Testified regarding ARC meeting and county information
  • Terry Anderson (Witness)
    Agua Dulce Homeowners Association (Homeowner)
    Testified regarding concern for private property rights and costs

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Director to whom the decision was transmitted
  • Cliff J. Vanell (OAH Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Joni Cage (Administrative Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma

Sellers, John & Debborah vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212002-BFS, 12F-H1212009-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2013-01-17
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome The ALJ dismissed both petitions (consolidated). The judge ruled that the Architectural Review Committee meetings were not regularly scheduled and thus not subject to open meeting notice requirements. Additionally, the judge ruled that the records requested by Petitioners were properly withheld under attorney-client privilege.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John and Debborah Sellers Counsel —
Respondent Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association Counsel Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed both petitions (consolidated). The judge ruled that the Architectural Review Committee meetings were not regularly scheduled and thus not subject to open meeting notice requirements. Additionally, the judge ruled that the records requested by Petitioners were properly withheld under attorney-client privilege.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated statutes or governing documents; specific exceptions for non-regularly scheduled meetings and privileged records applied.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to notice and conduct publicly ARC Meetings

Petitioners alleged that the ARC failed to notice and conduct meetings publicly. The HOA argued ARC meetings are not regularly scheduled and occur only as necessary, thus not requiring notice.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Failure to provide requested HOA records

Petitioners requested attorney invoices and communications. The HOA denied the request based on attorney-client privilege.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

12F-H1212002-BFS Decision – 321619.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:39:42 (126.6 KB)

12F-H1212002-BFS Decision – 327760.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:39:45 (58.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative litigation (Case Nos. 12F-H1212002-BFS and 12F-H1212009-BFS) involving John and Debborah Sellers (Petitioners) and the Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association (Respondent). The disputes, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, centered on two primary allegations: the Association’s failure to notice and conduct public Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings, and the Association’s refusal to provide specific records, including attorney invoices and third-party communications.

Following hearings held on September 26, 2012, and January 4, 2013, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas issued a decision on January 17, 2013, dismissing both petitions. The ALJ concluded that the ARC meetings were not "regularly scheduled" and therefore not subject to statutory notice requirements. Furthermore, the ALJ ruled that the records withheld by the Association were protected under attorney-client privilege and pending litigation exceptions. This decision was officially certified as the final administrative decision on February 28, 2013.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. The Distinction of "Regularly Scheduled" Meetings

A central theme of the litigation was the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), which mandates that "regularly scheduled committee meetings" be open to all members. The Petitioners argued that the ARC’s failure to notice these meetings violated both state law and community documents.

However, testimony from Association representatives established a different operational reality:

  • Ad Hoc Scheduling: ARC meetings were described as occurring "from time to time as necessary" or "on demand," depending entirely on the submission of architectural applications.
  • Bylaw Compliance: The Association’s Bylaws (Article XI Section 3) explicitly state the ARC shall meet "from time to time as necessary."
  • Informal Venue: Testimony revealed that meetings often took place at committee members' residences and, while not formally noticed, had never been closed to a member who specifically requested to attend.

The ALJ determined that because the meetings were irregular and demand-driven rather than "regularly scheduled," the Association was not legally obligated to provide public notice.

2. Statutory Records Disclosure vs. Legal Privilege

The second major theme involved the balance between a homeowner's right to examine Association records (A.R.S. § 33-1805) and the Association's right to protect sensitive legal information. The Petitioners sought invoices from the Association’s attorneys and communications with third parties, arguing these did not constitute privileged material.

The Association successfully defended its refusal to disclose these documents by citing:

  • Pending Litigation: The City of Prescott was involved in civil litigation with the Association at the time of the hearing.
  • Attorney-Client Privilege: The Association argued that the withheld documents related to legal advice or pending/contemplated litigation.
  • Statutory Exceptions: A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) explicitly allows associations to withhold records related to privileged communications and pending litigation.

The ALJ found that the Association’s refusal was consistent with these statutory protections, and the Petitioners failed to prove that the refusal violated the law or community documents.

3. Burden of Proof in Administrative Proceedings

The case highlights the procedural requirement that the party asserting a claim—in this case, the Petitioners—bears the "burden of proof." Under Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119, the standard of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning the petitioner must prove their claims are "more likely true than not." The ALJ repeatedly noted that the Petitioners failed to meet this threshold for both the meeting notice and the records disclosure claims.

Important Quotes and Context

Regarding ARC Meeting Frequency

"The Architectural Review Committee shall meet from time to time as necessary to perform its duties hereunder… The Committee shall keep and maintain a written record of all actions taken by it at such meetings or otherwise."

— Crossings’ Bylaws, Article XI Section 3 (Context: This provision was used to establish that the ARC was not required to have a regular, predictable schedule).

"ARC meetings are not noticed but are open to all members… the committee has never denied access to any member to attend an ARC meeting… the committee has never received a request from an owner to attend an ARC meeting."

— Brenda Doziar, Board and ARC Member (Context: Testimony provided to show the Association did not intentionally exclude members, but rather operated informally based on submission volume).

Regarding Open Meeting Statutes

"Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members' association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association…"

— A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) (Context: The legal baseline for the Petitioners’ argument, which ultimately failed because the ARC meetings were deemed not "regularly scheduled").

Regarding Records Exceptions

"Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association. 2. Pending litigation."

— A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) (Context: The legal justification used by the Association to deny the Petitioners' request for attorney invoices and third-party correspondence).

Actionable Insights

Based on the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, the following insights can be derived regarding Association governance and member rights:

  • Definition of Committee Schedules: Associations can avoid the statutory requirement for public meeting notices if committees (like the ARC) meet on an "as-needed" basis rather than on a "regularly scheduled" basis. If a committee meeting is not on a fixed recurring schedule, it may not trigger the notice requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804.
  • Documentation of "As-Needed" Status: To defend against claims of secret meetings, Associations should ensure their Bylaws or CC&Rs explicitly state that committees meet "as necessary" or "from time to time," and they should maintain minutes of these meetings to document all actions taken.
  • Protection of Legal Records: Associations are within their rights to withhold attorney invoices and correspondence if they relate to pending litigation or legal advice. Homeowners seeking such records face a high bar to prove that such documents do not fall under the statutory exceptions of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
  • Member Requests for Attendance: While notice may not be required for ad hoc meetings, refusing a member's specific request to attend an open session could create legal vulnerability. In this case, the Association’s defense was strengthened by the fact that they had never denied a request for attendance.
  • Burden of Evidence: Petitioners in administrative hearings must provide concrete evidence that a violation occurred. Mere allegations of non-compliance are insufficient to meet the "preponderance of the evidence" standard required to prevail against an Association.

Study Guide: Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal proceedings between John and Debborah Sellers and the Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association. It examines the application of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) regarding homeowners' association (HOA) governance, open meeting requirements, and the disclosure of association records.

1. Case Overview and Key Entities

The consolidated cases (No. 12F-H1212002-BFS and No. 12F-H1212009-BFS) involve a dispute over the transparency of committee meetings and the accessibility of specific legal and financial records within a planned community.

Key Parties and Entities
Entity Role/Description
John and Debborah Sellers Petitioners; homeowners and members of the Crossings at Willow Creek.
Crossings at Willow Creek POA Respondent; the homeowners' association (HOA) governing the community in Prescott, Arizona.
Office of Administrative Hearings The Arizona state agency responsible for conducting the hearing and issuing the decision.
Dept. of Fire, Building and Life Safety The state department authorized to receive petitions from HOA members and associations.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC) A committee within the HOA responsible for reviewing property applications and architectural guidelines.
Significant Individuals
  • M. Douglas: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the hearings and issued the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
  • G. Eugene Neil: Interim City Attorney for Prescott; testified regarding public records and ongoing litigation between the City and the HOA.
  • Brenda Doziar: HOA Board member and ARC member; provided testimony on ARC meeting procedures.
  • Robert Balzano: Former statutory agent and manager of the HOA; testified regarding the lack of regularly scheduled ARC meetings.
  • Cliff J. Vanell: Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings; certified the ALJ decision as the final administrative decision.

2. Core Legal Issues and Arguments

Issue 1: ARC Meeting Transparency

The Petitioners alleged that the HOA failed to notice and conduct Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings publicly, in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 and community documents.

