Kotrodimos, Leo & Nancy vs. The Estates at Desert Shadows

Posted on June 16, 2008 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	08F-H088015-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2008-06-16
Administrative Law Judge	Michael G. Wales
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition based on the Petitioners' request to withdraw filed on or about April 2, 2008, and the Respondent's withdrawal of its request for attorney fees.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Leo and Nancy Kotrodimos	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Curtis S. Ekmark, Esq.; Eric J. Boyd, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Unknown

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition based on the Petitioners' request to withdraw filed on or about April 2, 2008, and the Respondent's withdrawal of its request for attorney fees.

Why this result: Petitioners withdrew their petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Unknown

Petitioners requested to withdraw their Petition.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed in its entirety upon the Petitioners' request to withdraw.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: dismissed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H088015-BFS Decision – 196775.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:34:26 (57.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Dismissal of Case No. 08F-H088015-BFS

Executive Summary

This document provides a synthesis of the administrative order issued by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding the legal matter between Leo and Nancy Kotrodimos and The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc.

The case concluded on June 16, 2008, with an “Order Dismissing Petition.” The dismissal was precipitated by the Petitioners’ voluntary request to withdraw their petition and a subsequent withdrawal of a request for attorney fees by the Respondent. Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §41-2198.04(A), this order constitutes a final administrative decision, precluding any further requests for rehearing.

Administrative Context and Case Identification

The proceedings were conducted under the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona. The case details are summarized below:

Attribute

Detail

Case Number

08F-H088015-BFS (Reference No. HO 08-8/015)

Petitioners

Leo and Nancy Kotrodimos

Respondent

The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Michael G. Wales, Administrative Law Judge

Issuing Authority

Office of Administrative Hearings

Date of Order

June 16, 2008

Procedural Resolution

The dismissal of the petition was not the result of a summary judgment or a full evidentiary hearing on the merits, but rather a mutual cessation of claims.

Petition Withdrawal

The document indicates that the Petitioners, Leo and Nancy Kotrodimos, filed a request to withdraw their petition on or about April 2, 2008. The source context does not specify the underlying reasons for the Petitioners’ decision to withdraw.

Attorney Fees

Concurrent with the Petitioners’ withdrawal, the Respondent, The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc., withdrew its request for an award of attorney fees. This mutual withdrawal of claims and requests facilitated the clean dismissal of the case.

Judicial Ruling

Based on these filings, Administrative Law Judge Michael G. Wales ordered the dismissal of the petition against the Respondent in its entirety.

Legal Finality and Statutory Authority

The order emphasizes the finality of the administrative process in this matter. Under the authority of A.R.S. §41-2198.04(A), the document establishes the following:

• Finality: The order is designated as a “final administrative decision.”

• Rehearing Restriction: The decision is “not subject to a request for rehearing.”

Key Entities and Distribution

The order identified several key legal and administrative entities involved in the distribution of the final decision:

Legal Representation for Respondent

The Respondent was represented by the law firm Ekmark & Ekmark, LLC, specifically:

• Curtis S. Ekmark, Esq.

• Eric J. Boyd, Esq.

Regulatory Oversight

A copy of the order was directed to the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety – H/C, specifically to:

• Robert Barger, Director

• Debra Blake

Contact Information for Record

• Petitioners’ Address: 2234 N. Calle Largo, Mesa, Arizona 85207.

• Respondent’s Counsel Address: 6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Scottsdale, AZ 85253.

• Office of Administrative Hearings Address: 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona 85007.

Study Guide: Kotrodimos v. The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the legal order issued by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding Case No. 08F-H088015-BFS. The document focuses on the administrative dismissal of a petition involving a community association and the finality of such decisions under Arizona law.

——————————————————————————–

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions using 2–3 sentences based on the information provided in the source context.

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative case?

2. What was the specific action taken by the Office of Administrative Hearings on June 16, 2008?

3. What prompted the Administrative Law Judge to dismiss the petition?

4. What did the Respondent agree to withdraw during these proceedings?

5. Under which specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) was this order issued?

6. What is the status of this order regarding its finality and potential for rehearing?

7. Where is the Office of Administrative Hearings located?

8. Who represented the Respondent in this matter?

9. Which state department and director were included in the mailing list for this order?

10. On what approximate date was the original petition filed?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative case? The Petitioners are Leo and Nancy Kotrodimos, residents of Mesa, Arizona. The Respondent is The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc.

2. What was the specific action taken by the Office of Administrative Hearings on June 16, 2008? The Office issued an “Order Dismissing Petition,” effectively closing Case No. 08F-H088015-BFS. The order dismissed the petition against the Respondent in its entirety.

3. What prompted the Administrative Law Judge to dismiss the petition? The dismissal was prompted by the Petitioners’ own request to withdraw their petition. The judge acted upon this request, which had been filed on or about April 2, 2008.

4. What did the Respondent agree to withdraw during these proceedings? The Respondent, The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc., withdrew its request for an award of attorney fees. This withdrawal occurred in conjunction with the Petitioners’ request to dismiss the case.

5. Under which specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) was this order issued? The order cites A.R.S. §41-2198.04(A) as the governing authority for the decision. This statute establishes the order as a final administrative decision.

6. What is the status of this order regarding its finality and potential for rehearing? The order is considered a final administrative decision. Per the cited statute, it is explicitly not subject to a request for rehearing.

