Maxine Fairbanks vs. Santa Bird Condominium Association

Posted on March 28, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1516012-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-03-28
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$2,000.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Maxine Fairbanks	Counsel	—
Respondent	Santa Bird Condominium Association	Counsel	Julianne C. Wheeler

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1254
A.R.S. § 33-1243
A.R.S. § 33-1258
Declaration Paragraph 9E

Outcome Summary

Respondent admitted to all allegations regarding misuse of surplus monies, failure to adhere to budget, refusal to provide financial records, and unilateral board member decisions. The new Board committed to future compliance. Respondent was ordered to comply with statutes and CC&Rs and reimburse Petitioner's $2,000 filing fee. No civil penalty was imposed due to mitigating testimony from the new Board chairman.

Key Issues & Findings

Surplus monies

Allegation that the Board used surplus monies without an approved budget.

Orders: Respondent admitted violation; ordered to comply.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Budget adherence

Allegation that the Board failed to adhere to the approved budget.

Orders: Respondent admitted violation; ordered to comply.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Financial records

Allegation that the Board refused to provide a financial report.

Orders: Respondent admitted violation; ordered to comply.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Board voting

Allegation that an individual board member made decisions without a Board vote.

Orders: Respondent admitted violation; ordered to comply.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Decision Documents

15F-H1516012-BFS Decision – 487946.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-28T11:12:46 (113.1 KB)

15F-H1516012-BFS Decision – 495139.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-28T11:12:47 (61.2 KB)

**Case Overview**
In the matter of *Maxine Fairbanks v. Santa Bird Condominium Association* (Case No. 15F-H1516012-BFS), the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings adjudicated a dispute regarding the mismanagement of condominium association funds and governance procedures.

**Key Issues and Allegations**
The Petitioner, Maxine Fairbanks, alleged that the Respondent (the Association) violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the Association's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The specific allegations included:
* **Surplus Monies:** Using surplus funds without an approved budget (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1254).
* **Budget Adherence:** Failing to adhere to the approved budget (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1243).
* **Financial Records:** Refusing to provide financial reports to members (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258).
* **Governance:** Allowing individual board members to make decisions without a formal vote of the Board (violation of Declaration Paragraph 9E).

**Hearing Proceedings and Arguments**
During the hearing on March 17, 2016, the Respondent was represented by a newly elected Board of Directors.
* **Admissions:** The Respondent **admitted to all allegations**, attributing the violations to the conduct of the previous Board.
* **Mitigation:** Patricia Benner, the chairman of the new Board, testified that the Association’s records were in "disarray" when they took office. She detailed extensive steps taken to achieve compliance, including hiring a management company.
* **Petitioner’s Request:** The Petitioner requested an order ensuring future compliance with statutes and governing documents.

**Legal Findings and Decision**
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas found the Petitioner to be the prevailing party.
* **Violations Confirmed:** Based on the Respondent's admissions, the judge concluded that the Association had violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1254, 33-1243, 33-1258, and Paragraph 9E of the CC&Rs.
* **Mitigation Accepted:** The judge found Ms. Benner’s testimony credible and accepted the new Board's corrective actions as mitigation.

**Outcome and Order**
The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders on March 28, 2016:
1. **Compliance:** The Respondent must fully comply with the applicable statutes and CC&Rs.
2. **Reimbursement:** The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner's **filing fee of $2,000.00** within 30 days.
3. **No Civil Penalty:** Due to the mitigating testimony regarding the new Board's efforts, no civil penalty was assessed.

**Final Status**
The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on May 9, 2016, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify the ALJ's decision within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Maxine Fairbanks (Petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf; testified at hearing

Respondent Side

Julianne C. Wheeler (attorney)
Jennings, Haugh & Cunningham, LLP
Attorney for Respondent
Patricia Benner (witness)
Santa Bird Condominium Association
Chairman of the new Board; testified at hearing
Peggi Hollen (board member)
Santa Bird Condominium Association
Chairman (listed on mailing list)

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Debra Blake (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Interim Director
Greg Hanchett (Agency Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Interim Director; signed certification
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
c/o for Debra Blake
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Agency Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed mailing/transmission

Gainey Ranch Community Association v. MS Pavillions 35 LLC

Posted on March 11, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1516009-BFS
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-03-11
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Gainey Ranch Community Association and Pavilions Council of Co-Owners	Counsel	Beth Mulcahy
Respondent	MS Pavillions 35 LLC	Counsel	Danielle K. Graham

Alleged Violations

Article VIII, Section 5(a)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner (HOA). It was determined that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs by removing a deck railing without explicit approval, rejecting the defense that approval for fascia replacement covered the railing removal. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the CC&Rs and reimburse the filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to obtain approval for exterior changes (deck railing removal)

The HOA alleged the Respondent removed a deck railing without approval. The Respondent argued approval to replace fascia implicitly included railing removal. The ALJ found the Committee could not have known removal was necessary based on the application, thus specific approval was required and not obtained.

