Tag Archives: MD

William P. Lee vs. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 14F-H1415007-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2015-02-16
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner William P. Lee Counsel —
Respondent Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two HOA Counsel Keith Hammond

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(4); A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1) by failing to obtain a requisite signed petition from members before holding a special meeting to remove the Petitioner from the Board of Directors. However, the HOA did not violate statutes or bylaws regarding the vote to increase the number of directors. Petitioner was awarded half of the filing fees ($1,000) and the HOA was assessed a $200 civil penalty.

Why this result: Regarding the board expansion and other claims, the ALJ found the preponderance of evidence failed to support that the vote violated bylaws or statutes.

Key Issues & Findings

Improper Amendment of Bylaws/Board Expansion

Petitioner alleged the vote to increase the board size from 3 to 5/7 violated bylaws and statutes regarding absentee ballots and open meetings.

Orders: Denied; evidence failed to support finding of violation.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Removal from Board without Petition

HOA held a special meeting to remove Petitioner from the Board without first obtaining a petition signed by the required percentage of members.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1) in the future; civil penalty assessed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Misuse of Emergency Meeting

Petitioner alleged the Board misused an emergency meeting and resulting notice to harass and libel him.

Orders: Denied; insufficient evidence.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Decision Documents

14F-H1415007-BFS Decision – 428996.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:48 (126.4 KB)

14F-H1415007-BFS Decision – 435021.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:48 (60.7 KB)

**Case Summary: William P. Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two HOA**
**Case No. 14F-H1415007-BFS**

**Overview**
This administrative hearing, held on February 4, 2015, before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas, addressed a petition filed by homeowner William P. Lee against Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two HOA ("Greenlaw"). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated Arizona statutes and association bylaws regarding the amendment of board composition and the procedure used to remove him from the Board of Directors,.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The Petitioner, a member of the HOA and former director, raised two primary issues:
1. **Board Expansion:** Lee alleged the HOA fraudulently amended Bylaw Article IV to increase the number of directors from three to five or seven without proper authority,.
2. **Removal from Board:** Lee alleged the "Secret Ballot" and Special Meeting used to remove him from the Board violated A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1) and association bylaws.

Greenlaw’s defense included the following points:
* **Regarding Expansion:** The Board argued the increase was necessary to achieve quorums and was approved by a vote of the members, complying with bylaws allowing shareholders to change the number of directors,.
* **Regarding Removal:** Greenlaw conceded that it failed to obtain a signed petition by the members calling for Lee's removal prior to holding the vote, as required by A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1). However, the Board argued the removal was justified because Lee was "aggressive and volatile," created dissension, and sent unauthorized letters to litigants involved in lawsuits against the HOA,. The vote to remove him was 70 to 4.

**Legal Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the preponderance of the evidence standard to the claims.

1. **Violation of Removal Statute:** The ALJ found that Greenlaw violated A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1). The statute requires a specific petition signed by members before a special meeting for removal can be called. The HOA admitted it failed to obtain this petition before holding the vote to remove the Petitioner,.
2. **No Violation Regarding Board Expansion:** The ALJ ruled against the Petitioner regarding the board size amendment. The evidence showed that Article XI of the bylaws allows members to vote on changing the authorized number of directors, and the Petitioner failed to prove that the vote conducted violated the bylaws or A.R.S. § 33-1812,.

**Outcome and Final Order**
The ALJ deemed William P. Lee the prevailing party based on the violation regarding his removal.
* **Compliance:** Greenlaw was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1) in future actions.
* **Monetary Sanctions:** Greenlaw was ordered to pay the Petitioner $1,000.00 (one-half of his filing fee) and pay a $200.00 civil penalty to the Department.

The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on April 1, 2015, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify the ALJ's ruling,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William P. Lee (petitioner)
    Homeowner and former board member

Respondent Side

  • Keith Hammond (attorney)
    Keith A. Hammond P.C.
  • Judith W. Kyrala (witness)
    Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two HOA
    Board Secretary
  • Melanie Lashlee (property manager)
    HOMECO
    Community Association Manager; witness

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
  • Greg Hanchett (agency director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Interim Director; certified the decision
  • Joni Cage (staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Clerk who mailed copies

R.L. Whitmer vs. Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 14F-H1415004-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2015-01-07
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner R.L. Whitmer Counsel —
Respondent Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners Counsel Robert Anderson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1243(D)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the HOA failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1243(D) by not ratifying the increased legal expenses through an amended budget. The HOA was ordered to comply with the statute and reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Budget ratification for excess legal expenses

Petitioner alleged the HOA spent over $9,250 for legal expenses in 2013-2014 against a budget of $3,500 without proper ratification. The HOA admitted fees exceeded the budget due to unforeseen litigation but failed to hold a meeting to ratify an amended budget.

Orders: Respondent shall fully comply with A.R.S. § 33-1243(D) in the future; Respondent shall pay Petitioner filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Decision Documents

14F-H1415004-BFS Decision – 423532.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:59 (92.5 KB)

14F-H1415004-BFS Decision – 429149.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:59 (59.8 KB)

Here is a summary of the administrative hearing for Case No. 14F-H1415004-BFS.