7. Where is the Office of Administrative Hearings located? The office is located in Phoenix, Arizona. Specifically, the address provided is 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

8. Who represented the Respondent in this matter? The Respondent was represented by attorneys Curtis S. Ekmark and Eric J. Boyd. They are associated with the firm Ekmark & Ekmark, LLC, located in Scottsdale, Arizona.

9. Which state department and director were included in the mailing list for this order? Robert Barger, the Director of the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety, was included on the mailing list. The notice was specifically directed to the attention of Debra Blake within that department.

10. On what approximate date was the original petition filed? According to the order, the Petitioners filed their request to withdraw the petition on or about April 2, 2008. The source indicates that the dismissal was pursuant to this specific filing date.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the provided source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts. (Answers not provided).

1. The Role of Consent in Administrative Dismissals: Analyze how the mutual withdrawals (the petition by the Kotrodimos and the attorney fees by the Association) influenced the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to dismiss the case in its entirety.

2. Statutory Finality in Arizona Law: Discuss the implications of A.R.S. §41-2198.04(A) on the legal rights of the parties involved. Why might a legislative framework forbid a request for rehearing in an administrative context?

3. Procedural Responsibilities of the Office of Administrative Hearings: Based on the “Order Dismissing Petition,” describe the formal requirements for documenting and communicating a final administrative decision to all involved parties.

4. Community Association Disputes: Using this case as a template, explore the typical structure of a legal dispute between homeowners and a community association within the Arizona administrative system.

5. The Function of the Administrative Law Judge: Evaluate the role of Michael G. Wales in this proceeding. How does his authority manifest in the closing of a case where the parties have reached a mutual cessation of claims?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. §41-2198.04(A)

The specific Arizona Revised Statute that governs the finality of administrative decisions in this context, making them exempt from rehearing requests.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding official (in this case, Michael G. Wales) who hears and decides cases within an administrative agency.

Attorney Fees

Legal costs requested by a party to cover their representation; in this case, the Respondent withdrew their request for these fees.

Community Association

A legal entity (The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc.) responsible for managing a specific residential development.

Department of Fire Building and Life Safety

The state agency involved in the oversight of the matter, represented by Director Robert Barger in the distribution list.

Dismissal

A formal order by the judge to end a legal proceeding without further trial or hearing.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

The Arizona state office responsible for conducting independent hearings for various state agencies.

Petition

The formal written document filed by the Kotrodimos (Petitioners) to initiate the legal grievance.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a lawsuit or legal proceeding (Leo and Nancy Kotrodimos).

Respondent

The party against whom a legal action is brought (The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc.).

Withdrawal

The voluntary removal of a claim or request by a party in a legal case.

The Negotiated Exit: Why a Strategic Withdrawal Can Be the Ultimate Win in HOA Litigation

1. Introduction: The Quiet End to a Loud Dispute

In the high-stakes world of community association law, disputes often begin with a roar and end in a fiscal graveyard. Homeowners and Community Associations (HOAs) frequently find themselves locked in a cycle of escalating grievances and mounting legal invoices that threaten to eclipse the original dispute. We often expect these battles to conclude with a gavel-strike—a definitive “winner” and “loser.”

However, a masterclass in litigation avoidance can be found in a case heard within the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety context. On June 16, 2008, in the sterile environment of the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona, the matter of Leo and Nancy Kotrodimos vs. The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc. (Case No. 08F-H088015-BFS) reached its conclusion. It didn’t end with a judgment, but with a strategic retreat that offers profound lessons for any board member or homeowner currently in the trenches.

2. The Power of the Voluntary Withdrawal

The legal machinery ground to a halt not because of a trial, but because of a choice.

The Petitioners, the Kotrodimos family, elected to withdraw their petition originally filed on April 2, 2008.

In administrative law, a voluntary withdrawal is more than a surrender; it is a pivot.

It suggests an “off-ramp” strategy—a realization that the administrative costs may soon outweigh the potential recovery.

By stepping away, the parties bypass the volatility of a judicial ruling and reclaim control over the narrative.

Administrative Law Judge Michael G. Wales formalized this strategic exit, using the internal reference Case No. HO 08-8/015 to issue the directive:

3.The Strategic Trade-Off: Attorney Fees as a Bargaining Chip

While the withdrawal of the petition was the primary move, the “negotiated exit” was secured by a crucial quid pro quo. The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc. concurrently withdrew its request for an award of attorney fees.

In the ecosystem of HOA disputes, attorney fees are often the “poison pill” that prevents resolution. Parties frequently continue litigating simply because they cannot afford the risk of losing and being saddled with the opponent’s legal bills. By both sides backing down simultaneously, they neutralized the financial standoff. This mutual dismissal created a clean slate, allowing the association and the homeowners to walk away without the lingering sting of a secondary financial battle.

4.The Finality of the “Final Administrative Decision”

The Order signed by Judge Wales on June 16, 2008, carried a weight that many laypeople might overlook. It was not a temporary stay; it was a permanent seal. Under A.R.S. §41-2198.04(A), this dismissal is classified as a “final administrative decision.”

This “no-turning-back” clause is a critical component of strategic resolution. Because the decision is final and not subject to a request for rehearing, it provides the one thing that litigation rarely offers: absolute certainty. For The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc. and the Kotrodimos family, the signing of this order meant the dispute was legally dead, with no opportunity for revival in that forum.

5. Conclusion: A Lesson in Resolution

The resolution of the Kotrodimos case serves as a poignant reminder that in the Office of Administrative Hearings, a “win” isn’t always defined by a favorable verdict. Sometimes, the most sophisticated legal move is to orchestrate a mutual exit that preserves resources and restores peace to the community.