Orders: Respondent must comply with Article VIII, Section 5(a) of the CC&Rs and pay Petitioner's filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Article VIII, Section 5(a)

Decision Documents

15F-H1516009-BFS Decision – 485540.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:34 (102.5 KB)

15F-H1516009-BFS Decision – 489011.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:35 (188.0 KB)

**Case Summary: Gainey Ranch Community Association v. MS Pavillions 35 LLC**
**Case No.** 15F-H1516009-BFS
**Date of Decision:** March 11, 2016

**Overview and Proceedings**
This hearing before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings addressed a dispute between Gainey Ranch Community Association and Pavilions Council of Co-Owners (Petitioners) and MS Pavillions 35 LLC (Respondent). The hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas on February 26, 2016. The central issue was whether the Respondent violated the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by making unapproved exterior changes.

**Key Facts and Allegations**
The Petitioners alleged that the Respondent violated Article VIII, Section 5(a) of the CC&Rs by failing to obtain approval from the Architectural Committee prior to removing a deck railing. This section of the CC&Rs mandates prior written approval for any exterior changes, alterations, or repairs.

On January 15, 2015, the Master Architectural Committee (MAC) granted the Respondent approval to install "New metal flashing at patio". The Respondent subsequently removed the deck railing while performing this work.

**Main Arguments**
* **Petitioners' Argument:** The Association argued that the MAC approved only the metal flashing, not the railing removal. Witnesses testified that exterior changes require specific approval and that the removal of the railing was never discussed or approved during the January 15 meeting.
* **Respondent's Argument:** The Respondent contended that approval to remove the railing was a necessary element of the approved fascia installation. Michael Shotay, the managing member for the Respondent, testified that the railing was attached to the old wood flashing and had to be removed to replace the flashing. He argued that the MAC knew or should have known that installing the new fascia was impossible without removing the railing.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. The ALJ acknowledged the Respondent's testimony that the railing was attached to the wood flashing due to a previous remodel.

However, the ALJ found that because the Respondent had relocated the railing during that previous remodel, the Architectural Committee would not have known that it was impossible to install the new fascia without removing the railing. Consequently, the MAC's approval for the flashing did not implicitly include approval to remove the railing.

**Outcome and Order**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, concluding that the Respondent failed to obtain the required approval prior to removing the deck railing. The Decision ordered the following:
1. **Compliance:** The Respondent must fully comply with Article VIII, Section 5(a) of the CC&Rs.
2. **Fees:** The Respondent must pay the Petitioners' filing fee of $550.00 within 30 days.
3. **Penalties:** No civil penalty was found to be appropriate.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Beth Mulcahy (Petitioner Attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm (implied)
Represented Gainey Ranch Community Association and Pavilions Council of Co-Owners
Dee Bloom (Witness)
Testified regarding the removal of the deck railing
James A. Funk (Witness)
Gainey Ranch Community Association
Executive Director and member of the Master Architectural Committee

Respondent Side

Danielle K. Graham (Respondent Attorney)
Represented MS-Pavillions 35 LLC
Michael Shotay (Respondent Representative)
MS-Pavillions 35 LLC
Managing member; testified at hearing; spelled 'Shotey' in minutes but 'Shotay' in decision text
Tom Tedford (Contractor)
Flo-Tech Inc.
Mentioned in testimony as the contractor who performed the work

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Debra Blake (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Interim Director; transmitted decision

Arnold C. Williams vs. Sonoita Ranch Homeowner’s Association Inc.

Posted on March 9, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1516007-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-03-09
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$2,000.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Arnold C. Williams	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.	Counsel	Douglas W. Glasson

Alleged Violations

CC&R 7.4; CC&R 7.7

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found in favor of the Petitioner. The HOA admitted that the Board resolutions attempting to amend CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7 were invalid as they lacked the required homeowner vote. Evidence showed the HOA failed to enforce the existing CC&Rs regarding service areas and parking. The HOA was ordered to enforce the CC&Rs and reimburse the Petitioner's filing fees.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to enforce CC&Rs and Invalid Board Resolutions

Petitioner alleged that the HOA Board failed to enforce CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7 regarding trash/storage and vehicle parking, leading to neighborhood deterioration. Petitioner also alleged the Board illegally passed resolutions to amend these CC&Rs without the required homeowner vote. Respondent admitted the resolutions were invalid and unenforceable.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with CC&R 7.4 and 7.7; Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $2,000.00; declared that any amendment to CC&Rs must be voted on by homeowners.

Filing fee: $2,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

CC&R 7.4
CC&R 7.7

Decision Documents

15F-H1516007-BFS Decision – 485232.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:25 (106.6 KB)

15F-H1516007-BFS Decision – 492722.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:26 (60.1 KB)

**Case Summary: Arnold C. Williams v. Sonoita Ranch Homeowner’s Association Inc.**
**Case No. 15F-H1516007-BFS**

**Overview**
This administrative hearing addressed a petition filed by homeowner Arnold C. Williams (Petitioner) against the Sonoita Ranch Homeowner’s Association Inc. (Respondent). The dispute concerned the Association's failure to enforce specific Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Board's attempt to amend governing documents without a homeowner vote,.