**Case Overview**
* **Case Title:** *R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners*
* **Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
* **Administrative Law Judge:** M. Douglas
* **Hearing Date:** December 23, 2014
* **Decision Date:** January 7, 2015 (Certified Final on February 18, 2015)

**Background and Key Facts**
The Petitioner, R.L. Whitmer, a unit owner and member of the Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners (the "Association"), filed a petition alleging the Association violated Arizona state law regarding budget management. Specifically, the Petitioner claimed that the Board President, Mrs. Karatz, authorized legal expenses exceeding $9,250, despite the approved budgets for legal expenses being only $2,500 for 2013 and $1,000 for 2014. These expenditures were made without proper ratification by the unit owners.

**Main Legal Issue**
The central issue was whether the Association violated **A.R.S. § 33-1243(D)**. This statute requires that, unless expressly authorized by the declaration to amend budgets independently, the Board must submit any budget or amendment to the unit owners for ratification.

**Key Arguments and Testimony**
* **Petitioner's Position:** The Board overspent the budgeted legal fees without obtaining the necessary ratification from unit owners.
* **Respondent's Defense:**
* The Association argued the budget was insufficient because the Petitioner had filed multiple legal challenges, necessitating a response from the Association’s counsel.
* Mrs. Karatz, the former Board President, admitted that 2014 legal fees substantially exceeded the budget but argued the costs were unanticipated consequences of the Petitioner's lawsuits.
* Michael Bengson, a newly elected Board member, testified that the Board was aware of the issue and intended to meet soon to adopt an amended budget that would ratify the incurred expenses.

**Tribunal Findings and Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the burden of proof rests on the Petitioner to prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the following:
1. **Statutory Requirement:** A.R.S. § 33-1243(D) mandates that budget amendments be ratified by unit owners.
2. **Violation:** The Association acknowledged

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • R.L. Whitmer (Petitioner)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners
    Appeared on his own behalf; owner of a residence in Hilton Casitas

Respondent Side

  • Robert Anderson (Attorney)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners
    Represented Respondent; retained by Michael Bengson
  • Michael Bengson (Board Member)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners
    Elected to Board in October 2014; retained Robert Anderson
  • Esther Sue Karatz (Witness)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners
    Former Board President; testified regarding prior legal counsel hiring

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge who presided over the hearing and issued the decision
  • Gene Palma (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Director to whom the decision was transmitted
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision as final
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed in copy distribution
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Administrative Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed the distribution of the certified decision

FISH, GREG vs. FLYNN LANE BILTMORE ASSOC, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 14F-H1414007-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-11-24
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Greg Fish Counsel —
Respondent Flynn Lane Biltmore Assoc, Inc. Counsel Craig Armstrong

Alleged Violations

CC&R 8(B)

Outcome Summary

The Tribunal found the Respondent violated CC&R 8(B) by not following the percentage-based assessment method. The Petitioner prevailed and was awarded the filing fee reimbursement.

Key Issues & Findings

Incorrect Assessment Method

Petitioner alleged assessments were billed incorrectly as equal splits among units rather than prorated based on proportionate share of Common Expenses as required by CC&Rs. Respondent admitted to the practice but cited historical precedent.

Orders: Respondent shall fully comply with applicable provisions of its CC&Rs in the future. Respondent shall pay Petitioner filing fee of $550.00. Respondent shall pay civil penalty of $200.00.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R 8(B)
  • CC&R 7

Decision Documents

14F-H1414007-BFS Decision – 416772.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:35 (51.2 KB)

14F-H1414007-BFS Decision – 418764.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:36 (107.9 KB)

14F-H1414007-BFS Decision – 423789.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:36 (58.4 KB)

**Case Summary: *Greg Fish v. Flynn Lane Biltmore Assoc, Inc.***
**Case No.** 14F-H1414007-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety)
**Date of Hearing:** November 4, 2014
**Administrative Law Judge:** M. Douglas

**Overview and Main Issues**
This case involved a dispute between Petitioner Greg Fish, a unit owner, and Respondent Flynn Lane Biltmore Assoc, Inc. (Biltmore), a condominium association. The central legal issue was whether the Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the calculation of homeowner assessments,. Specifically, the Petitioner alleged that Biltmore billed assessments equally among all units, whereas CC&Rs 7 and 8 required assessments to be prorated based on each unit's proportionate share of ownership of the Common Elements,.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Mr. Fish argued that the Association knowingly failed to follow the CC&Rs. He testified that assessments should be based on square footage/percentage ownership. Witnesses for the Petitioner calculated that he had been overcharged approximately $1,860 over the previous six years due to the incorrect billing method,,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** Biltmore admitted that the CC&Rs required prorated assessments. However, the Association argued that equal billing had been the policy for 46 years, originally because the cost difference was negligible (43 cents in 1968). They claimed the majority of owners preferred equalized assessments and that the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) had mandated equal assessments in the 1980s,.
* **Testimony:** Both the former community manager and the current Board President admitted they understood Biltmore was not following the CC&Rs but continued the practice anyway,. The current property manager testified that the Board finally voted on November 1, 2014, to implement the correct percentage-based method effective January 1, 2015.