When we strip away the filings and the procedural posturing, we are left with a fundamental question: Is the true victory found in the fight itself, or in the wisdom to secure a clean, final exit before the costs of “winning” become too high to pay?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Leo Kotrodimos (petitioner)
Nancy Kotrodimos (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Curtis S. Ekmark (attorney)
Ekmark & Ekmark, LLC
Attorney for Respondent
Eric J. Boyd (attorney)
Ekmark & Ekmark, LLC
Attorney for Respondent

Neutral Parties

Michael G. Wales (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Robert Barger (Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Copy recipient
Debra Blake (agency staff)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Copy recipient

Rodgers, Marjorie H. -v- Villa Capisrano Ranchos, Inc.

Posted on May 27, 2008 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	08F-H088011-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2008-05-28
Administrative Law Judge	Michael G. Wales
Outcome	The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the Association did not violate the CC&Rs by refusing to allow the Petitioner to opt out of the master insurance policy. The Tribunal ruled that the CC&R exemption required participation by all owners and was discretionary for the Board.
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marjorie H. Rodgers	Counsel	—
Respondent	Villa Capistrano Ranchos, Inc.	Counsel	Jason E. Smith

Alleged Violations

Section 15 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the Association did not violate the CC&Rs by refusing to allow the Petitioner to opt out of the master insurance policy. The Tribunal ruled that the CC&R exemption required participation by all owners and was discretionary for the Board.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the ALJ interpreted the CC&Rs to require all owners to submit insurance policies to trigger the exemption, rather than allowing an individual opt-out.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of right to procure individual insurance in lieu of Association assessment

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated the CC&Rs by denying her request to insure her own home individually and opting out of the Association-provided insurance assessment. Petitioner conceded A.R.S §§33-1201(B) and 33-1253(B) did not apply as it is a planned community.

Orders: Petition dismissed in its entirety. Respondent's request for attorney's fees denied.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

Section 15 of the CC&Rs

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H088011-BFS Decision – 191645.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:33:18 (110.3 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Rodgers v. Villa Capistrano Ranchos, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the May 28, 2008, decision by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute over property insurance requirements within a planned community. The Petitioner, Marjorie H. Rodgers, sought to opt out of the Association-provided insurance policy in favor of her own coverage, citing Section 15 of the Community’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the petition, ruling that the Association did not violate the CC&Rs. The decision pivoted on two critical interpretive findings: first, that the “opt-out” clause in the CC&Rs requires a collective action by all owners rather than individual owners; and second, that the Board of Directors possesses permissive, not mandatory, authority to accept alternative insurance. Consequently, individual owners cannot unilaterally demand exemption from Association-obtained insurance and the associated assessments.

Case Overview and Context

Entity

Detail

Case Number

08F-H088011-BFS

Petitioner

Marjorie H. Rodgers (Homeowner)

Respondent

Villa Capistrano Ranchos, Inc. (The Association)

Property Location

1029 W. Mission Lane, Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding Judge

Michael G. Wales, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Date

May 27, 2008

Background of the Dispute

Marjorie H. Rodgers owns a “rancho” (attached home) within the Villa Capistrano Ranchos Community. Ownership of a rancho automatically confers membership in the Association and binds the owner to its governing documents.

On March 13, 2008, Rodgers filed a petition alleging the Association denied her the right to procure her own insurance in lieu of the Association-provided coverage. She requested:

• An order compelling compliance with Section 15 of the CC&Rs.

• Permission to personally insure her rancho.

• Absolution from a $200 assessment for Association-obtained insurance.

• The imposition of a civil penalty and return of her $550 filing fee.

Legal Arguments and Jurisdictional Framework

Statutory Standing

Initially, the Petitioner alleged violations of A.R.S. §§ 33-1201(B) and 33-1253(B), which govern condominium communities. However, during the hearing, it was conceded that Villa Capistrano Ranchos is a planned unit community, not a condominium. Consequently, the condominium statutes were dismissed as inapplicable.

The tribunal’s jurisdiction was limited to ensuring compliance with Title 33, Chapter 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes and the Association’s specific planned community documents (A.R.S. § 41-2198).

Burden of Proof

The Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated Section 15 of the CC&Rs. The tribunal defined this standard as “evidence that has the most convincing force,” making the contention “more probably true than not.”

Interpretation of CC&R Section 15

The core of the dispute rested on the interpretation of Section 15, which states:

“The Board of Directors… shall have the authority to and shall obtain insurance for all the buildings, including all ranchos, unless the owners thereof shall have supplied proof of adequate coverage to the Board of Directors complete satisfaction…”

The Plurality Requirement

The ALJ concluded that a plain reading of the text indicates the exemption from Association-provided insurance is not an individual right.

• The “All or None” Interpretation: The language “unless the owners thereof” refers back to the phrase “of all ranchos.”

• Conclusion: The Association can only take advantage of the exemption if all owners of ranchos provide proof of adequate coverage, not just a single owner.

Permissive vs. Mandatory Authority

The tribunal found that the exemption language in Section 15 is permissive rather than mandatory.

• Board Discretion: Even if all owners provided proof of insurance, the Board “may, but is not required to” allow those policies to serve as the requisite coverage.

• Administrative Prerogative: The Board must be satisfied with the coverage “to its complete satisfaction” regarding hazards and sufficiency.

• Synthesized Rule: Section 15 imposes a duty on the Association to insure the buildings but does not confer a “right or privilege” upon an individual owner to opt out.