**Key Facts and Issues**
The Petitioner alleged the Respondent failed to enforce two specific provisions:
1. **CC&R 7.4:** Pertaining to the screening of service areas, trash accumulation, and the concealment of bins,.
2. **CC&R 7.7:** Prohibiting the parking or storage of boats, trucks, trailers, and RVs on streets or lots unless in an attached carport,.

The Petitioner argued that the Board passed resolutions regarding these rules that contradicted the CC&Rs and violated the requirement for a homeowner vote. He testified that the lack of enforcement led to a sharp decline in the neighborhood's appearance, citing an "onslaught" of RVs and weeds, which hindered his ability to sell his residence,.

**Arguments and Testimony**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Williams argued the Board illegally altered CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7 via board resolution rather than the required membership vote. He presented testimony that the neighborhood had deteriorated due to non-enforcement,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association admitted passing resolutions in 2009 and 2012 to "clarify" the CC&Rs. However, the Association conceded these resolutions were invalid and unenforceable because they conflicted with the existing CC&Rs,. Board members testified they had relied on incorrect advice from a previous management company, which claimed the Board could amend CC&Rs by resolution,. The Association’s counsel confirmed that valid amendments require a 75% affirmative vote from homeowners.

**Legal Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the preponderance of the evidence standard. The ALJ concluded:
* The Respondent admitted the resolutions passed to remedy "perceived problems" with the CC&Rs were invalid.
* The Petitioner credibly established that the Association was not enforcing CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7.
* The Association violated its governing documents by failing to enforce these rules and attempting improper amendments.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner. The Order mandated the following:
1. **Enforcement:** The Respondent must comply with the applicable provisions of CC&R 7.4 and CC&R 7.7.
2. **Amendment Procedure:** Any future amendments to the CC&Rs must be voted on and passed by the homeowner members, as required by the governing documents.
3. **Monetary Award:** The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $2,000.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was assessed.

**Procedural Note**
The ALJ issued the decision on March 9, 2016. The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not accept, reject, or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the ALJ’s ruling was certified as the final administrative decision on April 26, 2016.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Arnold C. Williams (Petitioner)
Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc. (Member)
Appeared on his own behalf
Kenneth Elflein (Witness)
Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc. (Resident)
Testified regarding neighborhood deterioration

Respondent Side

Douglas W. Glasson (Respondent Attorney)
Curl & Glasson, P.L.C.
Represented Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.
Nathan Tennyson (Witness)
Brown Olcott PLLC
General counsel for Sonoita; testified regarding CC&Rs
Scott DeRosa (Board Member)
Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.
Testified regarding Board actions
Eloy Blanco (Board Member)
Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.
Testified regarding Board meetings
Sarah Curley (Board President)
Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.
Testified regarding CC&R amendments
Paul Gready (Property Manager)
Express Property Management
Testified as expert in HOA management

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Debra Blake (Agency Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Interim Director
Greg Hanchett (OAH Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Interim Director; certified the decision
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
c/o for Debra Blake
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed mailing certificate

SHARON OBERRITTER v. SCOTTSDALE TRAILS

Posted on December 23, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1516003-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2015-12-23
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Unknown	Counsel	—
Respondent	Unknown	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 16, Section 16.2

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Board's modification of the Rules and Regulations regarding patio storage was not a violation of the CC&Rs and did not require a vote by the owners. The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof to establish that the rule change was invalid or required membership approval.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Rule Change

Petitioner alleged that the Board violated the CC&Rs by modifying a rule regarding patio storage without obtaining approval from two-thirds of the owners.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

CC&Rs Article 16, Section 16.2
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Decision Documents

15F-H1516003-BFS Decision – 472974.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-12T19:04:24 (89.0 KB)

15F-H1516003-BFS Decision – 486288.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-12T19:04:25 (59.5 KB)

**Case Summary: Oberritter v. Scottsdale Trails (No. 15F-H1516003-BFS)**

**Proceedings and Parties**
This administrative hearing was held on December 9, 2015, before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner, Sharon Oberritter, a homeowner and Board member, appeared on her own behalf against the Respondent, Scottsdale Trails (a homeowners’ association), represented by legal counsel.

**Key Facts and Main Issues**
The central dispute involved the validity of a June 2014 Board vote that modified the community's Rules and Regulations regarding items stored on patios and balconies.

* **The Change:** The Board voted 4-3 to amend "Section 4, Paragraph 2" of the Rules and Regulations. The modification added language stating that patio storage is prohibited "unless approved by the Board of Directors," explicitly referencing Section 16.2 of the CC&Rs.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** The Petitioner alleged that this modification effectively altered Article 16, Section 16.2 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). She argued that changing the CC&Rs requires approval by a two-thirds vote of the owners, making the Board's majority vote invalid. She further expressed concern that the change would negatively impact property appearance and values.
* **Respondent’s Argument:** A testifying Board member stated the vote was to modify the "Rules and Regulations" to comply with the CC&Rs rather than changing the CC&Rs themselves, characterizing it as a "semantic change".