  • Petitioner Argument: ARC meetings should be noticed and open to the public.
  • Respondent Argument: ARC meetings are not "regularly scheduled" but occur "on demand" based on submissions; therefore, statutory notice requirements for regularly scheduled meetings do not apply.
Issue 2: Access to Records

The Petitioners alleged the HOA refused to provide specific records, specifically attorney invoices and communications between HOA attorneys and third parties.

  • Petitioner Argument: Communications with third parties are not protected by attorney-client privilege. They also sought invoices to understand the HOA's legal expenditures.
  • Respondent Argument: The withheld records were protected under attorney-client privilege and related to pending litigation, which are statutory exceptions to the disclosure requirement.

3. Statutory Framework and Bylaws

The case relies heavily on specific Arizona statutes and the HOA's internal bylaws:

A.R.S. § 33-1804: Open Meetings
  • General Rule: All meetings of the association, the board, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings are open to all members or their designated representatives.
  • Executive Session Exceptions: Meetings may be closed only for specific reasons, including legal advice, pending/contemplated litigation, personal/health/financial info of members or employees, and job performance discussions.
A.R.S. § 33-1805: Association Records
  • General Rule: Financial and other records must be made reasonably available for examination within ten business days.
  • Withholding Exceptions: Records may be withheld if they relate to privileged attorney-client communications, pending litigation, or specific personal/health/financial records of individuals.
A.R.S. § 12-2234: Attorney-Client Privilege
  • In civil actions, attorneys and their staff cannot be examined regarding communications made by the client or advice given during professional employment without the client's consent.
HOA Bylaws (Article XI, Section 3)
  • The ARC is directed to meet "from time to time as necessary."
  • The committee must maintain a written record of all actions taken.

4. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. According to the ALJ's decision, why did the ARC meetings not require public notice? Answer: The meetings were found to be held "as necessary" or "on demand" rather than being "regularly scheduled." A.R.S. § 33-1804 only mandates notice and open access for regularly scheduled committee meetings.

2. What is the "burden of proof" in this administrative hearing, and who carries it? Answer: The burden of proof falls on the party asserting a claim (the Petitioners). The standard of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence."

3. What does "preponderance of the evidence" mean in a legal context? Answer: It means the evidence must be sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is "more likely true than not."

4. Name two reasons an HOA board may legally close a portion of a meeting (Executive Session). Answer: Possible answers include: Legal advice from an attorney, pending or contemplated litigation, personal/financial information of a member/employee, or matters relating to employee job performance.

5. How many business days does an association have to fulfill a request for the examination of records? Answer: Ten business days.

6. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805, what is the maximum per-page fee an association can charge for copies of records? Answer: Fifteen cents per page.

5. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The Distinction Between "Regularly Scheduled" and "As Necessary": Analyze how the distinction between "regularly scheduled" and meetings held "from time to time" impacted the outcome of Case No. 12F-H1212002-BFS. Discuss whether this distinction creates a potential loophole for HOAs to avoid transparency, or if it serves as a practical necessity for committees with fluctuating workloads.

2. Attorney-Client Privilege in the Context of HOA Governance: The Petitioners argued that communications between HOA attorneys and third parties should not be privileged. Based on A.R.S. § 12-2234 and the ALJ's conclusions, evaluate the scope of attorney-client privilege. How does the law balance a homeowner's right to financial transparency (specifically regarding legal invoices) with the association’s right to confidential legal strategy?

3. The Role of Testimony in Establishing Facts: Examine the testimony of Brenda Doziar and Robert Balzano. How did their descriptions of the ARC's operational habits (e.g., meeting at private residences, lack of a formal schedule) influence the ALJ’s Findings of Fact? Contrast their testimony with the Petitioners' claims to show why the Petitioners failed to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard.

6. Glossary of Terms

  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over an administrative hearing, hears evidence, and makes findings of fact and legal conclusions.
  • A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes): The codified laws of the State of Arizona.
  • Burden of Proof: The obligation of a party in a trial or hearing to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party.
  • Community Documents: The collective term for an HOA's declaration, bylaws, and other governing rules.
  • Executive Session: A portion of a meeting that is closed to the general membership to discuss sensitive or confidential matters as defined by statute.
  • Member: In the context of an HOA, a property owner who is subject to the association's governing documents and holds voting rights.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: A legal standard where a claim is proven if it is shown to be more likely true than not (greater than 50% probability).
  • Respondent: The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed; in this case, the Crossings at Willow Creek POA.
  • Statutory Agent: An individual or entity designated to receive legal documents and service of process on behalf of a corporation or association.

HOA Transparency and Member Rights: Lessons from Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek

1. Introduction: The Tension Between Homeowners and Associations

Friction between homeowners and Property Owners Associations (POAs) often centers on the perceived "black box" of governance. Many homeowners feel that critical decisions—especially those regarding the aesthetic and structural integrity of the community—are made behind closed doors without proper oversight. Conversely, volunteer boards and their agents often struggle to navigate the granular requirements of state law while managing the day-to-day administrative needs of the association.

This tension is perfectly encapsulated in the consolidated cases of John and Debborah Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association (2013). By analyzing this administrative ruling, we can gain a clearer understanding of how Arizona law distinguishes between "open meetings" and "access to records." For homeowners and board members alike, this case serves as a vital lesson in the nuances of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the high evidentiary bar required to prove a violation of member rights.

2. The Conflict Over Architectural Review Committee (ARC) Meetings

In the first petition (12F-H1212002-BFS), the Sellers alleged that the Crossings at Willow Creek failed to provide notice for and conduct Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings in a public forum. They contended that the lack of formal notice violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 and the community’s governing documents.

The Association’s defense relied on the operational reality of the committee. Brenda Doziar, a member of both the Board and the ARC, testified that the committee’s process was not a standard deliberative assembly but a functional review of applications. Specifically, she noted that the ARC meets to review plans alongside the association’s professional architect to determine if a project should be accepted, modified, or rejected.

Robert Balzano, the former manager and statutory agent for the Association, further testified that the ARC did not follow a fixed calendar. Instead, meetings were held "on-demand" at private residences based on the volume of architectural submissions. The legal pivot point of the case was the specific language found in Arizona's open meeting law for planned communities:

"Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members' association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association…" — A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

3. Defining "Regularly Scheduled": The Legal Turning Point

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) focused on the distinction between a "regularly scheduled" meeting and one that occurs intermittently. The Association’s Bylaws (Article XI, Section 3) explicitly state that the ARC shall meet "from time to time as necessary" to perform its duties. Because the meetings were contingent upon the receipt of homeowner applications rather than a set monthly or quarterly schedule, they did not fall under the statutory mandate for public notice.

The ALJ dismissed the complaint regarding meeting notices based on these factors:

  • Contingent Nature of Meetings: Evidence showed that meetings depended entirely on architectural submissions; in some months, the committee met multiple times, while in others, it did not meet at all.
  • Adherence to Bylaws: The Association followed its own governing documents, which authorized the committee to act "from time to time as necessary" rather than on a regular schedule.
  • Professional Consultation: Testimony established that the meetings involved technical reviews with an architect, a process that is functionally different from a standard board meeting.
  • Accessibility Without Formal Notice: The committee never denied a member’s request to attend, and the specific applicant was always invited to the meeting where their plans were discussed.

4. The Records Dispute: What Can Homeowners Actually See?

The second petition (12F-H1212009-BFS) concerned the Sellers' demand for records, specifically invoices from the association’s legal counsel—the firm of Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC—and communications between those attorneys and third parties. The Sellers argued that third-party communications, by definition, cannot be protected by attorney-client privilege.

The Association successfully countered this by invoking A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs association records, and A.R.S. § 12-2234, which protects attorney-client communications. The sensitivity of these records was heightened by a pending Declaratory Action—a legal proceeding initiated by the City of Prescott against the association members to determine the legal rights and obligations of the parties involved.

The case established a clear hierarchy of record accessibility:

  • Public Records: The City of Prescott provided the Petitioners with ninety pages of documents via subpoena. As these were public records held by a municipality, they were fully accessible.
  • Privileged Association Records: Internal documents, including attorney invoices and correspondence with the insurance agent, Larry Harding, were protected. Mr. Harding testified that such correspondence typically relates to potential insurance claims, which are sensitive legal matters. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B), the Association is permitted to withhold records that "tip its hand" regarding pending litigation or privileged legal advice.

5. Final Verdict: The ALJ Decision

On January 17, 2013, ALJ M. Douglas issued a decision dismissing both petitions, a ruling later certified by Director Cliff J. Vanell. The decision was rooted in the burden of proof established by the Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R2-19-119, which requires the party asserting a claim to prove their case by a "Preponderance of the Evidence."

