Tag Archives: MD

Cavanaugh, William vs. Agua Dulce Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1213005-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2013-03-11
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1205

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Applicability of local ordinances

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

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

Decision Documents

12F-H1213005-BFS Decision – 329125.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:14 (99.4 KB)

12F-H1213005-BFS Decision – 334511.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:14 (59.5 KB)

**Case Title:** William Cavanaugh v. Agua Dulce Homeowners Association
**Case Number:** 12F-H1213005-BFS
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona

**Hearing Proceedings and Key Facts**
The hearing took place on February 4, 2013, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas,. Petitioner William Cavanaugh, a homeowner and member of the Agua Dulce Homeowners Association ("Agua"), filed a petition alleging that Agua violated A.R.S. § 33-1205, Pima County Zoning Laws, and the association's CC&Rs,.

The central dispute involved vegetation within the community. The Petitioner alleged that Agua allowed homeowners to plant non-native plants that were not "low-pollen" or "low-water" vegetation, contrary to lists approved by Pima County,. He testified that this vegetation caused him health issues and argued Agua had the authority to force the removal of such plants.

**Key Arguments**
* **Respondent's Defense:** Agua argued that the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to interpret or enforce Pima County Zoning Codes.
* **Witness Testimony:**
* Linda Ware, a member of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), testified that while Agua is strict regarding front yards, implementing the Petitioner's suggested changes for private backyards would be costly.
* Betty Blaylock, Board President, testified that Pima County officials had indicated they were not concerned with vegetation in private backyards within Agua,.
* Terry Anderson, a homeowner, expressed concern that the removal of established vegetation would infringe on private property rights and incur significant costs,.

**Legal Analysis and Issues**
The ALJ identified the standard of proof as a "preponderance of the evidence," which rests on the party asserting the claim. The tribunal addressed two main legal points:

1. **Jurisdiction:** The ALJ concluded that the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety does not have jurisdiction over alleged violations of Pima County Zoning Ordinances.
2. **Evidence of Violation:** The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to present credible evidence that Agua violated its own CC&Rs or any state statutes regulating homeowners' associations.

**Final Decision**
The ALJ recommended that the petition be dismissed, ordering that no action was required of Agua. On April 17, 2013, the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the ALJ's decision as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, as the Department had not accepted, rejected, or modified the decision within the statutory timeframe provided by A.R.S. § 41-1092.08,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212002-BFS; 12F-H1212009-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2013-01-17
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to notice and conduct publicly ARC Meetings

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

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Failure to provide requested HOA records

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

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Decision Documents

12F-H1212009-BFS Decision – 321619.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:15 (129.8 KB)

12F-H1212009-BFS Decision – 327760.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:15 (58.9 KB)

**Case Summary: Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association**
**Case No:** 12F-H1212009-BFS (Consolidated with 12F-H1212002-BFS)

**Overview**
This hearing concerned a dispute between homeowners John and Debborah Sellers (Petitioners) and the Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association (Respondent). The matter was heard by Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas on September 26, 2012, and January 4, 2013. The two cases were consolidated for the hearing.

**Key Issues**
1. **Refusal to Provide Records (Case 12F-H1212009-BFS):** The Petitioners alleged the Association failed to provide requested records, specifically invoices from the HOA’s attorneys and communications between the attorneys and third parties (including settlement correspondence). Petitioners argued these did not constitute attorney-client privileged communications.
2. **Failure to Conduct Public Meetings (Case 12F-H1212002-BFS):** The Petitioners alleged the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) failed to notice and conduct its meetings publicly, violating A.R.S. § 33-1804 and community documents.

**Legal Arguments and Testimony**
* **Records:** The Respondent denied the allegations, asserting the refusal was based on statutory privilege. Relevant statutes A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) and A.R.S. § 12-2234 allow an association to withhold records related to privileged attorney-client communications and pending litigation.
* **Meetings:** Testimony established that the ARC did not hold "regularly scheduled" meetings; instead, meetings occurred "on demand" or "as necessary" based on architectural submissions. The Association's Bylaws mandate the ARC meet "from time to time as necessary" rather than on a fixed schedule. A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) requires that "regularly scheduled committee meetings" be open to members.

**Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) placed the burden of proof on the Petitioners to show a violation by a "preponderance of the evidence".