**Legal Rulings and Outcome**
* **Evidentiary Ruling:** At the start of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the Respondent’s Motion in Limine, excluding any evidence or testimony regarding privileged attorney-client communications.
* **Burden of Proof:** The ALJ noted that the burden of proof rested on the Petitioner to prove the claim by a "preponderance of the evidence".
* **Findings:** The Tribunal concluded that the Petitioner failed to present credible evidence that the language change in the Rules and Regulations violated Section 16.2 of the CC&Rs or that such a rule change required a vote by the homeowners.
* **Final Decision:** The ALJ determined the Petitioner failed to satisfy her burden of proof and ordered the petition dismissed with no action required of the Respondent.

**Case Status**
On March 17, 2016, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision because the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ's decision within the statutory timeframe.

Samuel G. Schechter vs Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One

Posted on October 9, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1515002-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2015-10-09
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Samuel G. Schechter	Counsel	—
Respondent	Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One	Counsel	Steven D. Leach

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article VII(1); CC&Rs Section 11.g

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the HOA Board acted reasonably in investigating the Petitioner's complaint about junk vehicles. The Board found the initial complaint list contained inaccuracies and requested an update, which the Petitioner failed to provide. The Petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof.

Why this result: Petitioner refused to provide an updated list of violations after the Board found the initial list inaccurate; the ALJ determined the Board's response was reasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Enforce Junk Vehicle Restrictions

Petitioner alleged the HOA Board failed to enforce CC&R Section 11.g regarding junk vehicles and violated Bylaws Article VII(1) by not acting on a complaint list provided by Petitioner.

Orders: No action is required of Respondent; the petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Decision Documents

15F-H1515002-BFS Decision – 460938.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:25 (95.0 KB)

15F-H1515002-BFS Decision – 469830.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:25 (56.5 KB)

**Case Summary: Samuel G. Schechter v. Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One**
**Case No. 15F-H1515002-BFS**

**Proceedings Overview**
This administrative hearing was held on September 22, 2015, before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner, Samuel G. Schechter, appeared on his own behalf, alleging that the Respondent, Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One (the Association), violated its Bylaws and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs),.

**Key Facts and Main Issues**
The central dispute involved the Association's alleged failure to enforce CC&R Section 11.g, which prohibits "stripped down, wrecked or junk motor vehicles" on lots,.

* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Schechter, a former Board member, submitted a complaint on September 8, 2014, listing violations regarding junk vehicles,. He argued that the Board failed to take enforcement action for over four months, violating Bylaw Article VII(1), which mandates the Board diligently perform its obligations. Schechter and witness Peter Dodge relied on photographs and observations made during their previous tenure on the Board,.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The Association argued the delay was initially caused by the sudden death of the Environmental Control Committee Chairman. Furthermore, an investigation by Board President Roxanna McGinnis in October 2014 revealed that the Petitioner’s list contained incorrect addresses and outdated information,. The Board requested that the Petitioner resubmit an updated, accurate list, but the Petitioner refused,.

**Key Legal Points and Arguments**
* **Investigation and Accuracy:** Testimony established that the Board attempted to investigate the Petitioner's complaint but found the data flawed. Witness Peter Dodge admitted the Board requested a second survey but stated he and Schechter declined to provide it because they were no longer Board members, calling it a "fool's errand".
* **Burden of Proof:** The Administrative Law Judge noted that the burden of proof falls on the party asserting the claim (the Petitioner) by a "preponderance of the evidence".

**Final Decision and Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the Respondent.

* **Findings:** The Tribunal concluded that the Board’s actions were "reasonable and prudent under the circumstances". Specifically, the Board investigated the allegations, identified inaccuracies, and requested updated information from the complainant.
* **Conclusion:** Because the Petitioner and Mr. Dodge failed to respond to the Board’s request for updated information regarding the alleged violations, the Petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof,.
* **Order:** No action was required of the Respondent, and the matter was dismissed.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Samuel G. Schechter (petitioner)
Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Former Board member (2011-2014); appeared on his own behalf
Peter Dodge (witness)
Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Former Board member; assisted Petitioner in compiling complaints

Respondent Side

Steven D. Leach (attorney)
Attorney for Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Ron Murray (committee member)
Environmental Control Committee
Former ECC Chairman; passed away between Sept and Oct 2014
Roxanna McGinnis (board member)
Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Board President in Oct 2014; investigated violations
Theodore Pahle (witness)
Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Board President as of July 1, 2015
Erescene Johnson-Stokes (witness)
Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Resident

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Debra Blake (agency director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Interim Director

Ferne Skidmore vs. Velda Rose Estates Homeowner Association

Posted on September 14, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1515006-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-09-14
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Ferne Skidmore	Counsel	Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent	Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association	Counsel	Clint G. Goodman

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Section 3

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the HOA's restriction of the 'Stocking Project' from the clubhouse violated the non-discrimination provisions of the CC&Rs (Article IV, Section 3). The ALJ determined the project was charitable, not religious, and that the HOA had historically allowed non-members and other activities.

Key Issues & Findings

Discrimination in Common Area Use

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated the CC&Rs non-discrimination clause by prohibiting the 'Christmas Stocking Project' from using the clubhouse. The HOA argued the project had a religious affiliation and non-members participated. The ALJ found the project was a charitable organization for homeless children without religious affiliation and that the HOA's exclusion was discriminatory.

