Tag Archives: SJV

Virgina Kostman v. Bella Tierra Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H084-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2026-01-09
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Virginia Kostman Counsel —
Respondent Bella Tierra Community Association Counsel Eric P. O'Connor

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 6.9.1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ affirmed the petition, finding Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that she timely paid the assessment. The failure of receipt was due to Respondent's management transition. Respondent was ordered to refund fees and remove charges.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&R 6.9.1 regarding assessments and delinquency fees

Petitioner paid the January 2025 assessment timely to the address listed on the bill. The management company changed abruptly, causing the payment to be returned. Respondent assessed delinquency fees despite the payment being timely made to the correct address known at the time.

Orders: Respondent must reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee, remove delinquency fees from Petitioner's account, and comply with CC&Rs Article 6.9.1.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H084-REL Decision – 1373536.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T07:40:27 (69.4 KB)

25F-H084-REL Decision – 1384451.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T07:40:28 (100.6 KB)

25F-H084-REL Decision – 1392666.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T07:40:28 (45.7 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H084-REL


Administrative Briefing: Kostman v. Bella Tierra Community Association (No. 25F-H084-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing and subsequent decision in the matter of Virginia Kostman v. Bella Tierra Community Association. The dispute centered on a $20 delinquency fee assessed against a homeowner following a chaotic transition between property management companies.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Petitioner, Virginia Kostman, finding that the Bella Tierra Community Association (Respondent) violated its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by deeming a payment delinquent when it had been sent to the address provided on the official billing statement. The final order mandated the removal of the delinquency fees and required the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee. Subsequent filings indicate the Respondent has failed to comply with the reimbursement order.

Case Overview

• Petitioner: Virginia Kostman

• Respondent: Bella Tierra Community Association

• Management Entities: Platinum Management, Inc. (former); Agave Management Solutions (current).

• Primary Issue: Violation of CC&R Article 6.9.1 regarding the assessment of delinquency and late fees.

• Docket Number: 25F-H084-REL

• Hearing Date: December 30, 2025

Factual Background and Timeline

The dispute originated from the abrupt closure of the Association’s management firm and subsequent communication failures during the transition.

The Management Transition

• December 2024: Platinum Management, Inc. issued the first quarter 2025 assessment bills, which were due January 1, 2025. The bills directed homeowners to send payments to Platinum’s address.

• December 17, 2024: Platinum Management abruptly ceased operations.

• January 2025: Agave Management Solutions, founded by a former Platinum executive assistant, assumed management duties.

• Early January 2025: Agave mailed notices to homeowners regarding an updated mailing address for payments.

The Payment Conflict

• January 31, 2025: Petitioner initiated a bank bill-pay for the assessment. Because she had already received the December bill directing payment to Platinum, the payment was sent to the old address.

• March 4, 2025: Petitioner received notice from her bank—not the Respondent—that the check had been returned and destroyed due to an incorrect address.

• April 3, 2025: Petitioner attempted to notify the Respondent of the issue via their online portal. The Respondent claimed they did not receive this message because the portal was not yet fully operational.

• June 2025: Respondent assessed two delinquency fees totaling $20.00 to the Petitioner’s account for the “unpaid” January assessment.

• July 2025: Petitioner paid the January assessment a second time to resolve the balance.

Analysis of Arguments

Petitioner’s Position

Virginia Kostman argued that she was never delinquent because she followed the instructions provided on the official billing statement. She characterized the HOA’s actions as a “campaign of harassment” and an “extortion racket,” alleging that the management company knowingly assessed fees on homeowners who were victims of the management company’s own relocation errors.

Key Quotes from Petitioner:

• “I paid that assessment the minute I got the bill on time to the correct address. It’s a misstatement of fact to characterize it as an unpaid bill.”

• “They’ve been doing it knowingly… this was not a mistake. This was done on purpose.”

• “Being delinquent still prevents me from voting for the new HOA board… It is entirely possible they’re just doing this on purpose to keep me from being able to vote.”

Respondent’s Position

The Association, represented by counsel Eric O’Connor and witness Sarah Malovich (CFO of Agave Management), argued that the Petitioner was technically delinquent because the payment was not “received” by the current management by the January 31 deadline. They maintained that the delinquency fees were merely pass-through costs for administrative work (sending letters) and not penalties.

Key Quotes from Respondent Representatives:

• Eric O’Connor: “This case does not involve a refusal to accept the payment, a failure to communicate, or an improper assessment of penalties. It involves a delayed payment made unintentionally… and an association that exercised patience.”

• Sarah Malovich: “A delinquency fee is a fee that is charged to the association when letters have to go out to the homeowners… we add that fee to the homeowner’s account so that when the homeowner pays, the association recoups the money.”

Governing Provisions: CC&R Article 6.9.1

The hearing focused on the interpretation of Article 6.9.1, which states:

• Any assessment not paid within 15 days of the due date is deemed delinquent.

• Delinquent assessments bear interest at 12% per annum.

• The Board may establish a late fee not to exceed $15 or 10% of the unpaid amount.