**Legal Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the Petitioner’s testimony and evidence credible. The Tribunal concluded that Biltmore knowingly violated CC&R 8(B) by splitting assessments equally rather than using the required percentage of ownership method,. The ALJ noted that the Association persisted in this violation despite knowledge of the requirement.

**Outcome and Order**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, deeming him the prevailing party. The final order mandated the following:
1. **Compliance:** Biltmore must fully comply with the applicable provisions of its CC&Rs in the future.
2. **Restitution:** Biltmore was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $550.00.
3. **Penalty:** Biltmore was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $200.00 to the Department.

**Final Status**
The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not reject or modify the ALJ's decision within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision on January 8, 2015,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Greg Fish (petitioner)
    Flynn Lane Biltmore Assoc, Inc. (Member)
    Also referred to as Gregory James Fish
  • Karen Jackson (witness)
    Property manager for Mr. Fish

Respondent Side

  • Philip Brown (attorney)
    Brown Alcott, PLLC
  • Craig Armstrong (attorney)
    Brown Alcott, PLLC / Brown-Olcott, PLLC / The Brown Law Group, PLLC
  • Maureen Watrous (witness)
    Flynn Lane Biltmore Assoc, Inc.
    Property manager for Biltmore
  • Thomas E. Tower (witness)
    Flynn Lane Biltmore Assoc, Inc.
    Board President

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma
  • Cruz Serrano (scribe)
    Signatory on mailing list
  • Michael Latz (witness)
    Previous community manager for Biltmore
  • Lewis D. Kowal (Acting Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ Decision
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (scribe)
    Signatory on mailing list for The Brown Law Group

JO ANN RIPLEY vs. AGUA DOLCE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 14F-H1414005-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-09-17
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jo Ann Ripley Counsel —
Respondent Agua Dulce Homeowners Association Counsel Craig Armstrong

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(C) and (D)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804. The Petitioner's evidence (recordings) was inaudible, and the HOA's witnesses credibly testified that the minutes were appropriate summary minutes ratified by the Board. The case was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner provided inaudible recordings and could not substantiate claims that minutes were inaccurately altered.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Open Meeting/Minutes Statutes

Petitioner alleged the HOA Board improperly altered minutes for meetings held in Oct/Nov 2013 and published inaccurate minutes. Petitioner claimed to have recordings proving the discrepancies.

Orders: The matter is dismissed. Agua Dulce is deemed the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(C)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)

Decision Documents

14F-H1414005-BFS Decision – 410541.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:55 (128.8 KB)

14F-H1414005-BFS Decision – 415031.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:55 (60.5 KB)

**Case Summary: Ripley v. Agua Dulce Homeowners Association**
**Case No.** 14F-H1414005-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Hearing Date:** September 2, 2014
**Administrative Law Judge:** M. Douglas

### **Case Overview and Main Issues**
Petitioner Jo Ann Ripley, a homeowner and former Board President of the Agua Dulce Homeowners Association (HOA), filed a petition alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(C) and (D). The central legal issue was whether the HOA improperly altered previously approved Board meeting minutes and misrepresented Association actions to homeowners.

Ripley specifically alleged that the HOA removed objections, changed votes, and altered minutes regarding Board meetings held on October 30, November 5, and November 26, 2013, before publishing them on the Association’s website.

### **Key Arguments and Testimony**

**Petitioner’s Arguments:**
* Ripley testified that the published minutes omitted items discussed during meetings and added items that were not discussed.
* She claimed the minutes were inconsistent with her personal notes and recordings of the proceedings.
* During the hearing, Ripley attempted to introduce a personal audio recording of the November 26, 2013 meeting as evidence, but the recording was inaudible.

**Respondent’s Arguments:**
* **Nature of Minutes:** Linda Ware, the current Board President, and Daniel Castillo, the property manager, testified that Board minutes are intended to be "bare bones" summaries recording motions and actions, not verbatim transcripts of discussions.
* **Ratification:** The HOA argued that the Board reviewed the contested minutes before officially ratifying them.
* **Lack of Official Recordings:** Witnesses testified that the management company did not maintain a library of recordings; tapes used to draft minutes were routinely erased for reuse.
* **Withholding Evidence:** The HOA noted that Ripley refused multiple requests to provide copies of her personal recordings to the Board prior to the dispute resolution.

### **Legal Findings and Final Decision**

**Burden of Proof:**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) established that the burden of proof rested on the Petitioner to prove the allegations by a "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely true than not).

