Tag Archives: MD

Winter, Alexander vs. Cortina Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314004-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-03-21
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the specific requested documents (Delinquency Reports, 2007-2008 budgets, specific vendor bids) existed or were withheld. Claims regarding documents addressed in a prior hearing (Docket No. 13F-H1314001-BFS) were barred by collateral estoppel.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the existence of records, and attempted to relitigate issues decided in a prior case.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide requested records (Delinquency Reports, Budgets, Contracts)

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide Delinquency Reports, Operation Budgets (2007-2008), Duford Contract/Invoice, JSJ Enterprises Contract/Bid, and C&G communications bid. Petitioner also sought records (CleanCuts and RCP contracts) previously litigated.

Orders: The matter was dismissed. Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Decision Documents

13F-H1314004-BFS Decision – 387230.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:23 (149.4 KB)

13F-H1314004-BFS Decision – 392642.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:23 (59.2 KB)

**Case Summary: Winter v. Cortina Homeowners Association**
**Case No.** 13F-H1314004-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Final Action:** May 1, 2014

**Overview and Procedural History**
On August 21, 2013, Petitioner Alexander Winter filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety alleging that the Respondent, Cortina Homeowners Association (HOA), violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Petitioner claimed the HOA failed to provide requested records within the statutory ten-day timeframe.

This hearing followed a prior administrative action between the same parties (Docket No. 13F-H1314001-BFS), which had resulted in an order requiring the HOA to provide redacted documents.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The Petitioner sought various records, including delinquency reports, operating budgets (2007–2013), and specific contracts and invoices (Duford, JSJ Enterprises, C&G Communication, CleanCuts, and Renaissance Community Partners).

* **Petitioner’s Position:** Mr. Winter argued that the HOA failed to fulfill his requests within ten business days. He asserted that certain records, such as delinquency reports and vendor bids, "should exist" and challenged the HOA's claim that they did not possess them. He acknowledged that issues regarding CleanCuts and Renaissance Community Partners (RCP) were addressed in the prior hearing but claimed his current requests were distinct.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The HOA argued that it had complied with the order from the previous hearing by providing approximately 3,200 pages of documents. Regarding the new allegations, the HOA testified that the specific delinquency reports, older budgets (2007–2008), and certain vendor contracts (Duford, JSJ, C&G) simply did not exist or were not in their possession. They argued that the requests regarding CleanCuts and RCP were barred by the previous litigation.

**Main Legal Issues**
1. **Existence of Records:** Whether the Petitioner could prove the existence of documents the HOA claimed it did not possess.
2. **Collateral Estoppel:** Whether the claims regarding CleanCuts and RCP contracts were precluded because they were already adjudicated in the prior administrative hearing.

**Findings and Conclusions**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Respondent on all counts:

* **Burden of Proof regarding Existence of Records:** The ALJ found the evidence insufficient to prove that the requested delinquency reports, Duford contract, JSJ contract/bid, and C&G bid actually existed. The ALJ ruled that the HOA cannot be held responsible for producing documents it does not possess and noted there was no credible evidence that the HOA withheld existing documents.
* **Collateral Estoppel:** The ALJ determined that the requests concerning CleanCuts and RCP documents were specifically addressed in the prior order (Docket No. 13F-H1314001-BFS). The ALJ applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which precludes relitigating facts or issues previously

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, P.L.C.
    Represented Respondent at the hearing
  • Kevin H. Bishop (Witness)
    Renaissance Community Partners (RCP)
    President of RCP; Community Manager and Statutory Agent for Cortina
  • Christopher Scott Puckett (Witness)
    Cortina Homeowners Association
    President of the Board of Directors

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presided over the hearing and issued the decision
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presided over the prior administrative hearing (Docket No. 13F-H1314001-BFS)
  • Gene Palma (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of the transmitted 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 (Clerk/Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed the mailing certificate

Babington, Nancy L. vs. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1313004-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-03-11
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nancy L. Babington Counsel —
Respondent Park Scottsdale II Townhouse HOA Counsel Charlene Cruz

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1248(B)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) by failing to hold annual meetings for five consecutive years. The HOA was ordered to hold a meeting, reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee, and pay a civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold annual meetings

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold annual meetings or any open meetings since 2010. Respondent admitted no annual meetings were held for years 2010-2013 and 2014 failed for lack of quorum.