Conflicts Regarding Casualty and Loss

The Petitioner cited language in Section 15 regarding insurance proceeds:

“In the event of damage… to any rancho… covered by insurance written in the name of the individual buyer, said buyer shall… contract to repair or rebuild…”

The ALJ ruled that this language does not grant a right to individual insurance. Instead, it merely outlines the duties of an owner to repair their property using insurance proceeds if—under the collective circumstances described above—individual insurance was already in place.

Final Order and Financial Determinations

The Administrative Law Judge ruled entirely in favor of the Association, leading to the following orders:

1. Dismissal: The Petition was dismissed in its entirety.

2. Assessment: The Petitioner was not absolved of the $200 insurance assessment.

3. Filing Fees: As the non-prevailing party, the Petitioner was not entitled to the reimbursement of her $550 filing fee (A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A)).

4. Attorney’s Fees: The Association’s request for attorney’s fees was denied. The ALJ noted that an administrative proceeding is not an “action” under A.R.S. §§ 33-1807(H) or 12-341.01, and therefore attorney’s fees are not awardable.

Finality of Decision

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.04(A), this order constitutes the final administrative decision and is not subject to requests for rehearing.

Case Study Analysis: Rodgers v. Villa Capistrano Ranchos, Inc.

This study guide examines the administrative law proceedings and subsequent decision in the matter of Marjorie H. Rodgers v. Villa Capistrano Ranchos, Inc. (No. 08F-H088011-BFS). It focuses on the interpretation of community governing documents and the application of Arizona Revised Statutes within a planned unit community.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2–3 sentences based on the facts and legal conclusions provided in the source context.

1. What was the primary legal dispute between Marjorie H. Rodgers and the Villa Capistrano Ranchos Association?

2. Why were the petitioner’s initial claims regarding A.R.S §§ 33-1201(B) and 33-1253(B) dismissed during the hearing?

3. According to Section 15 of the CC&Rs, how are insurance premiums for individual ranchos treated in terms of Association expenses?

4. What specific condition must be met for the Board of Directors to be exempt from the duty to obtain insurance for all ranchos?

5. How did the Administrative Law Judge interpret the phrase “the owners thereof” within the context of Section 15?

6. Is the Board of Directors legally obligated to accept an owner’s proof of insurance under the CC&Rs?

7. What standard of proof was required for the petitioner to prevail in this case, and how is it defined?

8. In what capacity does the Board of Directors hold insurance coverage obtained for individual rancho owners?

9. What was the court’s reasoning for denying the Respondent Association’s request for attorney’s fees?

10. Under Section 15, what are the responsibilities of an individual owner if their rancho suffers damage and is covered by their own policy?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. Primary Dispute: The petitioner alleged that the Association denied her the right to procure her own insurance for her “rancho” (home) in lieu of Association-provided insurance. She sought to compel the Association to allow her to personally insure her property and requested the imposition of civil penalties and the return of her filing fee.

2. Dismissal of Statutes: The petitioner conceded that the Villa Capistrano Ranchos Community is a planned unit community rather than a condominium community. Consequently, the cited statutes (A.R.S §§ 33-1201(B) and 33-1253(B)), which specifically govern condominium communities, were deemed inapplicable to the Respondent Association.

3. Premium Structure: Section 15 of the CC&Rs specifies that premiums for insurance on each rancho shall not be considered a part of the common expense. Instead, these premiums are designated as an expense of the specific rancho or ranchos covered by the policy.

4. Exemption Condition: The Board is only exempt from obtaining insurance if the owners of the ranchos have supplied proof of adequate coverage to the Board’s complete satisfaction. The tribunal concluded this requires all owners, rather than a single individual, to provide such proof for the exemption to apply.

5. Interpretation of “Owners Thereof”: The tribunal applied a plain reading to the text, determining that the phrase refers to the collective group of all rancho owners in the community. Therefore, one individual owner cannot trigger the exemption; it requires the participation of the entire ownership group.

6. Board Obligation: No, the Board is not obligated to accept private insurance because the tribunal found the exemption language in Section 15 to be permissive rather than mandatory. The Board has the authority to review and potentially allow owner policies, but the CC&Rs do not confer a right upon individual owners to demand this exemption.

7. Burden of Proof: The petitioner held the burden of proof by a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning she had to prove her contention was more probably true than not. This is defined as evidence with the most convincing force and superior weight, even if it does not free the mind from all doubt.

8. Trustee Capacity: All insurance coverage obtained by the Board of Directors, including policies for individual ranchos, must be written in the name of the Board of Directors. The Board acts as a Trustee for each of the rancho owners in proportion to their undivided interest in the common elements.

9. Attorney’s Fees Denial: Although the Association prevailed, the request for attorney’s fees was denied because an administrative proceeding is not considered an “action” under A.R.S. §§ 33-1807(H) or 12-341.01. Legal precedent holds that administrative claims do not entitle the prevailing party to attorney’s fees from their opponent.

10. Owner Responsibilities Following Loss: If a rancho is damaged by fire or other casualty and covered by an individual policy, the owner must contract to repair or rebuild the property upon receipt of the insurance proceeds. The CC&Rs require that this work be performed in a “good workmanlike manner.”

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the provided case details to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. Statutory Application and Community Classification: Analyze the significance of the petitioner’s concession regarding the community’s status as a “planned unit community” versus a “condominium.” How did this distinction fundamentally change the legal landscape of the hearing?

2. Permissive vs. Mandatory Language: Discuss the tribunal’s distinction between “permissive” and “mandatory” language in Section 15 of the CC&Rs. How does this distinction affect the balance of power between a Board of Directors and individual homeowners?