Orders: Respondent ordered to fully comply with CC&Rs; Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $550.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Article IV, Section 3
Article VII, paragraph 2

Decision Documents

15F-H1515006-BFS Decision – 457186.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:36 (107.1 KB)

15F-H1515006-BFS Decision – 463653.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:36 (63.1 KB)

**Case Summary: Ferne Skidmore v. Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association**
**Case No. 15F-H1515006-BFS**

**Proceedings Overview**
This administrative hearing, held on August 27, 2015, before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, addressed a petition filed by homeowner Ferne Skidmore against the Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association (HOA). The dispute centered on the HOA Board's decision to prohibit a group known as the "Stocking Project" from using the community clubhouse.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The Petitioner, Ms. Skidmore, had organized the Stocking Project for approximately six years. The group utilized the clubhouse to assemble Christmas stockings filled with donated items (e.g., toiletries and toys) for needy and homeless children,.

* **Respondent’s Position:** The HOA Board argued that it restricted the project to adhere to CC&Rs and Bylaws regarding "religious affiliation." Board members testified they excluded the group to avoid liability associated with religious organizations, because the project's funds did not pass through the HOA treasurer, and because the group included non-members,,.
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Ms. Skidmore argued the ban was discriminatory and violated the HOA's non-discrimination clauses. She testified that the project was purely charitable, had no religious affiliation, and that religion was never mentioned during activities,.

**Evidence and Testimony**
Testimony revealed inconsistencies in the HOA's enforcement of rules. While the Board cited religious affiliation as a reason for the ban, a Board member admitted the Board opens its own sessions with prayer and displays Christmas decorations in the clubhouse,. Additionally, evidence showed the clubhouse was open to other activities involving non-members and monetary prizes (such as card games) without restriction.

**Legal Findings**
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas ruled in favor of the Petitioner based on the preponderance of the evidence,.

1. **Definition of Religious Activity:** The Tribunal found the Stocking Project was a non-profit charitable organization existing to help children, not to promote a specific belief in a deity. Therefore, it did not constitute a "religious activity",.
2. **Violation of CC&Rs:** The Judge concluded the Board's actions were discriminatory, violating Article IV, Section 3 of the Velda Rose CC&Rs, which prohibits discrimination among owners,.

**Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:
* The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party.
* The HOA must fully comply with applicable CC&R provisions in the future.
* The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $550.00 filing fee.
* No civil penalty was assessed.

The decision became the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on October 28, 2015, following a review period during which the Department took no action to reject or modify the ruling.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Ferne Skidmore (Petitioner)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association (Member)
Homeowner; organizer of the Stocking Project
Jonathan A. Dessaules (Attorney)
Dessaules Law Group
Represented Petitioner
F. Robert Connelly (Attorney)
Dessaules Law Group
Listed on service list for Petitioner

Respondent Side

Clint G. Goodman (Attorney)
Goodman Law Office, P.C.
Represented Respondent
Brodie Poole (Witness)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
Board Member since January 2015; testified Stocking Project had no religious affiliation
Gwendolyn Krogstad (Witness)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
Board Member since January 2015
Darrell Walklin (Witness)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
Former Board President
Gloria Denesen (Witness)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
Board Treasurer
Roger A. Walklin (Witness)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
Board President (appointed/elected 2013)

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Debra Blake (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Interim Director
Greg Hanchett (Agency Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Interim Director; certified the decision
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
c/o for Debra Blake
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Mailed/faxed the decision

Thomas Satterlee vs. Green Valley Country Club Vistas

Posted on August 27, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1515008-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2015-08-27
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Thomas Satterlee	Counsel	—
Respondent	Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA	Counsel	Michael Steven Shupe

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Articles XIII, XIV, XV
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA's 2015 amendment vote was valid under the 1990 CC&Rs because the 1992 updates relied upon by Petitioner were never properly adopted. No open meeting violations were found.

Why this result: Petitioner relied on invalid governing documents to assert procedural defects and failed to prove statutory violations.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Amendment Procedures

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to follow the amendment procedures set forth in the 1992 updated Bylaws/Articles, specifically regarding the format of the ballot. The ALJ found that the 1992 updates were never validly approved by the members, and thus the HOA was not bound by them.

Orders: Petition dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Open Meeting Violation

Petitioner alleged the Board did not provide members sufficient time to review changes or discuss them at the annual meeting. The ALJ found the evidence failed to support a finding that the open meeting requirements were violated.

Orders: Petition dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

15F-H1515008-BFS Decision – 454928.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:41 (112.9 KB)

15F-H1515008-BFS Decision – 460537.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:41 (60.1 KB)

**Case Summary: Thomas Satterlee v. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA**
**Case No. 15F-H1515008-BFS**

**Proceedings Overview**
This matter was heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings on August 14, 2015. Petitioner Thomas Satterlee, a homeowner, filed a complaint against the Respondent, Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owners Association ("Association"), alleging violations of the Association’s Bylaws and Arizona statutes regarding the amendment of governing documents.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The dispute centered on an Association vote held on January 29, 2015, to amend and restate the Articles of Incorporation, CC&Rs, and Bylaws.

* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Satterlee alleged the Association failed to follow specific ballot formatting requirements found in a document recorded in March 1992 (the "1992 Update"). Specifically, he argued the Association failed to list the original sections alongside proposed changes on the ballot. He asserted that "no prudent man" would have recorded the 1992 Update unless it had been properly voted on.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The Association argued the 1992 Update was never validly approved by the membership and was therefore unenforceable. Instead, the Association relied on the 1990 CC&Rs as the valid governing document. They contended the 2015 amendments were necessary to correct errors and were properly adopted by a majority of owners as required by the 1990 CC&Rs.
* **Testimony:** The Association’s Secretary testified she could find no evidence—such as certification or voting records—that the 1992 Update was ever approved by the members. Satterlee admitted under cross-examination that he had no proof the 1992 Update had been voted on by the membership.

**Legal Findings**
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas issued a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence:

1. **Validity of Governing Documents:** The evidence established that the 1990 CC&Rs were duly approved and recorded. However, the evidence failed to show that the 1992 Update was ever voted on or approved by the members as required. Consequently, the strict formatting provisions of the 1992 Update were not binding.
2. **Compliance with Voting Procedures:** The Judge determined that the January 29, 2015 vote complied with the valid 1990 CC&Rs.
3. **Open Meeting Statutes:** The Judge concluded the evidence did not support a finding that the Association violated open meeting requirements under A.R.S. § 33-1804.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to satisfy his burden of proof and ordered the petition dismissed, requiring no action from the Respondent.

On October 7, 2015, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, as the Department took no action to reject or modify the Judge's decision within the statutory review period.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Thomas Satterlee (Petitioner)
Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA (Member)
Appeared on his own behalf
Michael Simpson (witness)
Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA
Member for approx 2.5 years; testified regarding insufficient review time
Mike Koning (witness)
Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA
Testified regarding lack of time to present questions

Respondent Side

Michael Steven Shupe (attorney)
Goldschmidt and Shupe PLLC
Attorney for Respondent
Howard Marvin (witness)
Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA
Former President of the Association (2012-2015)
Linda Clemens (witness)
Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA
Board Secretary

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Debra Blake (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Interim Director
Greg Hanchett (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Interim Director; certified the decision
Joni Cage (staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
c/o for Debra Blake
Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Mailed/faxed the certification

Morris, Deana vs. Sundance Residential HOA

Posted on June 23, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1515001-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-06-23
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Deanna Morris	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sundance Residential HOA	Counsel	Mark Sahl

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article VII, Sections 7.01, 7.03, 7.04; Article 1, Sections 1.64, 1.65; Article II, Section 2.08; Article X, Section 10.16
N/A

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ordered that the petition be dismissed and the Respondent be deemed the prevailing party. The HOA was found to have properly approved the architectural changes, and the billing dispute was resolved prior to the hearing.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sundance violated its governing documents regarding the architectural approval, and the billing issue was moot.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs regarding neighbor's gazebo and balcony

Petitioner alleged that the HOA improperly approved a neighbor's walkout balcony and gazebo, claiming the structures blocked views, violated privacy, and were not compliant with the CC&Rs or design guidelines.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Improper invoice charge

Petitioner alleged the HOA added an unexplained invoice for $1,076.00 to her quarterly bill.

Orders: Petition dismissed (Issue resolved: HOA removed the charge as an administrative error before hearing).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: resolved_prior_to_hearing

Decision Documents

15F-H1515001-BFS Decision – 446035.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:20 (111.5 KB)

15F-H1515001-BFS Decision – 464029.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:20 (49.6 KB)

**Case Summary: Deanna Morris v. Sundance Residential HOA**
**Case No. 15F-H1515001-BFS**

**Proceedings and Parties**
This administrative hearing was held on June 10, 2015, before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a petition filed by homeowner Deanna Morris (Petitioner) against Sundance Residential HOA (Respondent),. The Petitioner represented herself, while the Respondent was represented by counsel.

**Main Issues and Key Facts**
The dispute centered on the HOA’s approval of a walkout balcony and gazebo constructed on a property neighboring the Petitioner's residence.
* **Architectural Violations:** The Petitioner alleged the structures violated the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding "harmony and compatibility," blocked her scenic views of the sunset, and were not completed within approved timeframes,,. She further argued the Architectural Committee used incorrect rules during the approval process and that the structures included unapproved, intrusive lighting,.
* **Billing Dispute:** The Petitioner contested an unexplained invoice for $1,076.00 added to her account.