Orders: Respondent must schedule an annual meeting within 60 days, pay Petitioner $550.00 for filing fees, and pay the Department a $200.00 civil penalty.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(B)

Decision Documents

13F-H1313004-BFS Decision – 386095.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:51 (85.6 KB)

13F-H1313004-BFS Decision – 391198.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:51 (60.5 KB)

**Case Summary: Babington vs. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse HOA**
**Case No:** 13F-H1313004-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Hearing:** March 10, 2014

**Overview and Proceedings**
Petitioner Nancy L. Babington filed a petition against Respondent Park Scottsdale II Townhouse HOA ("Park"), alleging violations of state statutes regarding homeowners' association meetings. The hearing took place before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas, with the Petitioner appearing on her own behalf and the Respondent represented by legal counsel.

**Key Arguments and Facts**
The central issue was whether Park violated A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) by failing to hold required annual meetings.

* **Petitioner’s Position:** Ms. Babington argued that the association had not held an annual meeting or board election since 2009. She testified that the current Board consisted of individuals who were either never elected or whose terms had expired, and that repeated attempts to force a meeting had been ignored.
* **Respondent’s Position:** Park admitted in its Amended Answer that it did not hold annual meetings in 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013. A Board member testified that the Board "chose not to have annual meetings" due to the association's poor financial situation. The Respondent noted an attempt to hold a meeting in 2014 failed due to a lack of quorum and stated that the Board currently only held executive sessions.

**Legal Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) relied on A.R.S. § 33-1248(B), which mandates that a "meeting of the unit owners' association shall be held at least once each year" regardless of provisions in condominium documents.

The ALJ found the Petitioner met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The tribunal concluded that Park violated A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) by failing to hold annual meetings for five consecutive years (2010 through 2014).

**Final Decision and Order**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner and issued the following orders:
1. **Compliance:** Park was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) and schedule an annual meeting within 60 days of the order's effective date.
2. **Restitution:** Park was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $550.00 within 30 days.
3. **Civil Penalty:** Park was assessed a $200.00 civil penalty payable to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

**Certification**
Because the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to accept, reject, or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe, the ALJ’s decision was certified as the final administrative decision on April 18, 2014.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nancy L. Babington (petitioner)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse HOA (Member)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Charlene Cruz (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
    Represented Respondent
  • Joe Silberschlag (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse HOA
    Witness; testified he was elected to the Board in 2009
  • Beth Mulcahy (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
    Listed on mailing distribution

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Director
  • Cliff J. Vanell (OAH 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 (OAH staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed mailing/transmission

Janusz, David & Loree vs. Cresta Norte HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314002-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-02-27
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David & Loree Janusz Counsel —
Respondent Cresta Norte HOA Counsel Curtis S. Ekmark, Esq.; Molly J. Streiff, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Cresta Norte Guidelines Section N Miscellaneous (7)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA did not violate its CC&Rs or Design Guidelines by denying the homeowners' request to install exterior shutters. The guidelines required committee approval, which was properly denied.

Why this result: The petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated governing documents; the ALJ found the guidelines granted the HOA authority to approve or deny architectural changes.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of architectural request for exterior shutters

Petitioners alleged the HOA violated design guidelines by denying their request to install exterior shutters. Petitioners argued the guidelines explicitly list 'shutters' as an example of exterior changes, implying they are permitted.