3. The Collective Ownership Requirement: Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning that the insurance exemption requires action from all owners. What are the practical implications of this interpretation for individual homeowners seeking autonomy?

4. Administrative Jurisdiction and Limitations: Based on the Conclusions of Law, explain the jurisdictional limits of the Office of Administrative Hearings when adjudicating petitions related to Title 33, Chapter 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.

5. The Definition of an “Action”: Contrast the legal definitions of an “action” and an “administrative proceeding” as presented in the decision regarding attorney’s fees. Why does this distinction matter for parties entering into administrative litigation?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 41-2198

The Arizona statute granting the Office of Administrative Hearings the authority to adjudicate complaints regarding planned community documents.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding official (in this case, Michael G. Wales) who evaluates evidence, makes Findings of Fact, and issues a legal Order.

Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions; the governing documents that outline the rules and obligations of homeowners and associations within a community.

Common Elements

Parts of the community property in which all owners hold an undivided interest, used to determine the proportions of insurance coverage.

Mandatory

A legal requirement or duty that must be performed (e.g., the Board “shall obtain” insurance).

Permissive

A legal provision that allows for discretion or choice (e.g., the Board “may” allow owners to provide their own policies).

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal petition or complaint (Marjorie H. Rodgers).

Planned Unit Community

A type of real estate development where ranchos/homes are individually owned but subject to shared governing documents and association management.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, requiring that a claim be more likely true than not.

Rancho

The specific term used in the Villa Capistrano Ranchos Community to describe an attached home or individual unit.

Respondent Association

The entity against whom a petition is filed (Villa Capistrano Ranchos, Inc.).

Trustee

A person or entity (the Board of Directors) that holds legal title to property or insurance for the benefit of others (the owners).

Why You Can’t Always Opt-Out: The Hidden Logic of HOA Insurance

1. Introduction: The Double-Premium Dilemma

It is a source of simmering resentment for many homeowners in planned communities: the realization that they are paying twice for the same protection. Many owners carry robust personal insurance policies, only to find themselves forced to pay additional assessments for an Association-mandated master policy. It feels redundant, expensive, and fundamentally unfair. Why should you pay for a “collective” policy when your own coverage is superior?

The case of Marjorie H. Rodgers vs. Villa Capistrano Ranchos, Inc. serves as a stark warning about the limits of individual autonomy within an HOA. Rodgers sought to challenge a $200 insurance assessment, arguing that her personal policy should exempt her from the collective cost. Her journey through the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reveals a “David vs. Goliath” landscape where the governing documents—not common sense or individual choice—reign supreme. It is a cautionary tale where the pursuit of a $200 refund ultimately cost the petitioner a $550 filing fee and a harsh lesson in the contractual reality of community living.

2. Takeaway 1: The “All or Nothing” Rule of Collective Coverage

The pivot point of the Rodgers case was the interpretation of a single phrase in Section 15 of the community’s CC&Rs. The document stated the Board “shall obtain insurance for all the buildings, including all ranchos, unless the owners thereof shall have supplied proof of adequate coverage.”

Rodgers argued that “the owners” applied to her as an individual homeowner. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), however, rejected this individualistic interpretation in favor of a collective one. The ALJ concluded that “the owners” refers to the entire body of owners within the development.

“This tribunal concludes that a plain reading of the exemption language of Section 15 requires submission of an acceptable policy, or policies, of insurance purchased by all owners of ranchos, not just one owner, in order for the Association to take advantage of the exemption from the insurance requirements imposed upon the Board of Directors by Section 15 of the CC&Rs.” (Conclusion of Law #3)

Analysis: This creates what can only be described as a “procedural impossibility” for the individual. By interpreting “the owners” as a collective requirement, the law effectively creates a situation of collective hostage-taking. Unless every single owner in the community coordinates to provide proof of insurance simultaneously, the Board’s duty to maintain a master policy—and charge everyone for it—remains active. One holdout or one missing policy among dozens of neighbors renders an individual’s personal coverage legally irrelevant.

3. Takeaway 2: Authority is Permissive, Not Mandatory

Even if a community could miraculously coordinate a 100% participation rate, homeowners would still face a secondary legal hurdle: the nature of Board authority. The ALJ clarified that even when proof of insurance is supplied, the Board is under no obligation to accept it.

The CC&Rs grant the Board the “authority” to act, but they do not create a mandatory right for the homeowner to opt out. The ruling emphasizes that the Board “may, but is not required to” allow an owner’s policy to serve as the requisite coverage. This establishes a lopsided power dynamic where the Board of Directors acts as a subjective gatekeeper, holding the power of “complete satisfaction” over insurance matters.

Analysis: The standard of “complete satisfaction” is a formidable legal barrier. It grants the Board near-total immunity for its decisions unless they are proven to be arbitrary. For the homeowner, this means there is no “right” to use personal insurance; there is only the Board’s permissive discretion. This ensures the Association maintains the integrity of the collective insurance structure, often at the direct expense of the individual’s wallet.

4. Takeaway 3: The Critical Distinction Between Condos and “Ranchos”

A major tactical error in the Rodgers case highlights the danger of assuming all HOAs are governed by the same rules. Rodgers initially based her case on A.R.S §§ 33-1201(B) and 33-1253(B)—statutes designed to protect condominium owners. However, because Villa Capistrano Ranchos was legally classified as a “planned unit community” and not a “condominium community,” she was forced to concede and dismiss these claims.

The jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings in this matter was strictly limited to Title 33, Chapter 16 (the Planned Communities Act). Because the community did not fall under the legal definition of a condominium, the consumer protection statutes Rodgers relied upon were completely inapplicable.

