Case Summary
| Case ID | 24F-H049-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2025-01-21 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Samuel Fox |
| Outcome | partial |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $2,500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $500.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | The Gregory M and Donna P Hulbert Family Trust dated May 25, 1995 | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association | Counsel | Daryl Wilson |
Alleged Violations
Condominium Declaration 7.1, 7.12, 7.14
Condominium Declaration 4.6.1, 4.6.2
Condominium Declaration 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.13
A.R.S. § 33-1248(E), A.R.S. § 33-1248(F)
Condominium Declaration 5.1
Outcome Summary
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner on the issues regarding the 'puppy potty' structure and the open meeting and agenda notice requirements, ordering compliance, a $1,000 filing fee refund, and a $500 civil penalty. The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent on the issues regarding budget and reserve funding, the news crew presence, and the structural repair timeline, finding no violations on those matters.
Why this result: Petitioner lost three issues because the board acted within its discretion on budgeting, the news crew was not proven to be an actionable nuisance, and the board was adequately following expert advice on structural repairs despite the slow timeline.
Key Issues & Findings
Inadequate Budget and Reserve Funding
Petitioner alleged the HOA borrowed money from reserves for operating expenses and failed to adequately fund reserves due to an inadequate budget.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- Declaration 7.1
- Declaration 7.12
- Declaration 7.14
Puppy Potty on Common Elements
Petitioner alleged the HOA installed a puppy potty on the common elements roof area, constituting a nuisance and violating pet restrictions.
Orders: Respondent directed to comply with community documents going forward. Assessed a civil penalty of $500.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $500.00
Disposition: petitioner_win
- Declaration 4.6.1
- Declaration 4.6.2
News Crew in Common Area
Petitioner alleged the HOA allowed a news crew to use the common area, violating quiet enjoyment and acting as an annoyance or nuisance.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- Declaration 3.3.1
- Declaration 3.3.2
- Declaration 4.13
Failure to Provide Meeting Notice and Agendas
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide required notice for executive sessions and failed to provide adequate information on agendas to allow meaningful evaluation.
Orders: Respondent directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1248 and its Community Documents going forward.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
- A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)
- A.R.S. § 33-1248(F)
Failure to Repair Structural Damage
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to expediently maintain, repair, and replace structural damage resulting from a pool leak to the garage ceiling.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- Declaration 5.1
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H049-REL Decision – 1214040.pdf
24F-H049-REL Decision – 1218977.pdf
24F-H049-REL Decision – 1218981.pdf
24F-H049-REL Decision – 1219895.pdf
24F-H049-REL Decision – 1235253.pdf
24F-H049-REL Decision – 1264402.pdf
Briefing on Hulbert Family Trust v. The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the key arguments, evidence, and conclusions from the administrative hearing concerning the consolidated matters The Gregory M and Donna P Hulbert Family Trust v. The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association (Case Nos. 24F-H049-REL & 24F-H055-REL). The hearing, adjudicated by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Samuel Fox, addressed five distinct complaints filed by Petitioner Donna Hulbert against the Respondent Homeowners Association (HOA) Board of Directors.
The core of the dispute revolved around the Petitioner’s allegations that the HOA Board acted in violation of the Condominium Declaration and Arizona state law regarding its financial management, use of common areas, meeting procedures, and timeliness of structural repairs. The Respondent contended that its actions fell within the Board’s discretionary authority and were reasonable under the circumstances.
The ALJ’s final decision delivered a split verdict. The Petitioner prevailed on two claims: the installation of a “puppy potty” on the roof was found to be a clear violation of the Declaration’s rules on pets in common areas, and the Board’s meeting agendas were found to be statutorily deficient. The Respondent prevailed on three claims: the ALJ found no violation in the Board’s budget and reserve management, its decision to allow a news crew on common property, or the pace of its response to structural damage from a pool leak. The final order required the HOA to pay a portion of the Petitioner’s filing fees, levied a civil penalty for the “puppy potty” violation, and directed the Board to comply with state law regarding meeting notices.