**Findings:**
* The ALJ noted that the minutes in question were reviewed, approved, and ratified by the HOA Board.
* The audio recording Ripley attempted to present was inaudible and therefore failed to support her claims that the minutes were inaccurate.
* The ALJ concluded that Ripley failed to satisfy her burden of proof that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.

**Outcome:**
* **Ruling:** The ALJ ruled in favor of Agua Dulce Homeowners Association, deeming them the prevailing party.
* **Order:** The matter was dismissed.
* **Final Certification:** As the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not reject or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe, the ALJ’s decision was certified as the final administrative decision on October 24, 2014.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jo Ann Ripley (Petitioner)
    Agua Dulce Homeowners Association
    Homeowner, former Board President, former Information Officer; appeared on own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Craig Armstrong (HOA Attorney)
    Brown Olcott, PLLC / The Brown Law Group, PLLC
    Represented Agua Dulce Homeowners Association
  • Linda Ware (Witness)
    Agua Dulce Homeowners Association
    Board President; testified regarding minutes and recordings
  • Daniel Castillo (Witness)
    Agua Dulce Homeowners Association
    Property Manager; testified regarding minutes and recordings
  • Mark Carroll (Witness)
    Agua Dulce Homeowners Association
    Former Board Member; testified regarding recording practices
  • Phil Brown (HOA Attorney)
    Brown Olcott, PLLC
    Listed on mailing list for Respondent
  • Jonathan Olcott (HOA Attorney)
    Brown Olcott, PLLC
    Listed on mailing list for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Director receiving the decision
  • Cliff J. Vanell (OAH Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed in mailing address for Gene Palma
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (OAH Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed the mailing certificate

Legere, Dennis vs. Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA

Posted on by

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 Tom Rawles
Respondent Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA Counsel Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by: 1) preventing members from speaking on agenda items before Board votes; 2) failing to provide notice for architectural committee meetings; and 3) conducting Board business and taking actions via unanimous written consent by email in lieu of open meetings. The ALJ rejected the HOA's defense that A.R.S. § 10-3821 allowed for email actions without meetings, stating that Title 33 open meeting requirements prevail. The HOA was ordered to comply with the statute and pay a $2,000 civil penalty and reimburse $2,000 in filing fees.

Key Issues & Findings

Speaking at Meetings

The Board prevented the petitioner from speaking on action items before the Board took formal action at meetings on November 26, 2013, January 14, 2014, and February 3, 2014.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with speaking requirements.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 55
  • 127

Committee Meeting Notices

Pinnacle conducted regularly scheduled architectural committee meetings without providing notice to members of the association.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with notice requirements.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 57
  • 129

Email Meetings / Action Without Meeting

The Board utilized an email process to take actions by unanimous written consent without holding a meeting, effectively deliberating and voting without member observation or participation.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with open meeting statutes; corporate statute A.R.S. § 10-3821 does not override A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $2,000.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 131
  • 135

Closed Sessions

Petitioner alleged Board conducted non-privileged business in closed sessions. The Tribunal deemed Petitioner the prevailing party and awarded full filing fees.

Orders: Petitioner deemed prevailing party.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 4
  • 134

Decision Documents

14F-H1414001-BFS Decision – 406623.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:48 (172.9 KB)

14F-H1414001-BFS Decision – 437956.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:48 (228.9 KB)

14F-H1414001-BFS Decision – 443321.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:48 (62.7 KB)

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

**Overview**
This administrative case involves a dispute between Dennis J. Legere (Petitioner) and the Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Respondent) regarding violations of Arizona’s planned community open meeting laws. The matter was heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings for the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The proceedings culminated in a decision on rehearing in April 2015, which was certified as final in June 2015,.

**Key Facts and Allegations**
The Petitioner, a homeowner and former board member, alleged that the HOA Board violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 on multiple counts,. The primary allegations included:
* **Closed Sessions via Email:** The Board routinely conducted business and voted on action items via email to avoid holding public meetings, citing efficiency and "unanimous consent" provisions in the Bylaws and corporate statutes,.
* **Denial of Right to Speak:** The Board refused to allow members to speak on agenda items during open meetings (specifically in November 2013, January 2014, and February 2014) prior to the Board taking a vote,.
* **Unnoticed Committee Meetings:** The Architectural Review Committee met regularly without providing notice to members or allowing them to attend,.

**Main Arguments and Legal Issues**
The central legal tension involved a conflict between general corporate statutes and specific HOA statutes.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The HOA argued that under its Bylaws and A.R.S. § 10-3821 (non-profit corporation statutes), the Board could take action without a meeting if they obtained unanimous written consent from all directors,. They also argued that financial information and delinquency reports required closed sessions.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Legere argued that using email votes and unanimous consent provisions to conduct business in secret violated the specific open meeting mandates of A.R.S. § 33-1804, precluding member observation and participation,.
* **Rehearing on Jurisdiction:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially declined to rule on the validity of the "email meetings" under A.R.S. § 10-3821. Legere successfully petitioned for a rehearing to resolve whether corporate statutes could legally bypass HOA open meeting requirements.