Analysis: As a property rights analyst, I cannot overstate this: physical appearance does not determine legal status. Rodgers lived in an “attached home,” which many consumers would colloquially call a condo. Yet, the legal technicality of its classification as a “rancho” within a planned unit development stripped her of the statutory protections she sought. Homeowners must look past the architecture and into the recorded legal description of their property to understand which laws actually apply to them.

5. Takeaway 4: The “Administrative Action” Fee Trap

The final irony of the Rodgers case lies in the financial math of the dispute. Rodgers lost the case, meaning she remained liable for the $200 insurance assessment and lost her $550 filing fee. However, even the “winning” Association suffered a financial blow. Despite prevailing, the Association was denied its request for attorney’s fees.

The ALJ cited a specific legal precedent to explain why the Association could not recover costs under A.R.S. §§ 33-1807(H) or 12-341.01.

“An administrative proceeding is not an ‘action’ such as to make attorney’s fees awardable… because [an] administrative hearing is not an ‘action’.” (Conclusion of Law #6, citing Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc.)

Analysis: This reveals the “Fee Trap” inherent in HOA administrative disputes. Under the Semple precedent, an administrative hearing is not considered an “action” in the way a court case is. Consequently, the Association had to eat its own legal costs for a defense that likely cost significantly more than the $200 assessment at stake. In this arena, there are often no true financial winners—only varying degrees of loss.

6. Conclusion: The Weight of the Governing Documents

For homeowners in Arizona, the Rodgers case is a reminder that CC&Rs are more than just rules; they are a binding contractual reality that prioritizes collective stability over individual preference. When you buy into a planned community, you are essentially signing a waiver of certain individual rights in exchange for the Association’s administrative oversight.

The Board’s discretion is wide, the statutes are specific to the property’s technical classification, and the path to a remedy is paved with filing fees that may never be recovered. Before you challenge your Board on insurance or assessments, you must ask yourself: Do you truly know where your personal rights end and the Board’s discretion begins? Reading your CC&Rs is not just a suggestion—it is the only way to understand the contract you have already signed.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Marjorie H. Rodgers (Petitioner)
Owner of record; appeared personally

Respondent Side

Jason E. Smith (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado, & Wood, PLC
Attorney for Respondent Villa Capistrano Ranchos, Inc.

Neutral Parties

Michael G. Wales (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Robert Barger (Agency Recipient)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed on mailing list (H/C)
Debra Blake (Agency Recipient)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed on mailing list (ATTN)

Monahan, John F. and Patricia E. -v- Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on May 21, 2008 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	08F-H088008-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2008-05-22
Administrative Law Judge	Michael G. Wales
Outcome	The Petition was dismissed in its entirety. Claims regarding harassment, barking dogs, and committees were found to be moot, outside jurisdiction, or lacking standing. The Open Meeting Law claim was dismissed because the Board was entitled to meet in executive session to discuss threatened litigation.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John F. and Patricia E. Monahan	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc.	Counsel	Carolyn Goldschmidt

Alleged Violations

Design Guidelines Section II.I, II.M, II.N, II.B.2
CC&Rs Article IX, Section 5; Article III, Section 8a
CC&Rs Article IX, Section 6, Section 26; Design Guidelines II.C
Bylaws Articles V and IX
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed in its entirety. Claims regarding harassment, barking dogs, and committees were found to be moot, outside jurisdiction, or lacking standing. The Open Meeting Law claim was dismissed because the Board was entitled to meet in executive session to discuss threatened litigation.

Why this result: Petitioners' claims were either moot (compliance achieved/events passed), outside the tribunal's jurisdiction (harassment), lacked standing (enforcement against others), or unfounded (executive session was legal).

Key Issues & Findings

Count 1: Harassment regarding pool pump and utility trailer

Petitioners alleged the HOA harassed them by requiring screening of pool equipment and moving a trailer while not enforcing these rules against others.

Orders: Dismissed as moot because Petitioners complied prior to filing, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction regarding harassment/selective enforcement claims.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Count 2: Barking Dogs

Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to enforce animal noise restrictions against a specific neighbor.

Orders: Dismissed as moot.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Count 3: RV Parking

Petitioners alleged the HOA was not imposing sufficient fines or action against two lot owners keeping RVs on their lots.

Orders: Dismissed for lack of standing.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Count 4: Nominating and Architectural Committees

Petitioners alleged the Board failed to appoint required committees prior to the annual meeting.

Orders: Dismissed as moot.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Count 5: Open Meeting Law

Petitioners alleged the Board violated open meeting laws by discussing and voting on construction requests in a closed session.

Orders: Dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H088008-BFS Decision – 191406.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:33:47 (153.4 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Monahan v. Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law decision in Case No. 08F-H088008-BFS, involving John and Patricia Monahan (Petitioners) and the Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc. (Respondent). The Petitioners alleged multiple violations of the Association’s governing documents and Arizona state statutes, specifically concerning harassment, nuisance control, parking enforcement, committee formation, and open meeting laws.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Michael G. Wales dismissed the petition in its entirety. The ruling was primarily based on three factors:

1. Lack of Jurisdiction and Standing: The tribunal lacks authority to adjudicate claims of “harassment” or “selective enforcement” and cannot hear disputes between neighbors where the Association is not a primary party.

2. Mootness: Several issues were resolved or corrected prior to the hearing, leaving no active controversy for the court to remedy.