——————————————————————————–
Procedural History and Key Parties
• Parties:
◦ Petitioner: The Gregory M and Donna P Hulbert Family Trust, represented by Donna Hulbert, owner of Unit 1302.
◦ Respondent: The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association, represented by Attorney Daryl Wilson.
• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
• Case Numbers: 24F-H049-REL and 24F-H055-REL, consolidated on August 21, 2024, under 24F-H049-REL.
• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox.
• Hearing Dates: August 28, 2024, and October 24, 2024.
• Key Witnesses:
◦ For Petitioner: Donna Hulbert; Jay Parry Erb (former Board Treasurer).
◦ For Respondent: Greg Axelrod (current Board President); Zackary Beckham (former Board President).
——————————————————————————–
Analysis of Complaints and Adjudication
Complaint 1: Budget and Reserve Funding
Allegation: The HOA violated Declaration Sections 7.1, 7.12, and 7.14 by borrowing from reserves to fund operating expenses and failing to create a budget that adequately funded reserves for future expenses.
Petitioner’s Arguments & Evidence
Respondent’s Arguments & Evidence
ALJ’s Findings & Conclusion
The HOA’s budget is structurally inadequate, evidenced by a history of borrowing from reserves (~$400,000 in 2023) to cover operating shortfalls.
The Board has sole discretion over the budget. The budgets for 2023 and 2024 met operating expenses and did not have a shortfall.
No Violation Found.
The 2024 budget was improperly based on the overrun 2023 budget figures plus a 7.5% increase, rather than on actual historical expenses.
The Association has met its budgeted contributions to the reserve fund and is not currently borrowing from reserves to pay operating expenses.
The Declaration requires a reasonable estimate for the budget, not a perfect one. It does not mandate that the budget reflect the reserve study or past unexpected expenses.
Operating expenses (e.g., pool leak testing, security fob installation) are being misclassified as reserve expenses to conceal operating deficits.
The Board relies on the professional guidance of its management company, First Service Residential, and its accountants for financial reporting and budget creation.
As of July 2024, the budget had a surplus, and monthly reserve contributions (45,365avg.)exceededthereservestudy′srecommendation(45,000).
The operating account is funded at 0.3 times monthly expenses, far below the management company’s recommendation of 3 times.
The Board fulfilled its obligation to adopt a budget containing an estimate of required funds. The Petitioner failed to prove otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence.
Outcome: Respondent deemed the prevailing party on this issue.
The HOA has a history of delaying payments to vendors (e.g., an RKS Plumbing invoice was paid seven months late), indicating cash flow issues.
Witness Jay Erb (former Treasurer): Testified to discovering a ~$392,000 deficit in the operating fund being covered by reserves upon joining the Board. He stated that these transfers lacked the two board member signatures required by Declaration Section 7.14.1 for reserve withdrawals.
Complaint 2: The “Puppy Potty”
Allegation: The HOA installed a “puppy potty” on the roof, a common element, in violation of Declaration Sections 4.6.1 and 4.6.2, constituting a nuisance.
Petitioner’s Arguments & Evidence
Respondent’s Arguments & Evidence
ALJ’s Findings & Conclusion
Declaration Section 4.6.2 constitutes an “absolute prohibition” against pets on common elements, except for ingress and egress through the service elevator.
Board President Greg Axelrod testified the installation was not an official Board action but was proposed by the general manager.
Violation Found.
The roof is defined as a “Common Element” under Declaration Section 1.12 (“all portions of the Condominium other than the Units”).
Mr. Axelrod argued the roof was not a common element in practice, as the door leading to it had always been locked and the area was unused by residents.
The roof area is part of the Common Elements by the Declaration’s explicit definition, regardless of its previous accessibility.
The “puppy potty” is a “structure for the care…of any Permitted Pet” which is explicitly forbidden on any portion of the Common Elements.
The potty was installed as an amenity for residents, particularly for the safety of women walking their dogs late at night in downtown Phoenix. It cost only 600−700.
The puppy potty is a structure for the care of pets, which is prohibited on Common Elements under Section 4.6.2.
The installation creates an odor and presents a safety hazard, as it requires an industrial roof area with unenclosed openings to be accessible.