**Findings and Conclusions of Law**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, establishing several key legal points:

1. **Conflict of Laws:** The Tribunal ruled that A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Title 33) specifically governs planned communities and mandates open meetings. This specific statute overrides the general non-profit corporate statute (A.R.S. § 10-3821) found in Title 10. The HOA cannot use corporate laws or Bylaws to impliedly repeal the open meeting protections guaranteed to homeowners in Title 33. Therefore, the practice of taking action via email "unanimous consent" violated the law.
2. **Right to Speak:** The ALJ found the HOA violated the law by preventing the Petitioner from speaking *after* the Board discussed items but *before* a vote was taken. While reasonable time restrictions are permitted, members must be allowed to speak before formal action is taken.
3. **Committee Meetings:** The Tribunal ruled that all regularly scheduled committee meetings, such as the Architectural Review Committee, must be noticed and open to members.
4. **Statute of Limitations:** A one-year statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541) applied, barring claims for violations occurring prior to March 9, 2013.

**Outcome and Order**
Dennis J. Legere was deemed the prevailing party. The ALJ ordered the following:
* **Compliance:** The HOA was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) in the future, effectively ending the practice of secret email meetings.
* **Filing Fee:** The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $2,000 filing fee.
* **Civil Penalty:** The HOA was ordered to pay a $2,000 civil penalty to the Department (which the HOA paid during the rehearing process).

The decision was certified

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Dennis J. Legere (petitioner)
    Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Member)
    Appeared on his own behalf at rehearing; former board member
  • Tom Rawles (attorney)
    Represented Petitioner at the July 31, 2014 hearing

Respondent Side

  • Troy Stratman (attorney)
    Mack, Watson & Stratman, PLC
    Represented Respondent at the July 31, 2014 hearing; listed as 'Tony Stratman' in service list
  • Maria R. Kupillas (attorney)
    Farley, Seletos & Choate
    Represented Respondent at the March 31, 2015 rehearing
  • Michelle O’Robinson (witness)
    Vision Community Management
    Field operations supervisor/manager for HOA
  • James T. Foxworthy (witness)
    Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Board)
    Board President at time of first hearing
  • John Edgar Schuler (witness)
    Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Board)
    Board President as of March 10, 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
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Joni Cage (administrative staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of transmitted decision
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed copy distribution

Duffett, Rex E. -v- Suntech Patio Homes Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 14F-H1414006-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-08-04
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rex E. Duffett Counsel —
Respondent Suntech Patio Homes Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to respond to records requests within ten business days. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide association records (meeting minutes, notices, rules)

Petitioner requested meeting minutes, notices regarding fee increases, and governing documents (rules/guidelines) on multiple occasions. Respondent failed to provide the documents within the statutory 10-day timeframe.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 in the future and pay Petitioner $550.00 for filing fees.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805

Decision Documents

14F-H1414006-BFS Decision – 404592.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:59 (113.7 KB)

14F-H1414006-BFS Decision – 409884.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:59 (58.2 KB)

**Case Summary: Rex E. Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes Inc.**
**Case No. 14F-H1414006-BFS**

**Proceedings and Parties**
An administrative hearing was held on July 24, 2014, before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a petition filed by Rex E. Duffett ("Petitioner") against Suntech Patio Homes Inc. ("Respondent"). The Petitioner appeared in person to present testimony and evidence, while the Respondent failed to appear.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The Petitioner, a homeowner and member of the Suntech planned community association, alleged that the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 regarding the inspection of association records,.

The dispute arose after the Petitioner received notice of a homeowner association fee increase in November 2013. Suspecting a violation of open meeting laws, the Petitioner requested meeting notices and minutes regarding the increase. After repeated requests and threats of legal action, the management company informed him that no minutes existed as no meeting had occurred.

Additionally, on March 23, 2014, and again on June 16, 2014, the Petitioner requested copies of the association's Rules and Regulations and Architectural Guidelines. The Petitioner testified that the Respondent failed to provide the requested documents in a timely manner, with a delay of nearly three months before receiving copies of the By-Laws.

**Legal Issues and Findings**
The central legal issue was compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805, which mandates that an association make records available or provide copies within ten business days of a member's request,.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Petitioner met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence,. Based on undisputed testimony, the ALJ concluded that Suntech failed to respond to the document requests within the statutory ten-day period, thereby violating A.R.S. § 33-1805.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, designating him the prevailing party. The Tribunal issued the following orders:
* **Compliance:** Suntech was ordered to comply with the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805 in the future.
* **Monetary Relief:** Suntech was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $550.00 within 30 days.
* **Penalties:** No civil penalty was imposed.