In simple terms, the Sellers were required to prove that their allegations were "more likely true than not." The ALJ concluded they failed to meet this burden. The Association proved that its ARC meetings were not "regularly scheduled" and that the withheld legal records fell squarely within the statutory exceptions for attorney-client privilege and pending litigation.

6. Key Takeaways for HOA Members and Boards

The Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek case serves as a definitive guide for interpreting A.R.S. Title 33. Homeowners and board members should internalize the following lessons:

  1. The "Regularly Scheduled" Threshold: Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), only committee meetings that occur on a set, recurring basis require formal notice to the membership. "On-demand" or "as-necessary" meetings are legally distinct and do not carry the same notice requirements.
  2. Statutory Symmetry in Confidentiality: There is a direct parallel between the reasons a board may close a meeting under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1-5) and the reasons it may withhold records under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B). Legal advice and pending litigation are strictly protected in both contexts to preserve the association's legal position.
  3. The Importance of Precise Bylaws: The phrase "from time to time as necessary" in the Crossings' Bylaws was a primary factor in the Association's victory. Boards must ensure their governing documents are aligned with state statutes to provide maximum operational flexibility.
  4. The Burden of Proof is on the Accuser: Per A.A.C. R2-19-119, the association is not required to prove it followed the law; rather, the homeowner must provide credible evidence that a violation occurred. Mere disagreement with a board's administrative style does not constitute a legal violation.

As a homeowner, you have a right to transparency, but that right is not unlimited. As a board member, you have a duty to be open, but you also have a duty to protect the association’s legal interests. Review your community’s bylaws and A.R.S. Title 33 immediately. Understanding these boundaries is the only way to ensure your community remains governed by law rather than by conflict.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Sellers (petitioner)
    Homeowner
    appeared through John Sellers
  • Debborah Sellers (petitioner)
    Homeowner
    Testified; interior designer

Respondent Side

  • Joshua M. Bolen (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Attorney for Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
  • Brenda Doziar (board member)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    ARC member
  • Robert Balzano (witness)
    Former statutory agent and manager of Crossings
  • Kenneth Burnett (board member)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • G. Eugene Neil (witness)
    City of Prescott
    Interim City Attorney
  • Larry Harding (witness)
    Commercial insurance agent for Crossings
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (agency director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Director who certified the decision
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision copy

Sellers, John & Debborah vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212002-BFS; 12F-H1212009-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2013-01-17
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome The ALJ dismissed both petitions. Regarding the ARC meetings, the judge ruled they were not regularly scheduled and thus notice was not required. Regarding the records request, the judge ruled the withheld documents were protected by attorney-client privilege.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John and Debborah Sellers Counsel —
Respondent Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association Counsel Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed both petitions. Regarding the ARC meetings, the judge ruled they were not regularly scheduled and thus notice was not required. Regarding the records request, the judge ruled the withheld documents were protected by attorney-client privilege.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated statutes or CC&Rs; applicable laws provide exceptions for irregular meetings and privileged records.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to notice and conduct publicly ARC Meetings

Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to notice and conduct publicly Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings. The ALJ found that ARC meetings were held 'as necessary' and were not 'regularly scheduled,' and therefore did not require notice under the statute or Bylaws.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Failure to provide requested HOA records

Petitioners requested attorney invoices and communications. The HOA refused based on attorney-client privilege. The ALJ found the refusal was justified under statutory exceptions for privileged communication.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 12-2234

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

12F-H1212009-BFS Decision – 321619.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:41:28 (129.8 KB)

12F-H1212009-BFS Decision – 327760.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:41:32 (58.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Administrative Law Decision Regarding Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative legal proceedings and final decision in the consolidated cases of John and Debborah Sellers (Petitioners) vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association (Respondent), docket numbers 12F-H1212002-BFS and 12F-H1212009-BFS.

The disputes originated from two primary grievances filed by the homeowners: first, that the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) failed to notice and conduct public meetings; and second, that the Association improperly withheld specific records, including attorney invoices and third-party communications.

Following hearings held on September 26, 2012, and January 4, 2013, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas ruled in favor of the Association on all counts. The ALJ found that the Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) or its own governing documents. This decision was certified as the final administrative action by the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on February 28, 2013.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Architectural Review Committee (ARC) Transparency and Notice

A central theme of the first petition was the requirement for public notice and open attendance at ARC meetings. The Petitioners alleged that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 and Community Documents by not noticing these meetings.

  • Statutory Interpretation: Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), meetings of the board of directors and "any regularly scheduled committee meetings" must be open to all members.
  • "Regularly Scheduled" vs. "As Necessary": The Association’s defense rested on the distinction between "regularly scheduled" and "as necessary." Testimony from Board members and the former manager established that the ARC met only when applications were submitted.
  • Bylaw Compliance: The Association’s Bylaws (Article XI, Section 3) explicitly state that the ARC shall meet "from time to time as necessary."
  • Outcome: Because the meetings were determined to be "on demand" rather than "regularly scheduled," the ALJ concluded that formal public notice was not statutory required. Furthermore, testimony indicated that while meetings weren't noticed, they were never closed to members who requested to attend.
2. Access to Association Records and Attorney-Client Privilege

The second petition focused on the Association’s refusal to provide certain documents, specifically attorney invoices and communications with third parties.

  • Records Request Scope: Petitioners sought invoices from the Association’s legal counsel (Carpenter Hazlewood) and correspondence with third parties, arguing these should not be protected by privilege.
  • Statutory Exceptions: A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) allows an association to withhold records relating to privileged communications between an attorney and the association, as well as records concerning pending litigation.
  • Legal Basis for Refusal: The ALJ found that the Association’s refusal was grounded in protected legal exceptions. A.R.S. § 12-2234 protects communications made by a client to an attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.
  • Outcome: The ALJ determined that the Petitioners failed to prove that the withheld documents were outside the scope of legally protected privileged material or pending litigation exceptions.
3. Evidentiary Standards and Burden of Proof

The case underscores the high bar for Petitioners in administrative hearings regarding planned communities.

  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof required the Petitioners to show that their claims were "more likely true than not."
  • Failure of Proof: In both petitions, the ALJ found the Petitioners' evidence insufficient to demonstrate a violation of the law or the Association’s CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions).

Important Quotes with Context

Quote Source/Context Significance
"The Architectural Review Committee shall meet from time to time as necessary to perform its duties hereunder." Association Bylaws, Article XI, Section 3 This provided the legal basis for the Association to conduct ARC meetings without a fixed, regular schedule.
"ARC meetings are not noticed but are open to all members… the committee has never denied access to any member to attend an ARC meeting." Brenda Doziar (Board/ARC Member) Established that although notice was absent, the committee was not operating in a "closed" manner that violated the spirit of open meetings.
"The committee meetings take place at one of the committee member’s residence." Brenda Doziar (Board/ARC Member) Clarified the informal and variable nature of the "as necessary" meetings.
"Credible testimony and evidence established that Crossings’ refusal to release the requested documents was based upon the exceptions provided by applicable statute for attorney/client privileged material." ALJ Conclusions of Law Validated the Association's right to protect sensitive legal information under A.R.S. § 33-1805.
"Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Crossings violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804 and/or Crossings’ CC&Rs." ALJ Findings The core justification for the dismissal of the petitions.

Actionable Insights

For Association Governance
  • Define Meeting Schedules Clearly: Associations should distinguish between "regularly scheduled" committee meetings and "as needed" meetings in their governing documents. If a committee meets on a fixed schedule (e.g., the first Monday of every month), it must follow formal notice procedures under Arizona law.
  • Maintain Records of Inquiries: The Association’s defense was bolstered by testimony that they had never denied a request to attend a meeting. Keeping logs of member requests to attend meetings or view records can provide a defense against claims of non-transparency.
  • Consistency in Bylaws: Ensure that internal practices (like ARC meetings) align exactly with the language in the Bylaws (e.g., meeting "as necessary").
For Records Management
  • Understand Privilege Boundaries: Associations are entitled to withhold documents related to legal advice and pending litigation. However, they must be prepared to justify these withholdings based on A.R.S. § 33-1805 and § 12-2234.
  • Transparency of Non-Privileged Records: To avoid litigation, associations should ensure that all non-exempt records (general financial records, minutes of open meetings) are made available within the statutory ten-business-day window.
For Dispute Resolution
  • Burden of Proof: Parties initiating a petition must recognize that the "preponderance of the evidence" standard requires more than just allegations; it requires concrete proof that a specific statute or community document was violated.
  • Administrative Finality: Decisions by an ALJ become final if no action is taken by the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety within the statutory timeframe (in this case, approximately 30 days post-decision). Overturning such a decision requires a timely request for rehearing or a petition to the Superior Court.