The area is cleaned by maintenance staff at least three times per week. Most residents appreciate the amenity.
The installation of the puppy potty violates Section 4.6.2 of the Declaration.
The decision was made unilaterally by the Board President without a formal board meeting or vote.
Outcome: Petitioner deemed the prevailing party. A $500 civil penalty was levied against the Respondent.
Complaint 3: News Crew on Common Area
Allegation: The HOA allowed a news crew to use the common area during the 2023 baseball postseason, violating residents’ easement of enjoyment (Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2) and creating a nuisance (Section 4.13).
Petitioner’s Arguments & Evidence
Respondent’s Arguments & Evidence
ALJ’s Findings & Conclusion
The easement of enjoyment in common elements is for owners and their guests. The news crew members were “strangers.”
The news crews were on the property twice: for the Diamondbacks’ opening day and for the World Series.
No Violation Found.
The crew created a nuisance with bright lights shining into units and a drone camera. At times, the crew was unsupervised.
The crew was present during a larger HOA-hosted party on the fifth-floor pool deck and was confined to a specific, underutilized area within the party.
The Declaration allows for invitees, guests, and their agents (Section 13.12). The news crew was invited to the party.
The action violated residents’ right to quiet enjoyment. A single board member approved the crew’s presence without a formal board action or recorded easement.
Having the news crew on-site provided a benefit to the Association by giving positive public exposure to the building.
The evidence did not establish that the lights and noise were unreasonable under the circumstances of a large party occurring above a public block party. The Petitioner failed to prove the drone belonged to the news crew.
The crew’s presence did not fall under any exception in the Declaration.
The crew did not displace any resident from using the area. No easement was conveyed or encumbered.
The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate the news crew was a nuisance or that any resident was deprived of their easement of enjoyment.
Outcome: Respondent deemed the prevailing party on this issue.
Complaint 4: Meeting Notices and Agendas
Allegation: The HOA fails to provide required notice for all quorum meetings and provides agendas with inadequate information, violating A.R.S. § 33-1248 (E) and (F).
Petitioner’s Arguments & Evidence
Respondent’s Arguments & Evidence
ALJ’s Findings & Conclusion
A.R.S. § 33-1248 requires open meetings and agendas with information “reasonably necessary to inform the unit owners of the matters to be discussed or decided.”
All topics the Board intends to discuss are included on the agendas, which are posted and emailed at least 48 hours in advance.
Violation Found.
Agendas are often vague, using terms like “Old Business” or “New Business,” which prevents homeowners from meaningfully preparing comments.
Board President Axelrod testified that if an urgent, non-emergency topic arises within 48 hours of a meeting, it may be added, but this has only happened once.
A.R.S. § 33-1248(F) reflects a state policy in favor of open meetings and reasonably informative agendas.
The Petitioner cited a May 29th meeting where a $33,000 expenditure for patio furniture was discussed and approved under a vague agenda item, without prior notice to homeowners.
Regarding executive sessions, Mr. Axelrod testified they are held only for permissible topics (legal, financial, employee matters) and are properly noticed.
The preponderance of evidence established that on at least one occasion, the Board failed to include a non-emergency topic on its agenda, leaving owners uninformed.
The Board holds executive sessions before open meetings without providing an agenda detailing the specific closed items being discussed.
Mr. Axelrod admitted that during his first one or two meetings as president, he may have discussed impermissible topics in executive session out of ignorance, but this was corrected.
Evidence also supported that on at least one occasion, the Board discussed inappropriate topics in an executive session.
Outcome: Petitioner deemed the prevailing party. The HOA was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1248.
Complaint 5: Structural Damage Repair
Allegation: The HOA violated its duty under Declaration Section 5.1 to “maintain, repair and replace all Common Elements” by failing to act expediently to repair structural damage from a pool leak.
Petitioner’s Arguments & Evidence
Respondent’s Arguments & Evidence
ALJ’s Findings & Conclusion
The HOA has demonstrated a history of slow response to a significant structural issue. Water leaks and cracks in the 4th-floor garage ceiling were noted as early as January 2020.
The Board has sole discretion over the “appropriate maintenance, repair, and replacement” of common elements.