1. **Regarding Records:** The ALJ found that the Association's refusal to release the requested documents was properly based on statutory exceptions for attorney-client privileged material. The Petitioners failed to prove that the withholding of these documents violated the statute or the CC&Rs.
2. **Regarding

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1213002-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-12-21
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized conveyance of common elements

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

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Decision Documents

12F-H1213002-BFS Decision – 318678.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:44 (134.8 KB)

12F-H1213002-BFS Decision – 323827.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:44 (57.9 KB)

**Case Title:** *Katherine A. Windis v. Fairway Court West Condominium Association*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1213002-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

**Overview**
This case involved a dispute between Petitioner Katherine A. Windis, a unit owner, and the Respondent, Fairway Court West Condominium Association. The hearing took place on December 17, 2012, before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas regarding alleged statutory and CC&R violations by the Association’s Board of Directors.

**Key Facts and Proceedings**
On April 23, 2012, the Association’s Board passed a resolution allowing first-floor unit owners to install pavers outside their lower lanai areas as part of a landscape conversion project. The resolution specified that these installations were not permanent, were the financial responsibility of the unit owner, and were considered "Limited Common Areas" under Board control.

The Petitioner argued that this resolution allowed first-floor owners to encroach upon and convert "common areas" for private use without the required approval of at least 80% of the property owners, in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1217, § 33-1252, and § 33-1218. She further contended that the resolution discriminated against second-floor unit owners and violated the Association's CC&Rs regarding the use of common areas.

**Key Arguments**
* **Petitioner:** Windis asserted that the Board effectively conveyed common property to private individuals without a vote. She claimed the pavers constituted an unauthorized structural change and encroachment on common property in violation of the Declaration.
* **Respondent:** The Association argued that no conveyance of property occurred and no owner vote was necessary. Board Vice-Chair Dave Harris testified that the pavers were installed on entryways serving specific units. The Association relied on A.R.S. § 33-1212(4), which defines stoops, porches, and entryways serving a single unit as "limited common elements" allocated exclusively to that unit, rather than general common elements.

**Legal Findings and Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent, dismissing the petition. The decision was based on the following key points:

1. **Burden of Proof:** The Petitioner bore the burden of proving the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence but failed to do so.
2. **Limited Common Elements:** The ALJ accepted credible testimony and evidence establishing that the pavers were installed on areas designed for ingress and egress for specific units.
3. **Statutory Application:** Under A.R.S. § 33-1212, such entryways are classified as "limited common elements" allocated exclusively to the specific condominium unit. Therefore, the Board's resolution regarding the pavers did not constitute an illegal conveyance of general common elements or a violation of the CC&Rs.

**Final Outcome**
The ALJ recommended that the petition be dismissed and deemed Fairway Court West Condominium Association the prevailing party. This decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on February 5, 2013, after the Department took no action to reject or modify it within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112003-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2012-11-02
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $200.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

Validity of Absentee Ballots

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

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

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 4
  • 17
  • 20

Conflict of Interest Voting

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • 4
  • 17

Decision Documents

11F-H1112003-BFS Decision – 311265.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:31 (99.8 KB)

11F-H1112003-BFS Decision – 313156.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:32 (200.4 KB)

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(3)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • absentee ballots
  • meetings

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fees
  • reimbursement

Question

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

Short Answer

The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process
  • evidence

Question

Can the HOA be fined for violating state voting laws?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

Do absentee ballots count toward a quorum?

Short Answer

Yes, absentee ballots are valid for establishing a quorum.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • quorum
  • meetings

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Topic Tags

  • homeowner rights
  • dispute resolution
  • statutes

Question

What information must be included on an absentee ballot?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • compliance

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(4)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • deadlines
  • procedure

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(3)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • absentee ballots
  • meetings

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fees
  • reimbursement

Question

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

Short Answer

The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process
  • evidence

Question

Can the HOA be fined for violating state voting laws?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

Do absentee ballots count toward a quorum?

Short Answer

Yes, absentee ballots are valid for establishing a quorum.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • quorum
  • meetings

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Topic Tags

  • homeowner rights
  • dispute resolution
  • statutes

Question

What information must be included on an absentee ballot?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • compliance

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(4)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • deadlines
  • procedure

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(3)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • absentee ballots
  • meetings

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fees
  • reimbursement

Question

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

Short Answer

The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process
  • evidence

Question

Can the HOA be fined for violating state voting laws?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

Do absentee ballots count toward a quorum?

Short Answer

Yes, absentee ballots are valid for establishing a quorum.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • quorum
  • meetings

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Topic Tags

  • homeowner rights
  • dispute resolution
  • statutes

Question

What information must be included on an absentee ballot?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • compliance

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(4)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • deadlines
  • procedure

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Yuille, John vs. Caida Court Homeowner Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112005-BFS-res
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-09-18
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome Yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John Yuille Counsel —
Respondent Caida Court Homeowner Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) by failing to call, notice, and hold a special meeting regarding the removal of the Petitioner from the Board within the statutory 30-day period. The HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fees and a civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold special meeting for board removal

Petitioner alleged that Respondent failed to deliver the petition before the meeting to recall the board chairman and failed to comply with statutory requirements for a recall meeting. The ALJ found the Respondent failed to hold the meeting within the required 30-day timeframe.