The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not reject or modify the ALJ's decision within the statutory review period. Consequently, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision on September 11, 2014,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Rex E. Duffett (petitioner)
    Suntech Patio Homes Inc. (member)
    Appeared on his own behalf and testified

Neutral Parties

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

Saxton, Nancy vs. The Lakes Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314007-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-06-02
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome false
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nancy Saxton Counsel Steven W. Cheifetz
Respondent The Lakes Community Association Counsel Charles E. Maxwell

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent and dismissed the case. The Judge found that the Petitioner was contractually obligated to arbitrate disputes under the Association's bylaws, that the petition was filed after the one-year statute of limitations had expired, and that the Respondent had lawfully complied with A.R.S. § 33-1805 by offering inspection of unredacted records.

Why this result: Jurisdictional bar due to mandatory arbitration clause; statute of limitations expiration; finding of compliance by Respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

Request to Review Association Records

Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated statutes by providing heavily redacted financial records and failing to provide unredacted copies for review upon demand.

Orders: The matter was dismissed. The Tribunal found the Petitioner was required to arbitrate, the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and the Respondent had complied with the statute by making records reasonably available.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 5
  • 37
  • 38
  • 41

Decision Documents

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 396509.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:41 (158.0 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 401319.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:41 (58.8 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 404479.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:41 (141.7 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 404483.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:42 (53.4 KB)

**Case Title:** *Nancy Saxton v. The Lakes Community Association*
**Case Number:** 13F-H1314007-BFS
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona

**Proceedings and Background**
The hearing was held on April 29, 2014, before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas,. Petitioner Nancy Saxton, a homeowner, filed a petition alleging The Lakes Community Association (HOA) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding the inspection of financial records,. The HOA filed motions to dismiss based on jurisdiction, the statute of limitations, and prior compliance.

**Key Facts**
* **Records Request:** Saxton submitted demands to inspect the HOA's financial records in November 2012,.
* **Production:** The HOA provided approximately 3,700 pages of documents,.
* **Redactions:** The documents contained numerous redactions. The HOA claimed these were necessary to protect personal and payroll information as permitted by statute,. Saxton argued the redactions precluded a proper evaluation of the HOA’s expenditures,.
* **Offer to Inspect:** Upon receiving complaints about the redactions, the HOA offered to allow Saxton to review un-redacted documents at the HOA attorney's office. Saxton declined this offer, feeling it would be "futile" or intimidating,.

**Key Legal Arguments and Issues**
1. **Arbitration:** The HOA argued that an "Alternative Dispute Resolution" amendment to its Bylaws required binding arbitration for governance disputes, precluding administrative action,.
2. **Statute of Limitations:** The HOA contended the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-541(5) for liabilities created by statute,.
3. **Compliance:** The HOA argued it satisfied its statutory obligation to make records "reasonably available" by providing copies and offering an in-person review of un-redacted files,.

**Administrative Law Judge Decision**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent (the HOA) on all three major points:

1. **Arbitration Clause Enforced:** The ALJ concluded that under the HOA's Bylaws and Arizona common law, Saxton was required to submit her claims to arbitration. The arbitration clause was deemed valid and enforceable.
2. **Statute of Limitations Expired:** The ALJ determined the cause of action accrued ten business days after Saxton’s November 5, 2012 demand. Because the petition was filed on November 25, 2013, it fell outside the one-year limitation period prescribed by A.R.S. § 12-541(5).
3. **Substantive Compliance:** The ALJ found that the HOA had complied with A.R.S. § 33-1805. By providing redacted copies and subsequently making un-redacted versions available for review at their attorney's office, the HOA satisfied the requirement to make records "reasonably available".

**Outcome**
The matter was dismissed, and The Lakes Community Association was deemed the prevailing party. The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on July 10

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nancy Saxton (petitioner)
    The Lakes Community Association (Member)
    Homeowner
  • Steven W. Cheifetz (attorney)
    Cheifetz, Iannitelli Marcolini, P.C.
    Listed as 'Heifetz' in mailing list

Respondent Side

  • Charles E. Maxwell (attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
  • Christine Green Baldanza (community manager)
    The Lakes Community Association
    Community Manager in 2012 and early 2013

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Cliff J. Vanell (director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Gene Palma (director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Agency Director
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/transmitted decision

Other Participants

  • Marsha Hill (witness)
    The Lakes Community Association
    CPA; Former chairman of budget and finance committee
  • Maureen Harrison (witness)
    The Lakes Community Association
    Former Board Member (1993-2000, 2011-2012)

Strike, Kristyne P. vs. Las Torres Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314009-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-05-16
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Krystine P. Strike Counsel —
Respondent Las Torres Homeowners Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1221, A.R.S. § 33-1218

Outcome Summary

The Respondent (HOA) was deemed the prevailing party and the matter was dismissed. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner's claim regarding the unauthorized concrete slab in the common area was barred by the one-year statute of limitations because the slab had been in existence since 1998 and the Petitioner had owned her unit since 2007, filing the petition in 2013.

Why this result: Statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541) expired.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized alteration of common area

Petitioner alleged the Association violated statutes by allowing a neighbor to maintain and use a concrete slab in the common area as a private patio without proper consent or authorization.