**Key Arguments and Testimony**
* **Petitioner's Position:** Ms. Morris argued that the Committee failed to protect her property value and privacy. She claimed the neighbor's project deviated from approved plans and that the Committee should have utilized rules effective April 1, 2014, rather than the 2011 rules used,.
* **Respondent's Position:** The HOA denied the allegations, asserting the project complied with all governing documents,.
* **Witness Testimony:** The neighbor, Martha Duran, testified that she obtained necessary approvals from the HOA and the City of Buckeye and completed construction within the allowed period,. Committee member Willard Brunner testified that the Committee reviews plans for harmony and view impact but noted that neighbors do not possess "veto power" over approved projects,. He confirmed the structures were within community standards.
* **Billing Resolution:** The HOA’s community manager testified that the disputed $1,076.00 fee was an administrative error and had been removed from the Petitioner’s account prior to the hearing,.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, placing the burden of proof on the Petitioner,.
* **Compliance:** The ALJ found credible testimony established that the Committee properly reviewed the plans and that the "as-built" structures complied with the approved specifications and community standards,.
* **Governing Documents:** The ALJ cited Article VII of the CC&Rs, which authorizes the Committee to review plans for harmony and location, and noted that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated these documents,.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
* **Hearing Decision:** The ALJ recommended that the petition be dismissed, ruling that Sundance Residential HOA was the prevailing party. The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the CC&Rs.
* **Subsequent Action:** A rehearing was initially granted and scheduled for November 2, 2015. However, on October 29, 2015, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety rescinded the Order Granting Rehearing Request. Consequently, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order vacating the hearing and mooting all pending motions.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Deanna Morris (Petitioner)
Sundance Residential HOA member
Appeared on her own behalf; owner of residence in Sundance
Rod Fleishman (Witness)
Co-owner of Petitioner's residence
Testified regarding scenic view blockage

Respondent Side

Mark Sahl (Respondent Attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Represented Sundance Residential HOA
Martha Duran (Witness)
Neighbor/Homeowner
Testified regarding her construction of the gazebo/balcony at issue
Willard Brunner (Witness)
Sundance Architectural Committee
Member of the Committee; testified regarding approval process
Tom Campanella (Witness)
Sundance Residential HOA
Community Manager

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presided over the hearing and issued the decision
Debra Blake (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Interim Director
Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Order Vacating Hearing in related docket 15F-H1515001-BFS-rhg
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
CC'd on Order Vacating Hearing
Dawn Vandeberg (Administrative Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed/Processed Order Vacating Hearing

Dennis J. Legere vs. Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA

Posted on April 23, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2015-04-23
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$2,000.00
Civil Penalties	$2,000.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Dennis J. Legere	Counsel	—
Respondent	Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA	Counsel	Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner on Rehearing. The Tribunal found that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by preventing members from speaking before board votes, failing to notice committee meetings, and using email unanimous consent (A.R.S. § 10-3821) to bypass open meeting requirements. The ALJ determined that A.R.S. § 33-1804 constitutes a specific statute that prevails over the general non-profit corporation statute allowing action without a meeting, and that the HOA cannot use Title 10 to impliedly repeal Title 33 open meeting mandates.

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meeting Law Violations

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by preventing members from speaking on agenda items, holding unannounced architectural committee meetings, and using email/unanimous consent to conduct business in closed sessions.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804(A); pay filing fee of $2,000 to Petitioner; pay civil penalty of $2,000 to the Department.

Filing fee: $2,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $2,000.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 10-3821

Decision Documents

14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg Decision – 437956.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:51 (228.9 KB)

14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg Decision – 443321.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:51 (62.7 KB)

**Case Summary: Dennis J. Legere v. Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA**
**Case No. 14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg**

**Procedural History and Context**
This matter involves a dispute between Dennis J. Legere (Petitioner) and Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Respondent) regarding alleged violations of Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804),. The case includes an initial Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision issued in August 2014 and a subsequent **Decision on Rehearing** issued in April 2015,.

**Original Proceedings (July–August 2014)**
In the original hearing, the Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by conducting business via "email meetings" (closed sessions), failing to provide notice for architectural committee meetings, and preventing members from speaking before Board votes,,.

The HOA argued that A.R.S. § 10-3821 (Title 10) and its Bylaws permitted the Board to take action without a meeting if they obtained unanimous written consent, a practice they adopted for efficiency,.

In the original decision, the ALJ ruled that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 regarding speaking rights and committee notices,. However, the ALJ declined to rule on the "email meeting" issue, stating the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine violations of Title 10 (Corporations) or resolve conflicts between Title 10 and Title 33.

**Rehearing Proceedings (March 2015)**
The Petitioner requested a rehearing, arguing the ALJ erroneously declined jurisdiction over the "email meeting" issue. The Petitioner asserted the issue was not whether the HOA violated Title 10, but whether complying with Title 10 allowed the HOA to evade the open meeting mandates of Title 33. The Department granted the rehearing.

**Key Legal Issues on Rehearing**
The central legal question was statutory interpretation: Can an HOA utilize A.R.S. § 10-3821 (allowing corporate action by unanimous written consent without a meeting) to bypass the open meeting requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804,.

The HOA maintained that taking action by unanimous written consent via email was a legal right under Title 10 and its Bylaws. The Petitioner argued this practice violated the intent of the Open Meeting Law by precluding member observation and participation.

**Rehearing Analysis and Conclusions**
The ALJ rejected the HOA's reliance on Title 10 to avoid open meetings. The decision established the following legal principles:
* **Statutory Priority:** A.R.S. § 33-1804 unambiguously requires HOA meetings to be open. While Title 10 governs non-profit corporations generally, Title 33 specifically regulates planned communities.
* **Harmonization:** Statutes must be construed together; however, an agency cannot disregard clear legislative directives,.
* **Ruling:** A specific statute (Title 33) prevails over a general statute (Title 10). The ALJ held that HOAs cannot use Title 10 to "impliedly repeal" the open meeting statutes of Title 33.