Study Guide: Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the consolidated administrative cases John and Debborah Sellers vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association (Nos. 12F-H1212002-BFS and 12F-H1212009-BFS). It covers the legal standards for Arizona homeowners' associations, requirements for open meetings, and the limits of record disclosure.

I. Case Overview and Core Themes

Central Dispute

The cases involve disputes between homeowners (the Sellers) and their homeowners' association (Crossings at Willow Creek). The primary issues centered on whether the association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was required to provide public notice for its meetings and whether the association was legally obligated to produce specific attorney-related financial records and communications.

Key Entities
  • Petitioners: John and Debborah Sellers, members of the Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association.
  • Respondent: Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association ("Crossings").
  • Adjudicating Body: The Office of Administrative Hearings, acting on behalf of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
  • Architectural Review Committee (ARC): A committee within the association responsible for reviewing and making determinations on property applications based on architectural guidelines.

II. Key Concepts and Legal Principles

1. Open Meeting Requirements (A.R.S. § 33-1804)

Under Arizona law, all meetings of a members' association and the board of directors must be open to all members. However, the law distinguishes between different types of committee meetings:

  • Regularly Scheduled Committee Meetings: These are required to be open to all members or their designated representatives.
  • On-Demand/Irregular Meetings: Meetings that occur "as necessary" or "on-demand" (based on submissions) do not carry the same statutory requirement for formal notice if they are not "regularly scheduled."
2. Record Examination and Disclosure (A.R.S. § 33-1805)

While associations are generally required to make financial and other records reasonably available for examination, there are five specific statutory exceptions where records may be withheld:

  1. Privileged communication between the association and its attorney.
  2. Pending litigation.
  3. Meeting minutes from executive sessions (closed meetings).
  4. Personal, health, or financial records of an individual member or employee.
  5. Records relating to job performance or specific complaints against employees.
3. Attorney-Client Privilege (A.R.S. § 12-2234)

In civil actions, an attorney cannot be examined regarding communications made by the client or advice given during professional employment without the client’s consent. This privilege extends to communications between an attorney and the agents or members of an entity (like an HOA) if the purpose is to provide or obtain legal advice.

4. Administrative Burden of Proof

In these proceedings, the burden of proof rests with the party asserting the claim (the Petitioners). The standard used is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the finder of fact must be persuaded that the claim is "more likely true than not."

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. Who is authorized by statute to receive Petitions for Hearings from Arizona homeowners' association members?
  2. What were the two specific categories of records the Sellers claimed Crossings refused to provide?
  3. According to the testimony of Brenda Doziar, where do the ARC meetings typically take place?
  4. What determines when an ARC meeting is scheduled at Crossings?
  5. How much can an association charge per page for making copies of records requested by a member?
  6. How many business days does an association have to fulfill a request for the examination of records?
  7. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determine that Crossings did not violate notice requirements for ARC meetings?
  8. What happened when the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety failed to take action on the ALJ’s decision by February 26, 2013?
  9. According to A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), what are the five circumstances under which a portion of an HOA meeting may be closed?
  10. Does the failure of a member to receive actual notice of a meeting affect the validity of action taken at that meeting, according to A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)?

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Intersection of Transparency and Efficiency: Analyze the conflict between a homeowner's right to attend committee meetings and an HOA's right to hold meetings "as necessary." Based on the evidence in this case, evaluate whether the "on-demand" nature of the ARC meetings successfully circumvented or complied with the intent of A.R.S. § 33-1804.
  2. Statutory Protection of Legal Counsel: Discuss the importance of attorney-client privilege within the context of HOA management as outlined in A.R.S. § 12-2234 and A.R.S. § 33-1805. How does the law balance a member's right to view financial records (such as attorney invoices) with the association’s need for confidential legal strategy?
  3. The Role of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): Examine the ALJ’s findings regarding the "preponderance of the evidence." Why did the Petitioners fail to meet this burden in both consolidated cases, and what specific testimony or lack of evidence led to the dismissal of their petitions?

V. Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes): The codified laws of the state of Arizona.
  • ARC (Architectural Review Committee): A committee appointed to review property changes and ensure they comply with community architectural guidelines.
  • Attorney-Client Privilege: A legal principle that protects communications between an attorney and their client from being disclosed to third parties.
  • Bylaws: The internal rules and regulations that govern the administration of an association.
  • Community Documents: The collective term for an association’s declaration, bylaws, and other governing papers.
  • Executive Session: A portion of a meeting that is closed to the general membership to discuss sensitive matters like legal advice or personnel issues.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: A legal standard of proof where a claim is proven if it is shown to be more probable than not.
  • Prevailing Party: The party in a lawsuit that wins on the main issues and is often entitled to specific relief or the dismissal of the opponent's claims.
  • Statutory Agent: An individual or entity designated to receive legal service of process and official documents on behalf of a corporation or association.
  • Subpoena: A legal document ordering a person to attend a court proceeding or produce specific documents.

HOA Transparency vs. Legal Reality: Lessons from the Sellers Case

1. Introduction: The Conflict at Willow Creek

For many homeowners, the relationship with their Property Owners Association (POA) is a delicate equilibrium between individual property rights and the necessity of community governance. Tensions frequently escalate when residents perceive themselves as being excluded from the decision-making process or find their access to association records blocked by administrative gatekeeping.

This friction was the catalyst for a significant administrative hearing: John and Debborah Sellers vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association. The Petitioners, John and Debborah Sellers, filed two separate petitions against the Association, alleging a lack of transparency in committee meetings and the improper withholding of financial and legal records. Through an analysis of these proceedings, we can examine how Arizona law navigates the boundary between a member's right to know and an association's right to functional, private governance.

2. The "Open Meeting" Debate: When is Notice Required?

The threshold question in the first matter (No. 12F-H1212002-BFS) was whether the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) had violated state law by failing to provide public notice of its meetings. The Petitioners contended that the ARC conducted association business "behind closed doors," circumventing the open meeting requirements established by statute.

The defense centered on the distinction between "regularly scheduled" and "as needed" meetings. Testimony from Brenda Doziar, a Board and ARC member, and Robert Balzano, the Association’s former manager and Statutory Agent, revealed a highly informal process. The ARC did not follow a fixed calendar; rather, meetings were triggered solely by the volume of architectural submissions. These sessions often took place at a committee member’s private residence, a detail that—while contributing to homeowner suspicion—underscored the irregular nature of the gatherings.

Arizona law is specific regarding which committee meetings must be open to the membership:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A): "Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members' association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association…"

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that because the ARC met only "on demand" to review specific plans with the Association’s architect, the meetings did not constitute "regularly scheduled" sessions. Consequently, the Association was under no statutory or contractual obligation to post public notices for these irregular meetings.

3. The Battle for Records: Transparency vs. Privilege

The gravamen of the second petition (No. 12F-H1212009-BFS) was the Association’s refusal to produce attorney invoices and communications with third parties. This was not a mere fishing expedition; the Sellers were specifically concerned about a Declaratory Action involving the City of Prescott. In that litigation, the City was the plaintiff and all HOA members were named as defendants. The Sellers sought the records to ensure the Association was not "tipping its hand" during negotiations or compromising the members' positions.

The Association, supported by testimony from interim City Attorney G. Eugene Neil, argued that the requested documents were protected from disclosure. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B), an HOA is legally permitted to withhold records that relate to:

  • Privileged communications between an attorney for the association and the association.
  • Pending litigation.
  • Meeting minutes or records of a board session that is not required to be open (executive sessions).
  • Personal, health, or financial records of an individual member, employee of the association, or employee of a contractor.
  • Records relating to job performance, compensation, health records, or specific complaints regarding an individual employee of the association or a contractor.

The ALJ found that the Association’s refusal was properly grounded in Categories 1 and 2: privileged communications and pending litigation. Because the invoices and third-party correspondence related to active legal matters, they were exempt from member inspection.

4. The Verdict: Why the Petitions Were Dismissed

The ALJ ultimately dismissed both petitions, ruling that the Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association was not required to take any corrective action. A primary factor in this outcome was the "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard.