3. Legal Justification for Executive Sessions: The Association demonstrated that its closed-door meetings were legally permissible under Arizona law to discuss pending or contemplated litigation.

——————————————————————————–

Detailed Analysis of Claims and Evidence

Count 1: Harassment and Selective Enforcement

The Petitioners alleged that the Association targeted them regarding pool pump screening and a utility trailer while failing to enforce the same rules against other residents.

• Evidence and Testimony: The Petitioners received notices to screen pool equipment and move a utility trailer. They complied with these requests. However, Petitioner John Monahan testified that other homes continued to have exposed trash receptacles and mechanical equipment.

• Respondent Defense: Property manager Sandy Sandoval testified to conducting regular monthly inspections. Board President Paul Swan noted that some minor issues, like trash can placement, were left to the “honor system” as they were deemed trivial.

• Legal Conclusion: The ALJ dismissed this count on two grounds:

◦ Jurisdiction: The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) is limited to Title 33, Chapter 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. It does not have the authority to hear claims of harassment or selective enforcement; such matters belong in Superior Court.

◦ Mootness: Because the Petitioners complied with the Association’s requests before filing the complaint, no active dispute remained.

Count 2: Barking Dogs (Nuisance Control)

Petitioners alleged the Association failed to take appropriate action against the owner of Lot 37 regarding constant barking dogs, in violation of the CC&Rs.

• Evidence and Testimony: Patricia Monahan testified that the Board failed to investigate her complaints. Board President Paul Swan testified that he personally monitored the location on six occasions and did not hear barking. A warning letter was drafted but withheld because the meeting where it was authorized had not been properly noticed.

• Resolution: Mrs. Monahan attended a Pima County Animal Noise Control hearing where the owners of Lot 37 were fined. She testified the barking had since stopped.

• Legal Conclusion: The issue was dismissed as moot. The nuisance had ceased, and the Petitioners found an alternative forum (Pima County) for resolution.

Count 3: RV Parking Enforcement

Petitioners argued that the Association was not imposing sufficient fines ($50 per month) against two lot owners who kept Recreational Vehicles (RVs) on their properties.

• Evidence and Testimony: A 2007 resolution prohibited RV parking for more than 48 hours. The Board had begun fining two owners $50 monthly. John Monahan argued this amount was lower than local storage fees, rendering the fine ineffective.

• Legal Conclusion: The ALJ ruled that Petitioners lacked standing. Under A.R.S. §41-2198.01(B), the department does not have jurisdiction over disputes between owners to which the Association is not a party. A claim regarding “lax enforcement” against a third party is legally considered a dispute between owners, not a direct dispute with the Association that the OAH can adjudicate.

Count 4: Committee Formation

Petitioners claimed the Association violated its Bylaws by failing to appoint a Nominating Committee and an Architectural Control Committee (ACC).

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ ACC: The Board temporarily acted as the ACC after previous members resigned due to “upheaval” and “difficult personalities” in the community. By the time of the hearing, a new ACC had been appointed.

◦ Nominating Committee: The property manager testified that she sought volunteers via mail and email, but no one volunteered due to the toxic environment created by certain residents.

• Legal Conclusion: The ACC claim was dismissed as moot because a committee was currently in place. The Nominating Committee claim was dismissed because the election had already occurred, and evidence showed the Association made a good-faith effort to form the committee despite a lack of volunteers.

Count 5: Violation of Open Meeting Law

Petitioners alleged the Board held a private meeting to override an ACC decision regarding detached garages on Lots 36 and 56.

• Legal Standard (A.R.S. §33-1804): Board meetings must be open to members, but they may be closed (executive session) for specific reasons, including legal advice from an attorney or matters regarding pending/contemplated litigation.

• Evidence and Testimony: Paul Swan testified that the Board met in executive session because they had received letters from an attorney threatening litigation if the garage requests were not approved. He further testified that the final decision to approve was made by the ACC, not the Board in executive session.

• Legal Conclusion: The ALJ found the executive session was legal under A.R.S. §33-1804 as it pertained to contemplated litigation. No violation of the Open Meeting Law occurred.

——————————————————————————–

Final Legal Findings and Orders

Jurisdictional Limitations

The decision emphasizes the narrow scope of the Office of Administrative Hearings. The tribunal is only authorized to ensure compliance with specific statutes and the planned community’s documents as they apply to the Petitioner. It cannot:

• Rule on the reasonableness of an Association’s decisions regarding other owners.

• Share concurrent jurisdiction with the Superior Court on matters of harassment or arbitrary enforcement.

Attorney’s Fees and Filing Costs

• Attorney’s Fees: Although the Association prevailed, the ALJ denied their request for attorney’s fees. Under Arizona law (Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc.), an administrative proceeding is not considered an “action” that triggers fee-shifting statutes like A.R.S. §12-341.01.

• Filing Fees: As the Petitioners were not the prevailing party, they were not entitled to reimbursement for filing fees.

Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge ordered the dismissal of the petition in its entirety and denied the Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees. This order constitutes the final administrative decision.

Study Guide: Monahan v. Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case John F. and Patricia E. Monahan v. Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 08F-H088008-BFS). It examines the legal disputes regarding planned community governance, jurisdictional boundaries of administrative hearings, and the application of Arizona Revised Statutes.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2–3 sentences based on the source context.

1. What were the specific allegations made by the Petitioners in Count 1 of their petition?

2. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclude that the tribunal lacked the authority to hear claims of “selective enforcement”?

3. According to the Findings of Fact, how did the Association address the Petitioners’ violation regarding their utility trailer?