No Violation Found.
Despite a March 2023 report (Rowley & Reynolds) and an April 2024 report (Gervasio) confirming ongoing damage and recommending destructive investigation, progress has been slow.
The Board has been following the recommendations of its hired experts. The first necessary step was locating the source of the leak, which was difficult and took time.
The Declaration requires the Board to maintain elements in “good condition and repair.” The Board’s discretion is the sole judge of what is appropriate.
The Petitioner believes the filing of the petition was the primary catalyst for the Board to finally take concrete action (destructive testing).
After the leak was fixed, the Board hired Gervasio to proceed with the next step, which was destructive testing.
The Board, if slowly, followed the recommendations of its experts.
The ongoing delay constitutes a failure of the Board’s duty to maintain the property.
The Board is actively addressing the issue. Mr. Axelrod testified that there was no indication of any immediate danger to the structure.
The Petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the pace of the action is not sufficient to prove that the Board failed to comply with the requirements of the Declaration.
Outcome: Respondent deemed the prevailing party on this issue.
——————————————————————————–
Final Order
The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders on January 21, 2025:
1. Prevailing Parties: The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on Issues 2 (Puppy Potty) and 4 (Meetings/Notice). The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party on Issues 1 (Budget), 3 (News Crew), and 5 (Structural Damage).
2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $1,000 for the filing fee within 30 days.
3. Compliance Order: Respondent was directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1248 and its Community Documents going forward.
4. Civil Penalty: A civil penalty of $500 was levied against the Respondent for the violation related to the “puppy potty” (Issue 2).
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H055-REL (Consolidated with 24F-H049-REL)”, “case_title”: “The Gregory M and Donna P Hulbert Family Trust dated May 25, 1995 v. The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-01-21”, “alj_name”: “Samuel Fox”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does my HOA have to strictly follow the reserve study when creating the budget?”, “short_answer”: “No, the budget is a reasonable estimate and does not need to perfectly reflect the reserve study.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that the HOA Declaration required the Board to create a budget based on what they believed would be required, but it did not mandate a perfect budget or one that strictly adhered to the reserve study or funded reserves at a specific level.”, “alj_quote”: “The Declaration did not require a perfect budget; it required a reasonable estimate. . . . The Declaration did not require the reserve account to be funded at a specific level. The Declaration did not require the budget to reflect the reserve study.”, “legal_basis”: “Declaration Section 7.1.1”, “topic_tags”: [ “Budget”, “Reserves”, “HOA Discretion” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA install a structure for pets (like a dog run) on the roof if the CC&Rs prohibit pets on common elements?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the CC&Rs prohibit pets on common elements and the roof is defined as part of the common elements.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if an area like a roof is locked or inaccessible to residents, it is still considered a Common Element. If the Declaration prohibits pets on Common Elements (except for ingress/egress) and prohibits structures for pet care there, the HOA cannot install a facility like a ‘puppy potty’.”, “alj_quote”: ““Common Elements” included all parts of the building except for the units. Accordingly, the roof area was part of the Common Elements, even if it was previously inaccessible to residents. . . . The preponderance of the evidence established that the puppy potty violated Section 4.6.2 of the Declaration.”, “legal_basis”: “Declaration Section 4.6.2”, “topic_tags”: [ “Common Elements”, “Pets”, “CC&R Violation” ] }, { “question”: “Can I force my HOA to make repairs faster if I am unhappy with the pace?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, as long as the Board is taking action and following expert advice.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that even if a homeowner is dissatisfied with the speed of repairs, it does not constitute a violation of the Declaration if the Board is exercising its discretion, engaging in testing, and following the recommendations of hired experts.”, “alj_quote”: “The preponderance of the evidence did not establish that the Board of Directors failed to fulfil its obligations even if Petitioner was dissatisfied with the pace of action by the Board of Directors.”, “legal_basis”: “Declaration Section 5.1”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Repairs”, “Board Discretion” ] }, { “question”: “Must the HOA list all topics to be discussed on the meeting agenda?