In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof rests with the party asserting the claim. According to A.A.C. R2-19-119, the Petitioners were required to prove that their allegations were "more likely true than not." As established in In re Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648, 654 (9th Cir. BAP (Ariz.) 1994), this requires persuading the finder of fact of the proposition's probability.

The ALJ determined the Sellers were not the "prevailing party," as they failed to prove a violation of either the Arizona Revised Statutes or the community’s governing documents. The decision was subsequently certified as final, affirming the Association's right to maintain its current meeting and record-keeping protocols.

5. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

The Sellers case serves as a vital case study for community leaders and residents alike. We can distill the following insights:

  1. Understand the "Regularly Scheduled" Clause: Statutory notice requirements are not universal. If a committee’s meeting frequency is dictated by workload (such as architecture submissions) rather than a set calendar, the legal obligation for public notice may not apply.
  2. The Limits of Record Requests: Transparency is a fundamental principle, but attorney-client privilege is a robust and necessary protection. When an Association is involved in active litigation, it has a duty to protect strategic communications from disclosure, even to its own members.
  3. The Burden of Proof: Asserting a grievance is not the same as proving a violation. Petitioners must provide a preponderance of evidence to prevail in an administrative hearing. Without specific proof of a statutory breach, the ALJ will defer to the Association’s established practices.
  4. Review Your Bylaws: Internal documents are the first line of defense. In this case, Article XI Section 3 of the Crossings’ Bylaws explicitly stated the ARC should "meet from time to time as necessary," a phrase that provided the legal flexibility needed to withstand the Petitioners' challenge.
6. Compelling Conclusion

The dispute at Willow Creek underscores the necessity of a deep familiarity with A.R.S. §§ 33-1804 and 33-1805. These statutes are the bedrock of HOA governance in Arizona, designed to balance the membership's right to information with the Association's need for executive privacy and legal protection. While the impulse for total transparency is a hallmark of an engaged membership, the law recognizes that effective governance requires boundaries. For Boards, the lesson is clear: ensure your Bylaws are precisely worded. For homeowners, the takeaway is equally sharp: a legal challenge requires more than a sense of unfairness—it requires a preponderance of proof.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Sellers (petitioner)
    Appeared at hearing
  • Debborah Sellers (petitioner)
    Testified regarding ARC service

Respondent Side

  • Joshua M. Bolen (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
  • Brenda Doziar (witness)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    Board member and ARC member
  • Robert Balzano (witness)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    Former statutory agent and manager
  • Kenneth Burnett (witness)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    Board member

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • G. Eugene Neil (witness)
    City of Prescott
    Interim City Attorney; provided public records
  • Larry Harding (witness)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    Commercial insurance agent for Respondent
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Named as Director for transmittal
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Copy recipient

Windis, Katherine A. vs. Fairway Court West Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1213002-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-12-21
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent (HOA). The ALJ determined that the Board's resolution allowing pavers did not violate statutes or CC&Rs because the areas in question (ingress/egress) were limited common elements allocated to the units, not general common elements requiring an 80% vote to convey.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Katherine A. Windis Counsel —
Respondent Fairway Court West Condominium Association Counsel R. Corey Hill

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1217, A.R.S. § 33-1252, A.R.S. § 33-1218

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent (HOA). The ALJ determined that the Board's resolution allowing pavers did not violate statutes or CC&Rs because the areas in question (ingress/egress) were limited common elements allocated to the units, not general common elements requiring an 80% vote to convey.

Why this result: The ALJ determined the disputed areas were limited common elements allocated exclusively to the units for ingress/egress, rather than general common elements, meaning no conveyance occurred requiring an association-wide vote.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized conveyance of common elements

Petitioner alleged the Board resolution allowing first-floor owners to install pavers on common areas constituted a conveyance of common property requiring 80% owner approval and violated allocation rules.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1217
  • A.R.S. § 33-1252
  • A.R.S. § 33-1218
  • A.R.S. § 33-1212

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

12F-H1213002-BFS Decision – 318678.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:43:33 (134.8 KB)

12F-H1213002-BFS Decision – 323827.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:43:36 (57.9 KB)

Legal Briefing: Windis v. Fairway Court West Condominium Association (No. 12F-H1213002-BFS)

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law proceedings and final decision in the matter of Katherine A. Windis versus Fairway Court West Condominium Association. The dispute originated from a board resolution passed on April 23, 2012, which permitted owners of first-floor units to install pavers on areas adjacent to their units. The Petitioner, Katherine A. Windis, alleged that this action constituted an illegal encroachment and a transfer of common property to private use without the required 80% membership vote.

The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) determined that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the areas in question—entryways and patios serving individual units—were "Limited Common Elements" under Arizona law, rather than general common areas subject to partition or conveyance restrictions. The decision, initially issued on December 21, 2012, was certified as a final agency action on February 5, 2013, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety declined to modify or reject the ruling.

Analysis of Key Themes

1. Classification of Property: Common vs. Limited Common Elements

The central conflict of the case rested on the legal definition of the land where pavers were installed.

  • Petitioner’s Argument: Windis argued that the land was "common area" in which all owners held an undivided interest. She contended that allowing specific owners to place pavers converted this common property into private-use property.
  • Respondent’s Argument: Fairway Court West argued that pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1212(4), exterior entryways and patios serving a single unit are "Limited Common Elements." These are legally allocated exclusively to that unit, even if they are outside the unit's technical boundaries.
  • ALJ Finding: The court upheld the Association’s classification. Because the pavers were placed on ingress/egress areas designed to serve single units, they were deemed limited common elements already allocated to those specific owners.
2. Board Authority and Landscape Conversion

The Board’s resolution was framed not as a land conveyance, but as a management decision linked to a community-wide transition to desert landscaping.

  • Administrative Control: The Board VP, Dave Harris, testified that the resolution was intended to provide guidance and rules for future installations, ensuring consistency in color and size (between 7 x 15 feet and 8 x 16 feet).
  • Maintenance and Ownership: The resolution explicitly stated that while owners would pay for installation and maintenance, the Association maintained control and reserved the right to remove non-compliant pavers. This supported the Association’s claim that no ownership had been "conveyed."
3. Alleged Discrimination Between Unit Types

A recurring theme in the Petitioner’s testimony was the perceived inequality between first-floor and second-floor owners.

  • Vertical Disparity: Windis alleged the resolution favored first-floor owners.
  • Structural Reality: The Association counter-argued that second-floor units do not have rear entrances or the same structural relationship to the ground-level common elements. However, second-floor units have exclusive use of common property such as specific stairways and elevators, which balances the allocation of limited common elements.

Statutory and Governing Document Framework

The following table outlines the primary legal and community documents cited during the hearing:

Reference Summary of Provision Application to Case
A.R.S. § 33-1212(4) Defines stoops, porches, balconies, and entryways as limited common elements. Used to justify the exclusive use of entryway areas by unit owners.
A.R.S. § 33-1252 Requires 80% vote to convey common elements. Petitioner argued this was violated; ALJ ruled no conveyance occurred.
A.R.S. § 33-1218 Governs the allocation of limited common elements. Petitioner alleged improper allocation without declaration amendment.
CC&R 2.03 Defines "Common Area" as everything beyond exterior walls. Petitioner used this to argue that any area outside a unit is jointly owned.
CC&R 2.21 Grans equal rights to 1st and 2nd-floor owners regarding lawns/plantings. Petitioner argued the paver resolution created an unequal privilege.

Important Quotes with Context

On the Nature of the Paver Installation

"Such installations will be considered to be 'Limited Common Areas' and as such will be under the control of the Association." — Fairway Court West Board Resolution (April 23, 2012)

Context: This excerpt from the Board minutes shows the Association's intent to maintain legal control over the property, countering the argument that the land was being given away to individuals.

On the Definition of Limited Common Elements

"Any… stoops, porches, balconies, entryways or patios… serving a single unit, but located outside the unit’s boundaries, are limited common elements allocated exclusively to that unit." — A.R.S. § 33-1212(4) as cited in Respondent’s Answer

Context: This statutory definition was the cornerstone of the Association's defense and the ultimate basis for the ALJ's decision to dismiss the petition.

On the Petitioner’s Burden of Proof

"Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof to establish that the April 23, 2012 Resolution… is in violation of applicable statute or the cited CC&Rs… Credible testimony and evidence established that the pavers are installed on areas… designed to serve as ingress and egress areas." — Administrative Law Judge Decision, Conclusion of Law #4

Context: This summarizes the court's final stance—that the Petitioner did not provide enough evidence to outweigh the Association's statutory right to manage entryways as limited common elements.