Orders: Respondent shall comply with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) in the future; Respondent shall pay Petitioner $550.00 filing fee; Respondent shall pay the Department a civil penalty of $200.00.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)

Decision Documents

11F-H1112005-BFS-res Decision – 307243.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:10 (83.2 KB)

11F-H1112005-BFS-res Decision – 311519.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:10 (59.7 KB)

Here is a summary of the administrative hearing proceedings for Case No. 11F-H1112005-BFS-res.

**Case Title:** *John Yuille v. Caida Court Homeowner Association*
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona
**Administrative Law Judge:** M. Douglas

**Hearing Proceedings**
The hearing took place on September 13, 2012. The Petitioner, John Yuille, appeared on his own behalf regarding a dispute over his removal as Chairman of the Board of Management for Caida Court Homeowner Association,. The Respondent, Caida Court, failed to appear at the hearing.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The Petitioner was recalled from his position as Board Chairman on August 24, 2011. He filed a petition alleging that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) by failing to provide him with a copy of the recall petition before the meeting where he was removed,.

* **Petitioner’s Testimony:** Mr. Yuille testified that he returned from an out-of-state trip to find a special meeting underway regarding his removal. He requested a copy of the recall petition but was never provided one, leading him to believe a written petition did not actually exist,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** Although the Respondent did not attend the hearing, they submitted a written Answer admitting that they "possibly did not follow the statute" due to a lack of removal information, though they noted a 10-3 vote in favor of recall.

**Key Legal Issues**
The central legal issue was whether the Association complied with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H), which governs the removal of board members. The statute requires specific procedures for handling recall petitions, including calling, noticing, and holding a special meeting within thirty days after the receipt of a petition.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner.

* **Findings:** The ALJ concluded that the Respondent failed to "call, notice, and hold the special meeting… within thirty days after receipt of the petition," thereby violating A.R.S. § 33-1243(H).
* **Orders:**
1. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) in the future.
2. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $550.00.
3. The Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $200.00 to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

**Certification**
The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision on October 24, 2012,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Yuille (petitioner)
    Caida Court Homeowner Association
    Member and former Chairman of the Board; appeared on his own behalf

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Director of the agency
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    OAH
    Director of Office of Administrative Hearings; signed Certification of Decision
  • Holly Textor (administrative staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed c/o for Gene Palma on mailing list

Tobin, Allen R. vs. Sunland Village Community Association (ROOT)

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112006-BFS, 11F-H1112010-BFS, 12F-H121001-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-04-30
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,650.00
Civil Penalties $600.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Allen R. Tobin Counsel —
Respondent Sunland Village Community Association Counsel Jason E. Smith, Esq.; Lindsey O’Conner, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article V, Section 7
Article XII, Section 2
Article VI (D)(7)

Outcome Summary

The homeowner prevailed on claims regarding the lack of quorum for a Board meeting and unauthorized legal expenditures. The HOA prevailed on the claim that the homeowner violated notice requirements for bylaw amendments.

Why this result: The homeowner lost one issue because he failed to provide the required advance written notice for bylaw amendments presented at the annual meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Lack of Quorum at Board Meeting

Petitioner alleged a minority of the Board met without a quorum to invalidate actions taken at the annual meeting. The ALJ found that three members did not constitute a quorum.

Orders: Sunland ordered to comply with Article V, Section 7 of Bylaws; pay $550 filing fee to Tobin; pay $200 civil penalty.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 27
  • 30
  • 31

Failure to Provide Notice of Bylaw Amendments

Sunland (as Petitioner in consolidated Docket 11F-H1112010-BFS) alleged Tobin violated bylaws by proposing amendments at the annual meeting without required notice. ALJ found Tobin violated the notice requirement.

Orders: Tobin ordered to pay Sunland's $550 filing fee and a $200 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • 7
  • 10
  • 26
  • 32

Unauthorized Legal Expenditures

Petitioner alleged Association funds were used for legal fees without Board approval. ALJ found manager and three directors met with attorney without Board direction or reporting costs to the full Board.