Orders: The matter is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

13F-H1314009-BFS Decision – 394719.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:46 (125.8 KB)

13F-H1314009-BFS Decision – 399395.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:46 (58.3 KB)

**Case Summary: Strike v. Las Torres Homeowners Association**
**Case No:** 13F-H1314009-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date:** May 6, 2014 (Hearing); June 24, 2014 (Final Certification)

**Key Facts**
Petitioner Krystine P. Strike, owner of Unit 603, filed a dispute against Las Torres Homeowners Association (HOA) regarding a concrete slab situated in the common area connecting her unit to Unit 604. The slab was constructed in 1998 by previous owners who owned both units, with approval from the City of Carefree and tacit approval from the HOA.

Ms. Strike purchased Unit 603 in 2007, at which point the slab had existed for nine years. In 2012, the current owner of Unit 604 petitioned to enlarge the slab, which was denied, but continued to place patio furniture on the existing slab. The HOA issued multiple letters to the owner of Unit 604 requesting the removal of furniture when not in use, asserting the slab was a common area not approved for exclusive private use.

**Main Issues and Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Claims:** Ms. Strike alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1221 and § 33-1218 by allowing a neighbor to alter and encroach upon the common area without consent. She requested the common area be restored to its unaltered state. Regarding timeliness, she argued she was previously barred from filing a unilateral action due to a Code of Conduct she signed while serving on the HOA Board.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The HOA argued the cited statutes were inapplicable because the slab was a General Common Element rather than a Limited Common Element. They further argued the Department lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief (removal of the slab) and that the Petitioner’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

**Legal Findings**
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas dismissed the case, ruling in favor of the Respondent based on the following:

1. **Statute of Limitations:** Under A.R.S. § 12-54

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Krystine P. Strike (petitioner)
    Unit 603 Owner
    Appeared on her own behalf; former Board member

Respondent Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Attorney for Las Torres Homeowners Association
  • Pamela A. Dixon (witness)
    Las Torres Homeowners Association
    Board Member
  • Marc Vasquez (witness)
    Las Torres Homeowners Association
    Testified regarding Board meetings and violation letters

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on transmission of decision
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (administrative staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/faxed the certification

Denapoli, Cindy vs. Southern Ridge Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314006-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-04-25
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Cindy Denapoli Counsel —
Respondent Southern Ridge Condominium Association Counsel Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, concluding that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2) by paying management fees for the 'Rental Pool' (investor-owned units) out of general funds rather than assessing those costs exclusively to the units benefited. The Association was ordered to correct the practice and pay penalties and costs.

Key Issues & Findings

Improper Allocation of Common Expenses

Petitioner alleged that management fees of approximately $9,666/month were being assessed to all owners as part of HOA dues, despite these fees directly benefitting only those units participating in a separate 'Rental Pool'. The ALJ found that the fees benefited fewer than all units and should have been assessed exclusively against the benefited units.

Orders: Respondent must fully comply with A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2); Respondent must pay Petitioner $550.00 filing fee; Respondent must pay Department $200.00 civil penalty.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Decision Documents

13F-H1314006-BFS Decision – 391902.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:35 (103.9 KB)

13F-H1314006-BFS Decision – 396527.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:35 (61.0 KB)

**Case Summary: *Cindy Denapoli vs. Southern Ridge Condominium Association***
**Case No. 13F-H1314006-BFS**

**Proceedings Overview**
This hearing took place on April 10, 2014, before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a petition filed by Cindy Denapoli (Petitioner) against the Southern Ridge Condominium Association (Respondent). The Petitioner appeared on her own behalf, while the Respondent was represented by counsel. The decision was certified as final on June 2, 2014, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to modify or reject the Administrative Law Judge's decision.

**Background and Key Facts**
* **Association Structure:** Southern Ridge is a condominium association located in Mesa, Arizona. It is entirely investor-owned with no owner-occupants.
* **The "Rental Pool":** The majority of unit owners (102 of 113) formed a "Rental Pool" to share non-common expenses and distribute net profits,. The Petitioner is a unit owner but is not a member of this Rental Pool.
* **Management:** "Preferred Communities" handles the Association's accounting, while "Professional Equity Management" (PEM) serves as the management company,.
* **The Disputed Practice:** The Association’s accounting firm issued a monthly check of approximately $9,666 for management fees directly to the Rental Pool (aka "Southern Ridge Apartments") rather than to the management company,. The Rental Pool would then pay PEM and distribute remaining funds or profits to Rental Pool members only,.

**Main Issues and Arguments**
The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated **A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2)**. She argued that the monthly fees assessed to all owners as "HOA dues" were being paid to the Rental Pool, thereby financially subsidizing the Rental Pool members,. She asserted that the fee benefitted only the Rental Pool units, yet she was required to contribute to it despite receiving no distribution from the Rental Pool,.

The Respondent denied the allegations but admitted through testimony that the $9,666 monthly fee was paid to the Rental Pool,. Mr. Watkins, the Association's treasurer, testified that PEM objected to direct payment from the Association and that the Rental Pool paid PEM for services. He acknowledged that net profits from the Rental Pool were distributed only to its members and not to other owners.

**Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge focused on **A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2)**, which states that "[a]ny common expense or portion of a common expense benefitting fewer than all of the units shall be assessed exclusively against the units benefitted".

The Judge found that:
1. The monthly check was issued to the Rental Pool, which is not a corporate entity or LLC.
2. The Rental Pool used these funds to pay expenses and distributed net profits on a pro-rata basis to its members.
3. No distributions were made to condominium owners who were not part of the Rental Pool.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
The Tribunal concluded that Southern Ridge Condominium Association violated **A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2)** by assessing expenses against all units that benefitted only the Rental Pool members.

**Order:**
* The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party.
* The Respondent was ordered to fully comply with A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2) in the future.
* The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee of **$550.00**.
* The Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of **$200.00** to the Department.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Cindy Denapoli (Petitioner)
    Southern Ridge Condominium Association (Owner)
    Appeared on her own behalf; owner of a unit not in the Rental Pool

Respondent Side

  • Maria R. Kupillas (attorney)
    Farley, Seletos & Choate
    Attorney for Southern Ridge Condominium Association
  • William J. Watkins (witness)
    Southern Ridge Condominium Association
    Board member and Treasurer; member of the Rental Pool

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge who presided over the hearing and issued the decision
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision as final
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of the transmitted decision
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Addressed in the mailing list
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed the mailing certificate

Winter, Alexander vs. Cortina Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314005-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-04-17
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Alexander Winter Counsel —
Respondent Cortina Homeowners Association Counsel Mark Sahl

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D); A.R.S. § 33-1248(D)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition because the Petitioner provided insufficient evidence that the Board authorized payments in an executive session within the statutory timeframe (one year). Furthermore, the ALJ concluded that even if such a meeting occurred, matters relating to contractor compensation are permitted in closed executive sessions under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(4).

Why this result: Insufficient evidence of timing; subject matter (compensation) is exempt from open meeting laws.

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meeting Violation (Vendor Compensation)

Petitioner alleged the Board authorized a $50/hour fee for a management vendor in executive session, violating open meeting statutes.

Orders: Petition dismissed; Respondent deemed prevailing party.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(D)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(4)
  • A.R.S. § 12-541

Decision Documents

13F-H1314005-BFS Decision – 385229.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:31 (36.3 KB)

13F-H1314005-BFS Decision – 391125.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:31 (121.4 KB)

13F-H1314005-BFS Decision – 395982.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:31 (60.8 KB)

**Case Overview**
In the matter of *Alexander Winter v. Cortina Homeowners Association* (Case No. 13F-H1314005-BFS), the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings adjudicated a dispute regarding compliance with open meeting laws. The hearing was conducted on March 6, 2014, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas.

**Key Facts and Allegations**
Petitioner Alexander Winter, a homeowner, filed a petition alleging that the Cortina Homeowners Association (Cortina) Board of Directors violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1804(D) and 33-1248(D). The core allegation was that the Board improperly authorized financial compensation increases for a vendor, Renaissance Community Partners (RCP), during a closed executive session rather than an open public meeting.

Specifically, Winter testified that the community manager informed him that the Board had authorized hourly fees—$50.00 for staff and $75.00 for the manager—to handle homeowner information requests. Winter claimed this authorization occurred during a June 2013 executive session. However, Winter admitted he was not present at the meeting, did not know if a quorum was present, and possessed no written evidence or minutes confirming the authorization occurred during the relevant timeframe.

**Legal Issues and Analysis**
The primary legal question was whether the Board was required to approve the vendor's fee increase in an open session. The ALJ analyzed the case based on the burden of proof and statutory exemptions for executive sessions.

* **Statutory Exemptions:** A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) generally requires HOA meetings to be open to members. However, A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(4) specifically exempts matters relating to the "job performance of, compensation of… an individual employee of a contractor of the association".
* **Burden of Proof:** The Petitioner bore the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

**Decision and Rationale**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent, dismissing the petition. The decision relied on two main conclusions:
1. **Lack of Evidence:** The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the alleged executive meeting actually occurred within the one-year statute of limitations (September 2012 to September 2013). The ALJ noted that Winter relied on hearsay and lacked first-hand knowledge or documentation of the Board's actions.
2. **Legal Exemption:** The ALJ determined that even if the meeting had occurred as alleged, the subject matter—compensation for a contractor's employee—is expressly permitted to be discussed in a closed executive session under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(4). Therefore, the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of the open meeting statutes.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Alexander Winter (Petitioner)
    Cortina Homeowners Association (Member)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Mark Sahl (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC; Shaw & Lines, LLC
    Represented Cortina Homeowners Association
  • Kevin Bishop (property manager)
    Renaissance Community Partners
    Manager mentioned in testimony regarding compensation
  • Mr. Shaw (attorney)
    Previous legal counsel for Cortina

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Agency Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed certification mailing