4. What was the Petitioners’ primary grievance in Count 3 regarding the Association’s handling of RV parking violations?

5. How did the Board of Directors justify its decision to temporarily act as the Architectural Control Committee (ACC)?

6. What was the outcome of the Pima County Animal Noise Control hearing mentioned in Count 2?

7. What evidence did the Association provide to explain why a nominating committee had not been formed prior to the 2007 annual meeting?

8. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804, what is the “Open Meeting Law” requirement for board deliberations?

9. Why did the ALJ determine that the October 30, 2007, executive session did not violate the Open Meeting Law?

10. On what legal basis did the ALJ deny the Respondent Association’s request for attorney’s fees?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. Count 1 Allegations: The Petitioners alleged harassment and selective enforcement, specifically that the Association required them to enclose their pool pump and move a utility trailer while failing to hold other lot owners to the same Design Guidelines. They argued the Association violated Section II.I, II.M/N, and II.B.2 of the Community’s governing documents.

2. Jurisdiction over Selective Enforcement: The ALJ ruled that the Office of Administrative Hearings is limited by A.R.S. § 41-2198 to adjudicating specific violations of Title 33 and community documents. Claims of selective enforcement or “disputes between owners” where the association is not a direct party are outside this jurisdiction and are reserved for the Superior Court.

3. Resolution of Utility Trailer Issue: The Petitioners received a written notice on August 3, 2007, to store their trailer in a garage or behind the home so it was not visible from the street. They complied with the request and faxed proof of compliance to the Association by August 12, 2007, which later rendered the claim moot.

4. RV Parking Fines: The Petitioners argued that the $50 monthly fine imposed on owners of lots 35 and 60 was insufficient to change behavior. They claimed the fine was lower than external RV storage fees, effectively allowing owners to ignore the Association’s 2007 resolution against long-term RV parking.

5. Board Acting as ACC: Board President Paul Swan testified that the Board was forced to step in as the ACC after all members except John Monahan resigned in September 2007. The ALJ found that no governing document prohibited the Board from temporarily fulfilling these duties until new members were appointed.

6. Animal Noise Control Outcome: Patricia Monahan attended a hearing on April 21, 2008, where Pima County Animal Noise Control fined the owners of Lot 37 and warned them of additional penalties for future violations. Following this hearing, she testified that the dogs had stopped barking.

7. Lack of Nominating Committee: The Property Manager testified that obtaining volunteers for committees was “difficult, if not impossible” due to “difficult personalities” creating upheaval within the community. The ALJ accepted that these challenges rendered the creation of a nominating committee implausible at that time.

8. Open Meeting Law Requirements: A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) mandates that all meetings of the association and board of directors must be open to all members or their designated representatives. Members must be allowed to attend and speak before the board takes formal action on an issue.

9. Legality of Executive Session: The ALJ found the closed session was legal because it was held to discuss “pending or contemplated litigation” after receiving threat letters from an attorney representing the owners of lots 36 and 56. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) and (2), legal advice and litigation strategy are valid reasons to close a meeting.

10. Denial of Attorney’s Fees: The ALJ cited Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., stating that an administrative proceeding is not considered an “action” under A.R.S. §§ 33-1807(H) or 12-341.01. Therefore, even though the Association prevailed, attorney’s fees could not be awarded in this forum.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

1. The Limits of Administrative Jurisdiction: Analyze the distinction between the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Arizona Superior Court as outlined in the decision. Why is the distinction between a “dispute between owners” and a “dispute with the Association” critical for standing?

2. Mootness in Administrative Adjudication: Evaluate how the concept of “mootness” applied to the various counts in this case (specifically Counts 1, 2, and 4). How does voluntary compliance by either party affect the ALJ’s ability to provide a remedy?

3. Governance Challenges in Planned Communities: Using the testimony regarding the Nominating and Architectural Committees, discuss the practical difficulties an HOA faces when community conflict discourages volunteerism. How should the law balance strict adherence to bylaws with the reality of limited community participation?

4. Transparency vs. Confidentiality: Discuss the balance of the Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804). Under what circumstances does the need for a Board to seek legal counsel or discuss litigation outweigh the members’ right to observe deliberations?

5. The Preponderance of the Evidence: Explain the burden of proof required in this administrative hearing. How did the ALJ define “preponderance of the evidence,” and how did the Petitioners’ evidence fail to meet this standard in Count 5?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

• A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law): An Arizona statute requiring that meetings of a homeowners association board be open to all members, with specific, narrow exceptions for closed “executive” sessions.

• A.R.S. § 41-2198: The statute granting the Office of Administrative Hearings the authority to adjudicate disputes regarding planned community documents and Title 33, Chapter 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.

• Architectural Control Committee (ACC): A committee appointed by the Association to oversee and approve or deny requests for exterior improvements or structures on lots within the community.

• CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements): The recorded legal documents that establish the rules and regulations for a planned community and are binding on all property owners.

• Executive Session: A portion of a board meeting that is closed to the general membership to discuss sensitive matters such as legal advice, litigation, or personal member information.

• Jurisdiction: The legal authority of a court or administrative tribunal to hear and decide a specific type of case or dispute.

• Moot: A legal status where a dispute is no longer active or relevant because the issues have been resolved or the circumstances have changed, leaving no remedy for the court to provide.

• Planned Community: A real estate development where individual lot owners are mandatory members of an association and are subject to specific governing documents and dues.

• Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning the evidence shows that a claim is “more probably true than not.”

• Standing: The legal right of a party to bring a claim, requiring that the party is directly affected by the issue and that the tribunal has the authority to hear that specific person’s grievance.