Actionable Insights

  • Statutory Primacy over CC&Rs: Even when CC&Rs (like CC&R 2.03) generally define all exterior areas as "Common Area," state statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1212) can provide specific classifications for "Limited Common Elements" that grant Boards authority to allow exclusive use of certain areas (like patios or entryways).
  • The Difference Between "Use" and "Conveyance": Associations can permit homeowners to make improvements to common land (pavers) for their exclusive use without triggering the need for a membership vote (80% threshold), provided the Association retains ultimate control and maintenance rights over the land.
  • Standard of Proof in HOA Disputes: In administrative hearings of this nature, the "preponderance of the evidence" standard applies. A Petitioner must prove it is "more likely true than not" that a violation occurred. In this case, the Petitioner's inability to prove that a literal "transfer of ownership" occurred led to the dismissal.
  • Finality of ALJ Decisions: Once an ALJ decision is transmitted, the relevant state department (Fire, Building and Life Safety) has a limited window to act. If they do not reject or modify it by the deadline, the decision automatically becomes the final administrative action.

Case Study: Windis v. Fairway Court West Condominium Association

This study guide examines the administrative hearing between Katherine A. Windis (Petitioner) and the Fairway Court West Condominium Association (Respondent/Fairway). The case focuses on the distinction between common elements and limited common elements within a condominium association and the legal authority of a Board of Directors to regulate these areas under Arizona law.

I. Case Overview and Key Concepts

The Dispute

On April 23, 2012, the Fairway Board of Directors passed a resolution regarding the association's ongoing conversion to desert landscaping. This resolution allowed first-floor unit owners to install pavers outside their lower lanai areas, provided they adhered to specific size and maintenance requirements. The resolution designated these paved areas as "Limited Common Areas" under the Association's control.

The Petitioner, Katherine A. Windis, challenged this resolution, alleging that:

  • It allowed first-floor units to encroach on common areas.
  • It constituted an unauthorized conveyance of common property to private owners without the required 80% vote of all property owners.
  • It violated several of the Association's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding equal rights for all units and the prohibition of items on common walkways.
Legal Framework

The case centered on the interpretation of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the Association's CC&Rs:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(4): Defines entryways, patios, and porches serving a single unit but located outside its boundaries as "limited common elements" allocated exclusively to that unit.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1252: Requires a vote of at least 80% of unit owners to convey or mortgage portions of the common elements.
  • CC&R 2.05: States that walkways are common areas for use by all and prohibits placing chairs, stools, or other items on common property.
The Decision

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof. The court found that the areas where pavers were installed served as ingress and egress for single units and were correctly classified as limited common elements under A.R.S. § 33-1212. Consequently, the Board's resolution did not constitute an illegal conveyance of property, and the petition was dismissed.

II. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. What were the specific dimensions and requirements for pavers mandated by the Board’s April 23, 2012, resolution? Answer: The paved area had to be between 7 x 15 feet and 8 x 16 feet. The pavers were required to be at least 2 inches thick and a color consistent with existing installations.

2. According to A.R.S. § 33-1252, what is the minimum percentage of owner votes required to convey common elements to a third party? Answer: At least 80% of the votes in the association (unless the declaration specifies a larger percentage).

3. What was the Respondent’s primary argument for why a vote of the unit owners was unnecessary for the resolution? Answer: The Respondent argued that the areas in question were already "limited common elements" serving single units under A.R.S. § 33-1212(4), and therefore the resolution was in conformity with the law and did not require a filing or a vote.

4. How does A.R.S. § 33-1212(4) define fixtures like porches or entryways located outside a unit's boundaries? Answer: They are defined as "limited common elements allocated exclusively to that unit."

5. What is the "burden of proof" in this administrative hearing, and which party held it? Answer: The burden of proof is the "preponderance of the evidence," and it fell to the Petitioner (Katherine A. Windis) as the party asserting the claim.

6. Why did the Board vice-chairperson, Dave Harris, testify that the resolution was necessary? Answer: To provide a set of rules to govern installations and provide guidance for future installations as part of the conversion to desert landscaping, specifically because six units had already installed pavers.

7. Which CC&R did the Petitioner cite to argue that all owners have equal rights to the lawns and common areas? Answer: CC&R 2.21 (Use of Common Area).

III. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. Limited Common Elements vs. Common Elements: Analyze the distinction between a "Common Element" and a "Limited Common Element" based on the provided statutes. How does the classification of an area change the Board’s authority to regulate it, and why was this distinction the deciding factor in Windis v. Fairway Court West?
  1. Statutory Interpretation vs. CC&Rs: The Petitioner argued that CC&R 2.05 (prohibiting items on common property) should prevent the installation of pavers. However, the ALJ relied heavily on A.R.S. § 33-1212. Discuss the hierarchy of authority between state statutes and an association's private CC&Rs when a conflict arises regarding the definition of property boundaries.
  1. The Concept of Conveyance: The Petitioner alleged the Board "conveyed" common property to private owners. Using the testimony of Dave Harris and the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1252, evaluate whether the Board's resolution to allow pavers constitutes a transfer of ownership or merely a regulation of use.

IV. Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
A.R.S. Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
CC&Rs Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules for a homeowners' or condominium association.
Common Elements Portions of the condominium property that are not part of the units and are generally owned in undivided interests by all unit owners.
Conveyance The legal transfer of property or interest in property from one entity to another.
Limited Common Elements Portions of the common elements allocated for the exclusive use of one or more, but fewer than all, of the units (e.g., balconies, patios).
Lanai A porch or veranda, often enclosed, serving as an outdoor living space.
Pavers Blocks (often stone or concrete) used to create a flat, walkable surface such as a patio or entryway.
Preponderance of the Evidence The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning that the proposition is "more likely true than not."
Resolution A formal expression of opinion or intention agreed on by a board of directors or legislative body.
Undivided Interest The ownership of a fraction of an entire property, where that interest cannot be physically separated from the whole.

Pavers, Property, and Protests: Navigating "Limited Common Elements" in Condominium Disputes

1. Introduction: The Battle for the Lanai

The boundary between shared community space and private unit use is one of the most litigious front lines in condominium law. In the matter of Katherine A. Windis v. Fairway Court West Condominium Association, this tension centered on a seemingly simple addition: patio pavers.

The dispute arose after the Association’s Board passed a resolution allowing first-floor owners to install pavers on the ground outside their lanais. To the Petitioner, Katherine Windis, this was an unauthorized "land grab"—a move that allegedly stripped other owners of their undivided interest in common property. To the Association, it was a logical administrative step toward community-wide desert landscaping. This case, eventually decided by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, serves as a masterclass in how statutory definitions of "Limited Common Elements" dictate the extent of a Board’s regulatory power.

2. The Resolution: Setting the Rules for Desert Landscaping

On April 23, 2012, the Fairway Court West Board of Directors adopted a resolution to standardize the installation of pavers. The Association was in the midst of a transition from grass to desert landscaping and sought to provide a uniform framework for owners wishing to enhance their entryways.

The resolution established the following rigorous criteria:

  • Dimensions: Installations were restricted to a minimum of 7 x 15 feet and a maximum of 8 x 16 feet.
  • Material Standards: Pavers were required to be at least two inches thick with color consistency matching existing community installations.
  • Economic Responsibility: The individual unit owner assumed all costs for both the initial installation and ongoing maintenance.
  • Board Oversight and Removal: Prior written approval was mandatory. Notably, the Board reserved the right to remove non-compliant pavers or maintain them at the owner’s expense.
  • Classification: The resolution explicitly categorized these areas as "Limited Common Areas" under the Association’s control.
3. The Petitioner's Challenge: When Common Property Feels Private

Katherine Windis, a former Board member, argued that the resolution was a de facto conveyance of common property to private individuals. Her challenge was built on a sophisticated—though ultimately unsuccessful—interpretation of Arizona’s Condominium Act and the community’s governing documents.

The Statutory Argument: Windis contended that the Board violated A.R.S. § 33-1217, A.R.S. § 33-1218, and A.R.S. § 33-1252. Her primary legal theory was that since all owners hold an "undivided interest" in common areas and pay taxes accordingly, any exclusive use granted to one owner constituted a "conveyance" of that interest. Under A.R.S. § 33-1252, such a transfer of title requires an 80% vote of the entire membership—a "nuclear option" for property rights that the Board bypassed.