Orders: Petition dismissed; Cresta Norte deemed prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Cresta Norte Guidelines Section N Miscellaneous (7)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Decision Documents

13F-H1314002-BFS Decision – 384508.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:11 (103.9 KB)

13F-H1314002-BFS Decision – 389432.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:11 (60.8 KB)

**Case Summary: David & Loree Janusz v. Cresta Norte HOA**
**Case No. 13F-H1314002-BFS**

**Forum and Parties**
This matter was heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings on February 18, 2014. The Petitioners, David and Loree Janusz, represent themselves against the Respondent, Cresta Norte Homeowners Association (HOA), regarding a dispute over architectural improvements.

**Background and Main Issues**
The Petitioners, homeowners in Scottsdale, Arizona, submitted an Architectural Change Request to install exterior shutters on their residence. The Cresta Norte Architectural Committee denied the request, and the HOA Board of Directors subsequently denied the Petitioners' appeal. The Petitioners filed a claim alleging the HOA violated the community’s Design Guidelines and CC&Rs by refusing the installation. The central issue was whether the guidelines, which mention shutters, mandated their approval or if the Board retained discretion to deny them based on community aesthetics.

**Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments**
**Petitioners' Argument:**
David Janusz, a former Board President (2006–2010) and Architectural Committee chairman, testified that the guidelines were drafted to "encourage creativity and diversity". He argued that Section N Miscellaneous (7) of the guidelines specifically lists "shutters" as a type of exterior change, which he interpreted as explicit authorization for their installation. He asserted that during his tenure, the committee intended to offer shutters to allow homeowners to show individuality. He also testified that no neighbors opposed the project.

**Respondent's Argument:**
The HOA, represented by legal counsel, presented testimony from current Board members James Wooley and Brian McNamara. Mr. Wooley testified that the inclusion of the word "shutters" in the guidelines was merely an example of a potential change requiring review, not an express approval. He stated there was no intent to establish shutters as an approved feature and that the guidelines do not prohibit them but require approval. Mr. McNamara noted that no residences in Cresta Norte currently have exterior shutters and that the Board determined they were not a "desirable architectural feature" for the community.

**Legal Findings**
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas analyzed the case under the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. The findings focused on the text of the 2011 Design Guidelines, which state: "Any change to the exterior appearance of the house (garage door, stone work, shutters, etc.) must be consistent with the design and color palette of the community. Architectural Committee written approval is

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • David Janusz (petitioner)
    Cresta Norte HOA (former board member)
    Appeared on own behalf; testified as witness
  • Loree Janusz (petitioner)
    Cresta Norte HOA
    Appeared on own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Curtis S. Ekmark (HOA attorney)
    Ekmark & Ekmark LLC
  • Molly J. Streiff (HOA attorney)
    Ekmark & Ekmark LLC
  • James A. Wooley (witness)
    Cresta Norte HOA Board of Directors
    Board member and Architectural Committee member
  • Brian McNamara (witness)
    Cresta Norte HOA Board of Directors
    Board member and Architectural Committee member

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing certificate c/o Gene Palma
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (administrative staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed mailing certificate

Nelson, Paula J. vs. Landings Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314003-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-02-14
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Paula J. Nelson Counsel —
Respondent Landings Homeowners Association Counsel Mark Saul

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent, Landings Homeowners Association. The Judge found that the Association made its records reasonably available for examination and was not required to produce documents (specifically roofing binders and photos) that it did not possess or that were privileged. The Petition was dismissed.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The evidence showed the Association made available the records it possessed, and the specific missing records (roofing binders created by a third party) were not proven to be in the Association's possession.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to provide specific records, including roofing binders, photographs, and individual roof assessments, within the statutory timeframe. The Association argued it made records reasonably available and could not produce documents it did not possess.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

13F-H1314003-BFS Decision – 382722.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:18 (114.5 KB)

13F-H1314003-BFS Decision – 388443.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:18 (59.2 KB)

**Case Summary: Nelson v. Landings Homeowners Association**
**Case No.** 13F-H1314003-BFS
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona
**Hearing Date:** January 31, 2014
**Decision Date:** February 14, 2014 (Certified Final March 31, 2014)

**Parties and Procedures**
Petitioner Paula J. Nelson filed a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety against Respondent Landings Homeowners Association ("Landings"). The hearing was presided over by Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas,.