Orders: Sunland ordered to comply with Policy Manual Article VI (D)(7); pay $550 filing fee to Tobin; pay $200 civil penalty.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 28
  • 30
  • 33

Decision Documents

11F-H1112006-BFS Decision – 292297.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:16 (135.4 KB)

11F-H1112006-BFS Decision – 295402.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:16 (62.4 KB)

**Case Summary: Tobin v. Sunland Village Community Association**
**Docket Nos:** 11F-H1112006-BFS, 11F-H1112010-BFS, 12F-H121001-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings / Dept. of Fire, Building and Life Safety
**Date of Final Certification:** June 15, 2012

**Overview**
This proceeding consolidated three administrative disputes between homeowner Allen R. Tobin and the Sunland Village Community Association regarding governance violations, specifically concerning Bylaw amendments, Board quorum requirements, and unauthorized legal expenditures.

**Proceedings and Legal Arguments**

**1. Improper Board Meeting (Docket No. 11F-H1112006-BFS)**
* **Petitioner:** Allen R. Tobin.
* **Issue:** Tobin alleged that a minority of the Board of Directors met on February 11, 2011, to conduct business without a quorum. The meeting was held to address complaints regarding the annual meeting, and the attendees declared actions taken at that annual meeting null and void.
* **Key Legal Point:** Article V, Section 7 of the Bylaws requires a majority of directors (four of the six serving members) to constitute a quorum to take lawful action. Only three directors were present.
* **Decision:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Association violated the Bylaws by conducting business and declaring amendments void without a quorum.
* **Outcome:** **Tobin prevailed.** Sunland was ordered to comply with quorum bylaws, reimburse Tobin’s $550 filing fee, and pay a $200 civil penalty.

**2. Improper Bylaw Amendments (Docket No. 11F-H1112010-BFS)**
* **Petitioner:** Sunland Village Community Association.
* **Issue:** Sunland alleged that Tobin violated the Bylaws during the January 12, 2011, annual meeting by making motions to amend the Bylaws from the floor without prior notice.
* **Key Legal Point:** Article XII, Section 2 of the Bylaws requires that notice of proposed amendments be given to members in the same manner as notice of the annual meeting (at least 10 days in advance). Tobin admitted he provided no written notice.
* **Decision:** The ALJ rejected Tobin's argument that the floor vote waived the notice requirement. The ALJ ruled that Tobin violated Article XII, Section 2 by presenting motions without required notice.
* **Outcome:** **Sunland prevailed.** Tobin was ordered to reimburse Sunland’s $550 filing fee and pay a $200 civil penalty.

**3. Unauthorized Legal Expenditures (Docket No. 12F-H121001-BFS)**
* **Petitioner:** Allen R. Tobin.
* **Issue:** Tobin alleged that the Association manager and three Board members incurred legal fees without Board direction or knowledge.
* **Key Legal Point:** Article VI (D)(7) of the Policy Manual requires that all contact with the law firm be at the Board's direction and that detailed billings be provided to all Board members. The manager and a minority of directors met with counsel without informing the full Board.
* **Decision:** The ALJ found Sunland violated the Policy Manual because the legal expenses were incurred without the direction or consent of a quorum of the Board.
* **Outcome:** **Tobin prevailed.** Sunland was ordered to comply with the Policy Manual, reimburse Tobin’s $550 filing fee, and pay a $200 civil penalty.

**Final Decision**
The ALJ’s decisions were certified as final on June 15, 2012, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify them within the statutory period.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Allen R. Tobin (petitioner)
    Sunland Village Community Association
    Homeowner and Board Member; appeared on his own behalf
  • Linda Wagner (witness)
    Sunland Village Community Association
    Board member; testified she was not informed of legal meetings
  • Verworst (board member)
    Sunland Village Community Association
    Board member not present at Feb 11 meeting

Respondent Side

  • Jason E. Smith (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
    Attorney for Sunland
  • Lindsey O’Conner (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
    Attorney for Sunland
  • Gordon Clark (property manager)
    Sunland Village Community Association
    Full time employee-manager; witness
  • Richard Gaffney (board member)
    Sunland Village Community Association
    Board Member present at Feb 11 meeting
  • Kathrine J. Lovitt (board member)
    Sunland Village Community Association
    Vice President; referred to as Kitty Lovitt
  • Jack Cummins (board member)
    Sunland Village Community Association
    Board Member present at Feb 11 meeting
  • Erwin Paulson (homeowner)
    Sunland Village Community Association
    Member who filed written objection to Tobin's motions
  • Scott Carpenter (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
    Attorney paid from Association funds
  • Penny Gaffney (party (civil suit))
    Named in civil action filed by Tobin
  • Marriane Clark (party (civil suit))
    Named in civil action filed by Tobin
  • Robert Lovitt (party (civil suit))
    Named in civil action filed by Tobin
  • Karin Cummins (party (civil suit))
    Named in civil action filed by Tobin

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 who certified the decision
  • Beth Soliere (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of transmitted decision