Consequently, the ALJ ruled that the Board's practice of taking action via email/unanimous consent *violated* A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

**Final Decision and Order**
The Rehearing Decision affirmed the Petitioner as the prevailing party. The ALJ made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. **Email Meetings:** The use of unanimous written consent via email in lieu of open meetings is a violation of A.R.S. § 33-180

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Dennis J. Legere (petitioner)
Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA
Homeowner and former board member
Tom Rawles (attorney)
Represented Petitioner in original hearing

Respondent Side

Troy Stratman (attorney)
Mack, Watson & Stratman, PLC
Represented Respondent in original hearing; listed as 'Tony Stratman' in service list
Maria R. Kupillas (attorney)
Farley, Seletos & Choate
Represented Respondent in rehearing
Michelle O’Robinson (witness)
Vision Community Management
Property Manager and Field Operations Supervisor
James T. Foxworthy (witness)
Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA
Board President (during original hearing)
John Edgar Schuler (witness)
Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA
Board President (as of March 2015)

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Agency Director certifying the decision
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the final administrative decision
Joni Cage (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of transmitted decision
Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed copy distribution

Logan C. Wolf vs. Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association

Posted on March 2, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	14F-H1415006-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-03-02
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Logan C. Wolf	Counsel	—
Respondent	Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

Article 2, Section 2.2(B)(2)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner prevailed. Respondent failed to appear. ALJ found Respondent violated CC&Rs by failing to convert Class B membership to Class A as required. Ordered to comply and pay fees/penalties.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Convert Class B Membership

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to convert Class B memberships to Class A memberships within four years of the first lot conveyance, thereby improperly maintaining developer control.

Orders: Lakeside shall fully comply with Article 2, Section 2.2(B)(2) of CC&Rs within 30 days; pay Petitioner $550.00 filing fee; pay Department $500.00 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Article 2, Section 2.2(B)(2)

Decision Documents

14F-H1415006-BFS Decision – 430566.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:42 (105.6 KB)

14F-H1415006-BFS Decision – 438544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:42 (60.8 KB)

**Case Title:** *Logan C. Wolf vs. Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association*
**Case No.:** 14F-H1415006-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

### **Procedural Background**
The Petitioner, Logan C. Wolf, a homeowner and member of the Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association ("Lakeside"), filed a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. He alleged that Lakeside violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding voting membership rights.

An administrative hearing was held on February 12, 2015. The Petitioner appeared on his own behalf, while the Respondent (Lakeside) **failed to appear**. Additionally, Lakeside failed to file an Answer to the petition despite receiving proper notice, which may be deemed an admission of the allegations under Arizona law.

### **Main Issues and Key Facts**
The central legal issue was whether the Developer improperly retained control of the HOA by failing to convert "Class B" membership (Developer control) to "Class A" membership (Homeowner control) within the timeframe mandated by the CC&Rs.

* **Governing Provision:** Article 2, Section 2.2(B)(2) of the CC&Rs stipulated that Class B membership must cease and convert to Class A membership four years following the conveyance of the first lot to an owner other than the Developer.
* **Timeline of Events:**
* **September 16, 2005:** Original CC&Rs recorded.
* **February 19, 2008:** The first home was conveyed to a homeowner.
* **2012:** Based on the four-year rule, Class B membership should have expired and control should have passed to the homeowners.
* **March 26, 2013:** An amendment was created attempting to extend Class B membership, allowing the Developer (T.J. Bednar & Co.) to maintain control.

### **Arguments**
Mr. Wolf argued that the 2013 amendment was invalid because Class B membership should have already ceased in 2012. He testified that the Developer’s refusal to relinquish control was financially detrimental to homeowners, citing specifically that residents were paying over $7,000 annually to a management company selected without their vote.

Witness Christopher Grant supported Wolf’s testimony, stating that the Developer had repeatedly indicated an intent to turn over control but failed to do so, effectively "pulling the rug from under the homeowners" by attempting to amend the CC&Rs post-facto.

### **Findings and Final Decision**
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas found the testimony of Wolf and Grant credible. The tribunal concluded that Lakeside violated Article 2, Section 2.2(B)(2) of the CC&Rs because the transition to Class A membership was mandatory four years after the first conveyance.

**Outcome and Orders:**
The Petitioner (Wolf) was deemed the prevailing party. The Judge ordered the following:
1. **Compliance:** Lakeside must fully comply with the CC&Rs (converting membership to Class A) within 30 days.
2. **Restitution:** Lakeside must reimburse the Petitioner’s $550.00 filing fee.
3. **Penalty:** Lakeside must pay a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department.

**Certification:**
The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not reject or modify the decision within the statutory review period. Consequently, the Administrative Law Judge's decision was **certified as final** on April 28, 2015.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Logan C. Wolf (Petitioner)
Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association (Member)
Appeared on his own behalf; testified.
Christopher Grant (Witness)
Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association (Resident/Member)
Testified regarding developer control and management fees.

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge presiding over the hearing.
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed recipient of the decision.
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed the Certification of Decision.
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed in care of address for Gene Palma.
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Mailed/transmitted the certification.