**Main Issue**
The central legal issue was whether Landings violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide Nelson with copies of requested association records—specifically roofing assessments and photographs—within ten business days of her request.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Claims:** Nelson submitted records requests beginning April 12, 2013, demanding the Association email her copies of specific documents. She alleged the Association withheld specific "binders" created by a former representative, Mr. Minor, which she believed contained comprehensive individual roof assessments and photographs,. Nelson admitted she refused to view the binders held by the Association’s attorney because she believed they were not the specific records she sought,.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** Landings argued it satisfied the statute by making records "reasonably available for inspection" at the management company’s office. The Association contended that A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) does not require emailing documents or providing them in a specific format chosen by the member. Regarding the "Minor binders," the Association maintained it could not produce records it did not possess.
* **Witness Testimony:**
* **Robyn McRae** testified she accompanied Nelson to the management office, noting some documents were missing or unavailable at that time,.
* **Robert Timmons** (contractor) testified regarding the roofing project. He stated he did not know if the specific photographs or records Nelson sought were ever in the Association's possession,.
* **Paula Nelson** acknowledged she did not schedule an appointment to review the binders offered by the Association's attorney.

**Legal Standards**
* **A.R.S. § 33-1805(A):** Requires associations to make financial and other records "reasonably available for examination" by a member within ten business days. It further allows associations to charge for copies.
* **Burden of Proof:** The burden falls on the Petitioner to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

**Findings and Conclusions**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reached the following conclusions:
1. **Possession of Records:** There was no credible evidence that Landings possessed the specific binders created by Mr. Minor that Nelson requested, other than the materials already offered for her review. The fact that the Association paid for the creation of such binders did not prove they were delivered or currently possessed in the format Nelson alleged.
2. **Compliance:** Landings complied with the request in a "reasonable manner" by attempting to schedule inspections and offering review of materials at the attorney's office.
3. **Privilege:** The Association was not required to disclose privileged communications between itself and its attorney.

**Outcome**
The ALJ determined that Nelson failed to satisfy her burden of proof. Landings was deemed the prevailing party, and the petition was dismissed. The decision became the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on March 31, 2014, after the Department took no action to modify or reject it within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Paula J. Nelson (Petitioner)
    Landings Homeowners Association (Member)
    Appeared on her own behalf
  • Robyn McRae (Witness)
    Drove Petitioner to management company; testified regarding document availability
  • Robert William Timmons (Witness)
    Sprayfoam Southwest Inc.
    Subpoenaed by Petitioner; representative for roofing contractor

Respondent Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Listed as 'Mark Saul' in ALJ Decision appearances; 'Mark K. Sahl' in certification mailing list
  • Jo Seashols (Community Manager)
    Landings Homeowners Association (Management Company)
  • Renee (Employee)
    Management Company
    Mentioned by management staff as having possession of photographs
  • Tom Minor (Former Representative)
    Landings Homeowners Association
    Former board member/representative on construction project

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision
  • 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/processed the certification

Park, Denise vs. Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1213010-BFS-rhg
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-01-17
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

The Director accepted the ALJ's recommendation on rehearing. The Petitioner prevailed on claims regarding maintenance of common areas (weeds, wall) and failure to hold elections. The HOA was ordered to comply with statutes and prove weed control. Claims regarding open meetings were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to attend. Claims regarding financial records were dismissed due to the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse half ($1,000) of the filing fee directly to the Petitioner.