• Late fees may only be imposed after providing notice to the owner that the assessment is overdue.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Decision

The ALJ, Sondra J. Vanella, concluded that the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.

Findings of Fact

1. Fault of Respondent: The ALJ found that the lack of receipt was due to the “abrupt change in management companies” and not any error by the Petitioner.

2. Timeliness: Because the Petitioner initiated payment by January 31 (the date the HOA considered payments “past due”), and sent it to the only address she had been officially provided at the time of the bill’s issuance, the payment was considered timely.

3. Communication Failures: The Respondent failed to respond to the Petitioner’s April 2025 email and did not notify her of the missing payment until the April statement. The ALJ noted it was “reasonable for Petitioner to have attempted to communicate via the portal in April 2025.”

Final Order

• Affirmation: The Petition was affirmed.

• Fee Removal: Respondent was ordered to remove the $20.00 in delinquency fees from Petitioner’s account.

• Reimbursement: Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner for the $500.00 filing fee.

• Compliance: Respondent was directed to comply with CC&R Article 6.9.1 moving forward.

Post-Hearing Developments

On February 4, 2026, the Petitioner filed an inquiry with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) stating that the HOA was not responding to her requests for the $500.00 payment ordered by the Judge. The OAH issued a Minute Entry stating it could not provide legal advice or take further action regarding a “writ of execution,” as its jurisdiction ended with the issuance of the final order.






Study Guide – 25F-H084-REL


Study Guide: Virginia Kostman v. Bella Tierra Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing and subsequent legal decision regarding Case No. 25F-H084-REL. It examines the nuances of community association management, the application of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the procedural mechanics of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. What specific violation did the Petitioner allege against the Bella Tierra Community Association?

2. How did the timing of Platinum Management’s closure affect the January 2025 assessment payments?

3. What is the legal “burden of proof” in this administrative matter, and who was responsible for meeting it?

4. What was the distinction made by the Respondent’s witness between an “HOA late fee” and a “delinquency fee”?

5. On what date did the Petitioner initiate her bank payment, and why was this date significant to the Respondent’s argument?

6. Why did the Respondent claim they never received the Petitioner’s April 3, 2025, communication?

7. What was the Petitioner’s primary concern regarding her “delinquent” status beyond the $20 fee?

8. What did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determine regarding the responsibility of the management transition?

9. What was the final order regarding the $500 filing fee and the delinquency fees?

10. How did the ALJ respond to the Petitioner’s February 4, 2026, inquiry regarding a “writ of execution”?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated CC&R Article 6.9.1 by failing to deposit her timely assessment payment and subsequently assessing improper delinquency and late fees. She argued that the management company returned her check without notification and refused to communicate for months despite her efforts to resolve the issue.

2. Platinum Management mailed the January 2025 billings in December 2024 but abruptly closed on December 17, 2024, shortly after the invoices were sent. Because the bills contained the old address for Platinum, payments sent by homeowners were returned or destroyed, as the new company, Agave Management, did not have a forwarding system fully in place at that time.

3. The burden of proof was upon the Petitioner, Virginia Kostman, to establish her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires the Petitioner to show that the facts she seeks to prove are more probable than not.

4. Sarah Malovich testified that a late fee is a penalty for delinquent assessments allowed by state statute and CC&Rs, which remains with the association as income. In contrast, a delinquency fee is a “pass-through” cost charged by the management company to the association to cover the expense of sending collection letters.

5. The Petitioner’s bank records showed the payment was initiated on January 31, 2025. The Respondent argued this was untimely because assessments were due January 1, while the ALJ eventually noted that the Association considered payments past due only after January 31, rendering the payment timely.

6. The Respondent claimed the management portal, Vanica, was brand new and not fully operational until April 1, 2025. Sarah Malovich testified that she never received the message and suggested that the transition from using QuickBooks to a formal portal may have caused communication gaps.

7. The Petitioner was concerned that being labeled “delinquent” would strip her of her right to vote during the transition of control from the builder to the homeowners. She argued that the management company was intentionally maintaining her delinquent status to exclude her from participating in the new HOA board elections.

8. The ALJ concluded that it was incumbent upon the Respondent to ensure no interruptions occurred during the management transition. Since the Respondent issued the billing with the Platinum Management address and did not notify residents of the change until January, the failure to receive the payment was not due to any error by the Petitioner.

9. The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner’s petition and ordered the Respondent to reimburse the $500 filing fee. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to remove the delinquency fees from the Petitioner’s account and comply with CC&R 6.9.1 moving forward.

10. The ALJ issued a Minute Entry stating the office would not consider the inquiry because it was inappropriately sent to the OAH or no further action could be taken. The judge clarified that the Office of Administrative Hearings cannot provide legal advice to litigants.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the source materials to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts. (No answers provided).

1. Systemic Failures in Management Transitions: Analyze how the transition from Platinum Management to Agave Management Solutions created a “perfect storm” of administrative errors. Discuss the responsibilities of a community association to maintain continuity of service and communication during a change in leadership.

2. The Interpretation of CC&R 6.9.1: Examine the language of Article 6.9.1 as provided in the judge’s decision. Evaluate how the specific wording regarding “notice” and “delinquency” applied to the facts of the Kostman case.