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, for non-emergency topics, the agenda must inform owners of matters to be discussed.”, “detailed_answer”: “State law requires agendas to contain information reasonably necessary to inform unit owners of matters to be discussed or decided. Failing to include a non-emergency topic on the agenda leaves owners uninformed and violates this requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “The preponderance of the evidence established that on at least one occasion, the Board failed to include a non-emergency topic on its agenda, leaving unit owners uninformed about what would be discussed or decided.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1248(E) and (F)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Agendas”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can the Board discuss any topic they want in an executive (closed) session?”, “short_answer”: “No, executive sessions are limited to specific permissible topics.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Board cannot discuss general business in executive sessions. In this case, evidence supported that the Board discussed inappropriate topics in a closed session, which is a violation.”, “alj_quote”: “Additionally, the preponderance of the evidence supports that on at least one occasion, the Board discussed inappropriate topics in an executive session.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1248”, “topic_tags”: [ “Executive Session”, “Open Meetings” ] }, { “question”: “Is loud noise or light from a party on common property automatically a ‘nuisance’?”, “short_answer”: “No, ordinary party activities are not inherently unreasonable or offensive.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that lights and noise associated with a party (even involving a news crew) in a downtown urban environment were not a nuisance because they were not proven to be offensive or an annoyance to a reasonable person.”, “alj_quote”: “Ordinary components of a party, such as lights and noise, were not inherently offensive or an annoyance just because one was unfamiliar with those individuals causing the noise and light.”, “legal_basis”: “Declaration Section 4.13”, “topic_tags”: [ “Nuisance”, “Common Area Use” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA Board have the final say on maintenance decisions?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Board typically has sole discretion over appropriate maintenance.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Declaration in this case granted the Board sole discretion to judge appropriate maintenance and repairs, provided the common elements were kept in good condition.”, “alj_quote”: “The Board of Directors had sole discretion over the appropriate maintenance, repair, and replacement of all Common Elements.”, “legal_basis”: “Declaration Section 5.1”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Board Powers” ] } ] }
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H055-REL (Consolidated with 24F-H049-REL)”, “case_title”: “The Gregory M and Donna P Hulbert Family Trust dated May 25, 1995 v. The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-01-21”, “alj_name”: “Samuel Fox”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does my HOA have to strictly follow the reserve study when creating the budget?”, “short_answer”: “No, the budget is a reasonable estimate and does not need to perfectly reflect the reserve study.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that the HOA Declaration required the Board to create a budget based on what they believed would be required, but it did not mandate a perfect budget or one that strictly adhered to the reserve study or funded reserves at a specific level.”, “alj_quote”: “The Declaration did not require a perfect budget; it required a reasonable estimate. . . . The Declaration did not require the reserve account to be funded at a specific level. The Declaration did not require the budget to reflect the reserve study.”, “legal_basis”: “Declaration Section 7.1.1”, “topic_tags”: [ “Budget”, “Reserves”, “HOA Discretion” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA install a structure for pets (like a dog run) on the roof if the CC&Rs prohibit pets on common elements?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the CC&Rs prohibit pets on common elements and the roof is defined as part of the common elements.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if an area like a roof is locked or inaccessible to residents, it is still considered a Common Element. If the Declaration prohibits pets on Common Elements (except for ingress/egress) and prohibits structures for pet care there, the HOA cannot install a facility like a ‘puppy potty’.”, “alj_quote”: ““Common Elements” included all parts of the building except for the units. Accordingly, the roof area was part of the Common Elements, even if it was previously inaccessible to residents. . . . The preponderance of the evidence established that the puppy potty violated Section 4.6.2 of the Declaration.”, “legal_basis”: “Declaration Section 4.6.2”, “topic_tags”: [ “Common Elements”, “Pets”, “CC&R Violation” ] }, { “question”: “Can I force my HOA to make repairs faster if I am unhappy with the pace?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, as long as the Board is taking action and following expert advice.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that even if a homeowner is dissatisfied with the speed of repairs, it does not constitute a violation of the Declaration if the Board is exercising its discretion, engaging in testing, and following the recommendations of hired experts.”, “alj_quote”: “The preponderance of the evidence did not establish that the Board of Directors failed to fulfil its obligations even if Petitioner was dissatisfied with the pace of action by the Board of Directors.”, “legal_basis”: “Declaration Section 5.1”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Repairs”, “Board Discretion” ] }, { “question”: “Must the HOA list all topics to be discussed on the meeting agenda?