Key Issues & Findings

Maintenance of common elements

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to maintain common areas, citing overflowing trash, weeds, and a broken wall. The ALJ found the evidence established these failures.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with statute and provide proof that weeds in common areas have been eliminated or properly controlled.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1247

Open meetings

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to conduct open meetings. The HOA proved notice was mailed for the May 24, 2012 meeting.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248

Voting and proxies

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold proper elections. The HOA admitted no election was held at the annual meeting because only three members attended.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1250 in the future.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1250

Association financial and other records

Petitioner requested financial records in August 2011 which were not provided until Jan/Feb 2012 (late).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 12-541(5)

Decision Documents

12F-H1213010-BFS-rhg Decision – 370568.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:29 (41.0 KB)

12F-H1213010-BFS-rhg Decision – 376532.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:29 (212.0 KB)

**Case Summary: Park v. Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association**
**Case No.** 12F-H1213010-BFS-rhg
**Nature of Proceeding:** Administrative Rehearing

**Overview**
This summary addresses the **rehearing** of a dispute between Denise Park (Petitioner), a condominium owner, and the Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association (Respondent). While an original decision was issued in March 2013 finding the Respondent liable for three violations, the rehearing in November 2013 and subsequent Final Order modified these findings based on a statute of limitations defense,.

**Procedural History and Original Decision**
Petitioner originally alleged four statutory violations: failure to maintain common areas, failure to conduct open meetings, failure to hold elections, and failure to provide financial information.
* **Original Outcome:** In the March 28, 2013 decision, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Petitioner on three counts (maintenance, elections, and financial records) and ordered the Respondent to reimburse $1,500 of the filing fee.

**Rehearing Proceedings and Legal Analysis**
The rehearing was conducted on November 20, 2013. The ALJ re-evaluated the evidence and new legal arguments regarding the four alleged violations,.

**1. Maintenance of Common Areas (A.R.S. § 33-1247)**
* **Issue:** Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to repair a broken wall, control weeds, and provide adequate trash services,.
* **Argument:** Respondent argued that maintenance was deferred because Petitioner and others failed to pay dues,.
* **Ruling:** **Violation Affirmed.** Evidence established the common areas were not maintained (broken wall, weeds, peeling paint). Although the Respondent performed repairs *after* the original hearing, the ALJ ruled that post-hearing remedial actions did not alter the fact that the violation existed at the time of the petition,.

**2. Open Meetings (A.R.S. § 33-1248)**
* **Issue:** Petitioner claimed she did not receive notice of the annual meeting.
* **Ruling:** **Violation Not Found.** The ALJ found that the Respondent mailed the notice in accordance with the statute. The Petitioner’s failure to attend or receive the notice did not constitute a violation by the HOA,. This upheld the original finding.

**3. Elections (A.R.S. § 33-1250)**
* **Issue:** The HOA failed to hold elections for officers.
* **Argument:** Respondent argued no election was required because only three members attended the meeting, and all agreed to continue in their current officer roles,.
* **Ruling:** **Violation Affirmed.** The ALJ ruled that the HOA failed to hold proper elections as required by state statute and the Association's Bylaws.

**4. Financial Records (A.R.S. § 3

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Denise Park (Petitioner)
    Owner of three condominium units
  • Kevin R. Harper (Attorney)
    Harper Law, PLC
    Receiving mail for Petitioner in Final Order; listed as Respondent's attorney in initial hearing decision text
  • J. Roger Wood (Attorney)
    J. Roger Wood PLLC
    Represented Petitioner in rehearing

Respondent Side

  • Carol Ann Klagge (Treasurer)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association
    Board member; witness
  • Jay Klagge (Secretary)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association
    Board member
  • Tony Sturgeon (Vice President)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association
    Board member
  • Helen Bartels (Board Member)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association
    Witness; became board member after March 28, 2013
  • Jonathon V. O’Steen (Attorney)
    O’Steen & Harrison, PLC
    Represented Respondent in rehearing and final order; listed as Petitioner's attorney in initial hearing decision text

Neutral Parties

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

The Center Court Condominiums Association vs. Klissas, Katrina

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1313005-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2013-11-13
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged unauthorized balcony enclosure

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

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Excessive wind chimes

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

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

13F-H1313005-BFS Decision – 369209.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:56 (87.6 KB)

13F-H1313005-BFS Decision – 376768.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:56 (60.4 KB)

**Case Title:** *The Center Court Condominiums Association v. Katrina Klissas*
**Case Number:** 13F-H1313005-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Final Decision:** January 3, 2014