The CC&R Challenge: Windis further alleged that the resolution ignored several specific provisions within the community’s Declaration:

  • CC&R 2.03: Defines everything beyond exterior walls as "Common Area" owned jointly by all.
  • CC&R 2.05: Specifically prohibits placing items like chairs, stools, or benches on common property.
  • CC&R 2.21: Explicitly states that deeds for first and second-floor units grant "equal rights and privileges" regarding lawns and plantings, arguing the resolution favored lower-level units.
4. The Legal Turning Point: Defining "Limited Common Elements"

The Association’s defense rested on a nuance of property law: the "Limited Common Element" (LCE). An expert analysis of this case reveals that the Board did not actually create LCEs through their resolution; rather, they regulated areas that the law already defined as such.

Under A.R.S. § 33-1212(4), a space's legal classification is determined by its functional use. If a portion of the common area is designed to serve only a single unit—specifically for ingress and egress—it is statutorily an LCE.

Feature Common Elements Limited Common Elements (LCE) Fairway Court Case Application
Definition Areas owned by all unit owners in an undivided interest. Portions of common elements allocated for exclusive use by one or more units. The "Common Area" remained common, but the specific entryways were LCEs.
Functional Test Used by the community at large (e.g., driveways, elevators). Designed to serve a single unit (e.g., stoops, patios, entryways). The pavers were placed on entryways used only by the specific unit owner.
Statutory Basis A.R.S. § 33-1212 A.R.S. § 33-1212(4) The ALJ found the areas were already LCEs because they served as entry/exit points.
5. The Verdict: Why the Association Prevailed

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Association, dismissing the petition. The decision turned on the "burden of proof." In administrative hearings, the Petitioner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence—meaning the claim is "more likely true than not." Windis failed to meet this burden.

The court’s reasoning solved the "Undivided Interest Paradox." While it is true that every owner holds an undivided interest in the common areas, that ownership does not equate to a right of use in every square inch. The ALJ determined that because the areas in question were entryways and stoops serving single units, they were statutorily Limited Common Elements from the outset.

Consequently, the Board was not "conveying" or "selling" property title (which would require the 80% vote under A.R.S. § 33-1252); they were simply exercising their administrative power to regulate the aesthetic and maintenance standards of an existing LCE. The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety certified this decision as final.

6. Key Takeaways for Condo Owners and Boards

As a legal analyst, I recommend the following lessons for any community association facing similar disputes:

  1. Functional Use Dictates Legal Status: A Board doesn't need to "label" a space an LCE if it already functions as one. If a stoop or entryway serves only one unit, it is likely an LCE under A.R.S. § 33-1212(4) regardless of what the CC&Rs call it.
  2. Regulation is Not Conveyance: There is a critical legal distinction between regulating how an owner uses an LCE and transferring title of common property. Boards can pass resolutions for the former, but the "nuclear option" of an 80% vote is reserved for the latter.
  3. The "Exclusive Use" Trade-off: Boards should clearly state that the privilege of exclusive use (like a paver patio) is contingent upon the owner assuming all maintenance and liability. This protects the Association's budget while granting owners personal utility.
  4. Consistency in CC&R Interpretation: While CC&R 2.21 grants equal rights in deeds, those rights are subject to the functional realities of the building’s design. Second-floor units, which lack rear entryways, are not "discriminated against" simply because they cannot install pavers where no entryway exists.
7. Conclusion: Seeking Harmony in Shared Spaces

The Windis case demonstrates that even when CC&Rs state that "everything beyond the walls is common area," state statutes provide the nuanced definitions necessary for effective management. By understanding that certain common areas are legally "limited" to specific units for ingress and egress, Boards can confidently regulate landscaping and improvements without fear of overstepping their authority.

For Associations, the path forward is clear: draft resolutions that reference statutory definitions and specify maintenance shifts. For owners, the takeaway is a reminder to look past the general "undivided interest" clause and examine the functional purpose of the land in question. Clear, legally-grounded resolutions are the best defense against the cost and conflict of administrative litigation.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Katherine A. Windis (petitioner)
    Fairway Court West Condominium Association (Member)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • R. Corey Hill (respondent attorney)
    Hill & Hill, PLC
    Attorney for Fairway Court West Condominium Association
  • Dave Harris (witness)
    Fairway Court West Condominium Association Board
    Vice-chairperson for the Board

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (OAH Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of mailed copy

Sellers, John and Debborah -v- Crossings At Willow Creek Property Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112003-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2012-11-02
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome The Director accepted the ALJ's finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(3) by using absentee ballots from one meeting at a subsequent meeting. The Tribunal found no credible evidence regarding the alleged Bylaws violation concerning conflict of interest voting. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and awarded reimbursement of filing fees.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John and Debborah Sellers Counsel —
Respondent Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association Counsel Matthew G. Hayes

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1812(3)
Bylaws Article IV, Section 5

Outcome Summary

The Director accepted the ALJ's finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(3) by using absentee ballots from one meeting at a subsequent meeting. The Tribunal found no credible evidence regarding the alleged Bylaws violation concerning conflict of interest voting. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and awarded reimbursement of filing fees.

Key Issues & Findings

Validity of Absentee Ballots

Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the statute by carrying over absentee ballots from one meeting to a subsequent meeting/extension instead of requiring new ballots for a new specific election.

Orders: Respondent shall comply with the applicable provision of A.R.S. § 33-1812 in the future; pay Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00; pay a civil penalty of $200.00 to the Department.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 4
  • 17
  • 20

Conflict of Interest Voting

Petitioners alleged that the HOA failed to respect Bylaws by allowing members with conflicts to vote.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • 4
  • 17

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

11F-H1112003-BFS Decision – 311265.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:37:26 (99.8 KB)

11F-H1112003-BFS Decision – 313156.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:37:31 (200.4 KB)

Questions

Question

Can an HOA carry over absentee ballots from one meeting to a subsequent meeting if they didn't get enough votes initially?

Short Answer

No, absentee ballots are valid for only the specific meeting they were issued for.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an absentee ballot is legally valid for only one specific election or meeting. It expires automatically once that meeting is completed. Therefore, an HOA cannot 'carry over' or reuse ballots cast for a previous date at a later meeting, even if the purpose is to reach a required quorum or vote threshold.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot is valid for only one specified election or meeting of the members and expires automatically after the completion of the election or meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(3)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • absentee ballots
  • meetings

Question

If I file a complaint against my HOA and win, can I get my filing fees back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fees.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner prevails in an administrative hearing against their HOA, the judge has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee paid to the Department to initiate the case.

Alj Quote

It is further ORDERED that Crossings pay Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00, to be paid to the Department in this matter within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fees
  • reimbursement

Question

What is the legal standard of proof required to win a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

To win a case in an administrative hearing, the petitioner must prove their claim by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means the evidence must show that it is more likely than not that the allegation is true.

Alj Quote

Proof by “preponderance of the evidence” means that it is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is “more likely true than not.”

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process
  • evidence

Question

Can the HOA be fined for violating state voting laws?

Short Answer

Yes, the HOA can be ordered to pay a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

In addition to reimbursing homeowner fees, an Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to pay a civil penalty to the Department for violating state statutes governing HOA conduct.

Alj Quote

It is further ORDERED that Crossings pay a civil penalty in the amount of $200.00 to the Department within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

Do absentee ballots count toward a quorum?

Short Answer

Yes, absentee ballots are valid for establishing a quorum.

Detailed Answer

State law explicitly provides that votes cast by absentee ballot (or other forms of delivery) must be counted when determining if a quorum is present for the meeting.

Alj Quote

Votes cast by absentee ballot or other form of delivery are valid for the purpose of establishing a quorum.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • quorum
  • meetings

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a dispute with the HOA?

Short Answer

The person bringing the claim (the petitioner) has the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the responsibility to prove that a violation occurred rests with the party who filed the petition asserting the claim or right.

Alj Quote

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement…

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process

Question

Can I petition for a hearing if my HOA violates its own bylaws or state statutes?

Short Answer

Yes, homeowners are permitted by statute to file petitions for such violations.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law allows an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition for a hearing regarding violations of the community's documents (like CC&Rs or Bylaws) or violations of statutes regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents or violations of statutes that regulate planned communities.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Topic Tags

  • homeowner rights
  • dispute resolution
  • statutes

Question

What information must be included on an absentee ballot?

Short Answer

The ballot must list each proposed action and provide a way to vote for or against each one.