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, for non-emergency topics, the agenda must inform owners of matters to be discussed.”, “detailed_answer”: “State law requires agendas to contain information reasonably necessary to inform unit owners of matters to be discussed or decided. Failing to include a non-emergency topic on the agenda leaves owners uninformed and violates this requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “The preponderance of the evidence established that on at least one occasion, the Board failed to include a non-emergency topic on its agenda, leaving unit owners uninformed about what would be discussed or decided.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1248(E) and (F)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Agendas”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can the Board discuss any topic they want in an executive (closed) session?”, “short_answer”: “No, executive sessions are limited to specific permissible topics.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Board cannot discuss general business in executive sessions. In this case, evidence supported that the Board discussed inappropriate topics in a closed session, which is a violation.”, “alj_quote”: “Additionally, the preponderance of the evidence supports that on at least one occasion, the Board discussed inappropriate topics in an executive session.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1248”, “topic_tags”: [ “Executive Session”, “Open Meetings” ] }, { “question”: “Is loud noise or light from a party on common property automatically a ‘nuisance’?”, “short_answer”: “No, ordinary party activities are not inherently unreasonable or offensive.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that lights and noise associated with a party (even involving a news crew) in a downtown urban environment were not a nuisance because they were not proven to be offensive or an annoyance to a reasonable person.”, “alj_quote”: “Ordinary components of a party, such as lights and noise, were not inherently offensive or an annoyance just because one was unfamiliar with those individuals causing the noise and light.”, “legal_basis”: “Declaration Section 4.13”, “topic_tags”: [ “Nuisance”, “Common Area Use” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA Board have the final say on maintenance decisions?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Board typically has sole discretion over appropriate maintenance.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Declaration in this case granted the Board sole discretion to judge appropriate maintenance and repairs, provided the common elements were kept in good condition.”, “alj_quote”: “The Board of Directors had sole discretion over the appropriate maintenance, repair, and replacement of all Common Elements.”, “legal_basis”: “Declaration Section 5.1”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Board Powers” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Donna Hulbert (petitioner)
The Gregory M and Donna P Hulbert Family Trust dated May 25, 1995
Trustee and representative of Petitioner; also testified as a witness. - Jay Parry Erb (witness)
Former Board Treasurer (April 2023 – August 2023). - Debbie Goodwin (witness)
Prior board member and financial professional consulted by Mr. Erb.
Respondent Side
- Daryl Wilson (HOA attorney)
Gordon Rees - Greg Axelrod (board member)
The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association
Current Board President as of hearing. - Zackary Beckham (board member)
The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association
Former Board President. - Christy Woodruff (board member)
The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association - Mr. Grodier (board member)
The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association - Dana Knight (board member)
The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association
Newest board member.
Neutral Parties
- Samuel Fox (ALJ)
OAH - Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - Felicia Del Sol (ALJ)
OAH
Signed continuance order.
Other Participants
- Brad Palmer (property manager)
First Service Residential
Former General Manager. - Dan Harvey (property manager)
First Service Residential
General Manager. - Kimberly Greenland (property manager)
First Service Financial
Financial Controller. - Carla Chung (property manager)
First Service Financial
Senior VP of Cash Management and Lending. - Angelica Romero (property manager)
HOA Management
Assistant General Manager. - Ward Holland (witness)
Gervasio & Assoc., Inc. Consulting Engineers
Engineer/Architect who performed inspections. - Jack Gordon (witness)
Gervasio & Assoc., Inc. Consulting Engineers
Engineer who performed inspections. - Frank Derso (property manager)
HOA Management
Manager/Supervisor mentioned regarding easement claims. - Holly (property manager)
First Service Residential
Mid-level manager. - Hal (committee member)
Resident involved in budget committee. - Scott McCain (committee member)
Resident involved in budget committee. - Tony Carro (engineer)
Building engineer/staff. - Keith (engineer)
Building engineer/staff.