**Overview**
This administrative hearing addressed a petition filed by The Center Court Condominiums Association (Petitioner) against homeowner Katrina Klissas (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged violations of the community's Rules and Regulations regarding balcony enclosures and the number of wind chimes allowed on the property.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **Balcony Enclosure Allegation:** The Petitioner alleged Ms. Klissas maintained an unauthorized balcony enclosure in violation of Rule L-9 and CC&R Section 9.09. Evidence established that a prior owner installed a 3’ by 5’ wooden board across the balcony railing in 1998 for privacy. The Petitioner was aware of the board as early as 2001 and had even painted it to match the building's trim in 2004.
* **Wind Chimes Allegation:** The Petitioner alleged Ms. Klissas possessed more than the permitted four wind chimes (Rule L-8). A neighbor testified the noise was a nuisance. However, the Respondent testified she had exactly four chimes and that other hanging items were silent "wind spinners".

**Legal Findings and Decision**
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas ruled in favor of the Respondent, dismissing the case based on the following legal conclusions:

1. **Insufficient Evidence of Enclosure:** The ALJ determined the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the wooden board constituted a balcony "enclosure".
2. **Doctrine of Laches:** The ALJ applied the doctrine of laches, which bars claims when an inexcusable delay results in prejudice against a party. Because the Petitioner waited over a decade (since 1998/2001) to enforce the removal of the board, the delay was deemed unreasonable and prejudicial to Ms. Klissas.
3. **Compliance with Chime Rules:** The Petitioner failed to provide credible proof that Ms. Klissas had more than four wind chimes or that a formal noise complaint had been filed regarding them. Consequently, no violation of Rule L-8 was found.

**Outcome**
The ALJ ordered the matter dismissed and deemed Ms. Klissas the prevailing party. The decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on January 3, 2014, after the Department took no action to reject or modify the ALJ's ruling within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1313002-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2013-06-27
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $200.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808(F)

Outcome Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

Requirement of specific sign frames

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

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

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Decision Documents

13F-H1313002-BFS Decision – 346760.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:47 (127.8 KB)

13F-H1313002-BFS Decision – 351822.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:47 (58.1 KB)

**Case Summary: Randall C. and Lori M. Hack Family Trust v. The Ranch at Prescott HOA**
**Case No.** 13F-H1313002-BFS
**Venue:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Hearing:** June 17, 2013

**Overview**
This case involved a dispute between property owners (Petitioners) and their homeowners’ association (Respondent or "The Ranch") regarding the regulation of real estate sign frames. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Petitioners, determining that the HOA’s strict requirement for specific sign frames violated Arizona state law.

**Key Facts and Proceedings**
The Petitioners listed their property for sale using a standard white wooden "L" type sign frame installed by their realtor. In January 2013, the Ranch issued a violation letter to the Petitioners, citing a 2012 rule that required the use of metal "H" sign frames provided by the HOA. The Petitioners refused to change the frame and filed a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, alleging the HOA was violating A.R.S. § 33-1808(F).

**Main Arguments**
* **Petitioners’ Position:** The Petitioners argued that A.R.S. § 33-1808(F) broadly prohibits HOAs from regulating for-sale signs, except for requiring they be commercially produced and of industry standard size. They contended their "L" frame was an industry standard and that the HOA’s attempt to regulate the *frame* itself was an illegal restriction. They also noted the HOA applied the rule inconsistently, waiving requirements for a developer-owned section ("Unit 8").
* **Respondent’s Position:** The HOA argued the rule was implemented for aesthetics and safety, specifically to prevent neglected or fallen signs. They asserted that because the statute did not explicitly mention "sign frames," the HOA retained the authority to regulate them. The HOA claimed they had received legal counsel supporting this interpretation.