Detailed Answer

For an absentee ballot to be valid, it is required to explicitly set forth every proposed action being voted on and must provide the member an opportunity to vote either for or against each of those actions.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot shall set forth each proposed action… The absentee ballot shall provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • compliance

Question

Does the HOA have to specify a deadline for absentee ballots?

Short Answer

Yes, the ballot must specify a time and date for delivery.

Detailed Answer

Absentee ballots must specify exactly when they need to be delivered to the board to be counted. This deadline must be at least seven days after the board sends the ballot to the member.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot specifies the time and date by which the ballot must be delivered to the board of directors in order to be counted, which shall be at least seven days after the date that the board delivers the unvoted absentee ballot to the member.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(4)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • deadlines
  • procedure

Case

Docket No
11F-H1112003-BFS
Case Title
John and Debborah Sellers vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2012-10-22
Alj Name
M. Douglas
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

Questions

Question

Can an HOA carry over absentee ballots from one meeting to a subsequent meeting if they didn't get enough votes initially?

Short Answer

No, absentee ballots are valid for only the specific meeting they were issued for.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an absentee ballot is legally valid for only one specific election or meeting. It expires automatically once that meeting is completed. Therefore, an HOA cannot 'carry over' or reuse ballots cast for a previous date at a later meeting, even if the purpose is to reach a required quorum or vote threshold.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot is valid for only one specified election or meeting of the members and expires automatically after the completion of the election or meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(3)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • absentee ballots
  • meetings

Question

If I file a complaint against my HOA and win, can I get my filing fees back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fees.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner prevails in an administrative hearing against their HOA, the judge has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee paid to the Department to initiate the case.

Alj Quote

It is further ORDERED that Crossings pay Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00, to be paid to the Department in this matter within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fees
  • reimbursement

Question

What is the legal standard of proof required to win a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

To win a case in an administrative hearing, the petitioner must prove their claim by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means the evidence must show that it is more likely than not that the allegation is true.

Alj Quote

Proof by “preponderance of the evidence” means that it is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is “more likely true than not.”

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process
  • evidence

Question

Can the HOA be fined for violating state voting laws?

Short Answer

Yes, the HOA can be ordered to pay a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

In addition to reimbursing homeowner fees, an Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to pay a civil penalty to the Department for violating state statutes governing HOA conduct.

Alj Quote

It is further ORDERED that Crossings pay a civil penalty in the amount of $200.00 to the Department within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

Do absentee ballots count toward a quorum?

Short Answer

Yes, absentee ballots are valid for establishing a quorum.

Detailed Answer

State law explicitly provides that votes cast by absentee ballot (or other forms of delivery) must be counted when determining if a quorum is present for the meeting.

Alj Quote

Votes cast by absentee ballot or other form of delivery are valid for the purpose of establishing a quorum.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • quorum
  • meetings

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a dispute with the HOA?

Short Answer

The person bringing the claim (the petitioner) has the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the responsibility to prove that a violation occurred rests with the party who filed the petition asserting the claim or right.

Alj Quote

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement…

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process

Question

Can I petition for a hearing if my HOA violates its own bylaws or state statutes?

Short Answer

Yes, homeowners are permitted by statute to file petitions for such violations.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law allows an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition for a hearing regarding violations of the community's documents (like CC&Rs or Bylaws) or violations of statutes regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents or violations of statutes that regulate planned communities.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Topic Tags

  • homeowner rights
  • dispute resolution
  • statutes

Question

What information must be included on an absentee ballot?

Short Answer

The ballot must list each proposed action and provide a way to vote for or against each one.

Detailed Answer

For an absentee ballot to be valid, it is required to explicitly set forth every proposed action being voted on and must provide the member an opportunity to vote either for or against each of those actions.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot shall set forth each proposed action… The absentee ballot shall provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • compliance

Question

Does the HOA have to specify a deadline for absentee ballots?

Short Answer

Yes, the ballot must specify a time and date for delivery.

Detailed Answer

Absentee ballots must specify exactly when they need to be delivered to the board to be counted. This deadline must be at least seven days after the board sends the ballot to the member.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot specifies the time and date by which the ballot must be delivered to the board of directors in order to be counted, which shall be at least seven days after the date that the board delivers the unvoted absentee ballot to the member.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(4)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • deadlines
  • procedure

Case

Docket No
11F-H1112003-BFS
Case Title
John and Debborah Sellers vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2012-10-22
Alj Name
M. Douglas
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

Questions

Question

Can an HOA carry over absentee ballots from one meeting to a subsequent meeting if they didn't get enough votes initially?

Short Answer

No, absentee ballots are valid for only the specific meeting they were issued for.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an absentee ballot is legally valid for only one specific election or meeting. It expires automatically once that meeting is completed. Therefore, an HOA cannot 'carry over' or reuse ballots cast for a previous date at a later meeting, even if the purpose is to reach a required quorum or vote threshold.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot is valid for only one specified election or meeting of the members and expires automatically after the completion of the election or meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(3)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • absentee ballots
  • meetings

Question

If I file a complaint against my HOA and win, can I get my filing fees back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fees.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner prevails in an administrative hearing against their HOA, the judge has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee paid to the Department to initiate the case.

Alj Quote

It is further ORDERED that Crossings pay Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00, to be paid to the Department in this matter within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fees
  • reimbursement

Question

What is the legal standard of proof required to win a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

To win a case in an administrative hearing, the petitioner must prove their claim by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means the evidence must show that it is more likely than not that the allegation is true.

Alj Quote

Proof by “preponderance of the evidence” means that it is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is “more likely true than not.”

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process
  • evidence

Question

Can the HOA be fined for violating state voting laws?

Short Answer

Yes, the HOA can be ordered to pay a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

In addition to reimbursing homeowner fees, an Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to pay a civil penalty to the Department for violating state statutes governing HOA conduct.

Alj Quote

It is further ORDERED that Crossings pay a civil penalty in the amount of $200.00 to the Department within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

Do absentee ballots count toward a quorum?

Short Answer

Yes, absentee ballots are valid for establishing a quorum.

Detailed Answer

State law explicitly provides that votes cast by absentee ballot (or other forms of delivery) must be counted when determining if a quorum is present for the meeting.

Alj Quote

Votes cast by absentee ballot or other form of delivery are valid for the purpose of establishing a quorum.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • quorum
  • meetings

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a dispute with the HOA?

Short Answer

The person bringing the claim (the petitioner) has the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the responsibility to prove that a violation occurred rests with the party who filed the petition asserting the claim or right.

Alj Quote

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement…

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process

Question

Can I petition for a hearing if my HOA violates its own bylaws or state statutes?

Short Answer

Yes, homeowners are permitted by statute to file petitions for such violations.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law allows an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition for a hearing regarding violations of the community's documents (like CC&Rs or Bylaws) or violations of statutes regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents or violations of statutes that regulate planned communities.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Topic Tags

  • homeowner rights
  • dispute resolution
  • statutes

Question

What information must be included on an absentee ballot?

Short Answer

The ballot must list each proposed action and provide a way to vote for or against each one.

Detailed Answer

For an absentee ballot to be valid, it is required to explicitly set forth every proposed action being voted on and must provide the member an opportunity to vote either for or against each of those actions.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot shall set forth each proposed action… The absentee ballot shall provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • compliance

Question

Does the HOA have to specify a deadline for absentee ballots?

Short Answer

Yes, the ballot must specify a time and date for delivery.

Detailed Answer

Absentee ballots must specify exactly when they need to be delivered to the board to be counted. This deadline must be at least seven days after the board sends the ballot to the member.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot specifies the time and date by which the ballot must be delivered to the board of directors in order to be counted, which shall be at least seven days after the date that the board delivers the unvoted absentee ballot to the member.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(4)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • deadlines
  • procedure

Case

Docket No
11F-H1112003-BFS
Case Title
John and Debborah Sellers vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2012-10-22
Alj Name
M. Douglas
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Sellers (petitioner)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    Homeowner; appeared for Petitioners; witness
  • Debborah Sellers (petitioner)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    Homeowner; also referred to as Debra Sellers in testimony

Respondent Side

  • Matthew G. Hayes (HOA attorney)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli PLC
  • Janice Dow (board member)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    Secretary; witness; owns four lots
  • Robert Balzano (property manager)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    Former managing agent (2010); witness

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Signed Final Order
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Complaint Program Manager
  • Debra Blake (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Signed on behalf of Joni Cage