**Legal Analysis and Decision**
ALJ M. Douglas rejected the HOA’s arguments, establishing the following legal conclusions:
1. **Burden of Proof:** The Petitioners met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
2. **Statutory Interpretation:** The ALJ ruled that A.R.S. § 33-1808(F) allows HOAs to impose *only* two restrictions on real estate signs: they must be (1) standard size and (2) commercially produced. The statute provides that an association "shall not prohibit in any way other than as is specifically authorized… or otherwise regulate" such signs.
3. **Preclusion of Additional Rules:** Consequently, the HOA’s requirement to use a specific, HOA-furnished "H" frame constituted an unauthorized regulation that is precluded by state law. The "L" frame used by Petitioners was deemed an industry standard type.

**Final Outcome**
* **Prevailing Party:** The Petitioners.
* **Orders:** The HOA was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1808(F), pay the Petitioners' filing fee of $550.00, and pay a civil penalty of $200.00 to the Department.
* **Finality:** The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on August 5, 2013, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to modify or reject it within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1313001-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2013-06-19
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meeting Law / Agenda Violation

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

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • 4
  • 29
  • 46
  • 49

Decision Documents

13F-H1313001-BFS Decision – 344903.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:43 (151.3 KB)

13F-H1313001-BFS Decision – 350917.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:43 (59.6 KB)

**Case Summary: Scheinholtz v. Corte Bella Country Club Association (No. 13F-H1313001-BFS)**

**Proceedings and Parties**
The hearing was conducted on June 3, 2013, before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona. The Petitioner, Martin F. Scheinholtz, is a homeowner and member of the Corte Bella Country Club Association. The Respondent is the Corte Bella Country Club Association, a homeowners' association.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The Petitioner filed a complaint alleging the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law) regarding actions taken during a Board of Directors meeting on December 11, 2012.

* **Petitioner’s Arguments:** The Petitioner alleged that the Board improperly appointed a new director, William Blake, to fill a vacancy during the meeting without listing the item on the agenda. He argued this was a "huge" issue and that the omission prevented members from deciding whether to attend and participate. He further alleged that a quorum of four Board members must have met secretly prior to the open meeting to predetermine the vote.
* **Respondent’s Arguments:** Witnesses for the Respondent testified that the motion to appoint Mr. Blake was raised as "new business" during the open meeting, which is a common practice. While three Board members admitted to discussing the potential motion beforehand, they testified that a quorum (four members) was not involved in any prior discussion or agreement. The Respondent cited Article III, Section 3.6 of the Bylaws, which authorizes the Board to fill vacancies by appointment. Additionally, testimony confirmed that homeowners present at the meeting were allowed to speak on the issue before the Board voted.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) evaluated the evidence based on a preponderance of the evidence standard.
* **Secret Meetings:** The Tribunal found no credible evidence that a quorum of the Board met or conducted business regarding the appointment prior to the December 11, 2012, meeting. Evidence showed only three members were aware the matter would "probably" be raised, which does not constitute a quorum violation.
* **Procedural Compliance:** The ALJ determined that the Bylaws explicitly grant the Board the right to declare a vacancy and appoint a successor. The Tribunal noted that the motion passed by a 4-2 vote and that the Board complied with open meeting requirements by allowing member discussion prior to the vote.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 or the Association's Bylaws.
* **Ruling:** Corte Bella Country Club Association was deemed the prevailing party, and the petition was dismissed.
* **Certification:** The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe; therefore, the ALJ's decision was certified as the final administrative decision on July 29, 2013.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Park, Denise vs. Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1213010-BFS-rhg
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2014-01-17
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Maintenance of common areas

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 73
  • 76
  • 133
  • 138
  • 139

Open meetings

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Cited:

  • 73
  • 134

Proper elections

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 73
  • 135
  • 138

Financial information

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Cited:

  • 73
  • 136
  • 137

Decision Documents

12F-H1213010-BFS Decision – 334123.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:12 (205.6 KB)

12F-H1213010-BFS Decision – 370568.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:12 (41.0 KB)

12F-H1213010-BFS Decision – 376532.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:13 (212.0 KB)

**Case Summary: Denise Park v. Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association**
**Case No. 12F-H1213010-BFS**

**Overview**
This case involves a petition filed by Denise Park (Petitioner) against the Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association (Respondent) before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner, an owner of three condominium units, alleged that the Respondent violated multiple provisions of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) regarding planned communities. The proceedings included an initial hearing on March 28, 2013, and a rehearing on November 20, 2013.

**Key Allegations and Issues**
The Petitioner charged the Respondent with four specific violations:
1. **Failure to maintain common areas** (A.R.S. § 33-1247), specifically regarding a broken wall, weeds, peeling paint, and insufficient trash containers.
2. **Failure to conduct open meetings** (A.R.S. § 33-1248).
3. **Failure to hold proper elections** (A.R.S. § 33-1250).
4. **Failure to provide financial information** within the statutory timeframe (A.R.S. § 33-1258).

**Arguments**
* **Petitioner:** Park testified that common areas were neglected, trash bins were overflowing, and she had not received proper notice of meetings or elections. She also argued the Association failed to provide requested financial records until after she filed her petition.
* **Respondent:** The Association argued that maintenance issues resulted from financial struggles caused by unpaid dues, including dues owed by the Petitioner. Regarding meetings, the Treasurer testified that notice for the May 2012 meeting was mailed to Park, but she did not attend. Regarding elections, the Association argued that because only three members attended the meeting—all of whom were current officers willing to continue—no formal election was necessary. On rehearing, the Respondent raised a defense regarding the statute of limitations for the financial records claim.

**Findings of Fact and Legal Conclusions**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on rehearing, which modified the initial findings:

1. **Maintenance (Violation Found):** The ALJ found the Association failed to maintain common areas, citing the broken wall and weeds. Although the Association performed repairs after the initial hearing, the violation was substantiated at the time of the complaint.
2. **Open Meetings (No Violation):** The ALJ found the Association did hold

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Kirschner, Stuart vs. Trilogy at Vistancia Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112008-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-03-20
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

Fine Policy and Appeal Process

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lost

Cited:

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

Decision Documents

11F-H1112008-BFS Decision – 289547.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:22 (115.2 KB)

11F-H1112008-BFS Decision – 292439.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:22 (62.6 KB)

**Case Summary: Kirschner v. Trilogy at Vistancia Community Association**
**Case No. 11F-H1112008-BFS**

**Overview**
This case involves a petition filed by homeowner Stuart Kirschner (Petitioner) against the Trilogy at Vistancia Community Association (Respondent) regarding disciplinary actions taken against him. The hearing was conducted on March 12, 2012, before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas at the Office of Administrative Hearings for the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

**Key Facts**
On September 18, 2011, the Petitioner, who was recovering from hip surgery, confronted Kelly Young, a sales associate for the developer, outside the community’s Kiva Club. The Petitioner was upset that a sales golf cart was parked near the entrance while he could not find handicapped parking.

Witness testimony established that the Petitioner approached Ms. Young and yelled at her to move the cart, using profanity such as "damn" and "God damn". Ms. Young testified that the Petitioner’s behavior was loud and aggressive, causing her to feel embarrassed and fearful. The Petitioner admitted to raising his voice and using the word "damn" but denied being abusive.

**Procedural History**
Following the incident, the Respondent notified the Petitioner of a Code of Conduct violation and his right to a hearing. The Petitioner initially requested a hearing but subsequently waived that right via email on October 10, 2011. The Board of Directors reviewed the evidence, found that the Petitioner’s erratic behavior constituted a danger to persons, and suspended his Kiva Club privileges for 60 days. The Petitioner challenged the Association’s adherence to its policies and the denial of his subsequent attempt to appeal the suspension.

**Key Legal Arguments and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge evaluated whether the Respondent followed its governing documents, specifically the CC&Rs and the Fine Policy and Appeal Process.

1. **Code of Conduct Violation:** The Judge found that the Respondent’s rules prohibit loud, profane, or abusive language. Based on the evidence, the Judge concluded that the Petitioner violated this code by confronting Ms. Young in a profane manner that caused her fear.
2. **Reasonableness of Sanction:** The Judge determined that the 60-day suspension was a reasonable and justified response to behavior that presented

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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