3. Good Faith vs. Strict Liability: The Respondent argued they acted in “good faith” and exercised “patience” by waving certain fees, while the Petitioner argued they acted in “bad faith” to prevent her from voting. Compare these two perspectives using evidence from the hearing transcripts.

4. Due Process in Administrative Hearings: Describe the procedural steps of the hearing as outlined by Judge Vanella, including the role of opening statements, witness testimony, cross-examination, and the admission of evidence. How do these procedures ensure a fair outcome for self-represented litigants?

5. Financial and Legal Remediation: Discuss the significance of the ALJ’s final order. Why is the reimbursement of a filing fee sometimes considered a more significant remedy than the removal of the original disputed fees?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over federal or state agency hearings, such as Sondra J. Vanella in this matter.

A.R.S. § 32-2199

The Arizona Revised Statute giving the Department of Real Estate jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and community associations.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and financial obligations of a planned community.

Delinquency Fee

A fee charged to an association by a management company for the administrative cost of sending past-due notices, often passed through to the homeowner.

Department of Real Estate

The state agency responsible for overseeing real estate licenses and homeowner association disputes in Arizona.

Late Fee

A penalty fee (limited to $15 or 10% of the assessment in this case) charged to an owner for failing to pay an assessment on time.

Minute Entry

A brief written record of a court’s or judge’s decision, order, or direction that does not constitute a full formal opinion.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent agency authorized to conduct hearings for contested matters arising out of state regulation.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or complaint; in this case, Virginia Kostman.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in civil cases, meaning the evidence shows that a fact is “more probable than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed; in this case, Bella Tierra Community Association.

Writ of Execution

A court order granted to put in force a judgment of possession obtained by a plaintiff from a court.






Blog Post – 25F-H084-REL


The $20 Fee That Cost $500: A Masterclass in Standing Up to HOA Bureaucracy

1. Introduction: The Homeowner’s Nightmare

Imagine doing everything right: you receive a bill, you mail your payment to the address provided, and you assume the matter is settled. Then, months later, you discover you have been labeled “delinquent.” You try to call; no one answers. You use the company’s own online portal to explain the situation, and your message vanishes into a digital black hole. While you are being ghosted, the fees continue to pile up.

This was the reality for Virginia Kostman, a homeowner in Tucson’s Bella Tierra community. What began as a routine quarterly assessment spiraled into a legal battle over a $20 “delinquency fee.” In a display of sheer investigative grit, Kostman paid a $500 filing fee to take her Homeowners Association (HOA) to the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. Her story is more than a dispute over pocket change; it is a masterclass in how to dismantle bureaucratic gaslighting and hold faceless management companies accountable.

2. Takeaway 1: You Aren’t Responsible for “Management Ghosting”

The conflict began during a chaotic shell game between management firms. In late 2024, Platinum Management—the company then representing the community—abruptly closed its doors on December 17th. This was a week after bills were sent but before the January 1st due date, effectively setting a trap for every resident who followed the instructions on their statement.

A “new” firm, Agave Management Solutions, took over in January 2025. Investigative scrutiny reveals the players didn’t actually change: Agave was founded by Jaimie Petty, who had been the executive assistant to the owner of the defunct Platinum Management. Despite this “same players, different name” reality, Agave penalized Kostman because her check arrived at Platinum’s shuttered office. Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella ruled that the burden of business continuity rests on the HOA, not the resident.

3. Takeaway 2: The “Portal” is a Digital Shield for Incompetence

When Kostman realized her payment hadn’t been processed, she attempted to use Agave’s online portal to resolve the issue. On April 3rd, she sent an email through the site. Agave’s Chief Financial Officer, Sarah Malovich, later testified that the company never received the message because the company was “still getting up and running.”

The investigative “smoking gun” lies in the contradiction of Malovich’s own testimony. She claimed the portal went live on April 1st, yet suggested a message sent two days later on April 3rd vanished because of technical infancy. Agave created a digital black hole, then penalized a homeowner for falling into it. This discrepancy highlights a systemic HOA tactic: using “new technology” as a shield for administrative incompetence while continuing to issue automated delinquency notices.

4. Takeaway 3: “Delinquency” is a Political Tool, Not Just a Financial One

The most alarming revelation from the hearing transcripts is that this $20 fee was a gatekeeping mechanism. The Bella Tierra HOA was transitioning from “builder control” (KB Homes) to homeowner control. Under the community’s governing documents (CC&R 6.9.1), any homeowner labeled as “delinquent” can be barred from voting for the new HOA board.

Kostman’s testimony revealed a struggle for democracy. She feared the Petty family—acting as agents for KB Homes—was using the $20 delinquency status to silence dissent and prevent homeowners from voting them out. This elevates the case from a petty fee dispute to a David vs. Goliath battle over community governance. When an HOA labels you delinquent over a disputed $20, they aren’t just taking your money; they are taking your voice.

5. Takeaway 4: The $500 Gamble for a $20 Injustice

To a casual observer, spending $500 to dispute $20 is a mathematical failure. To a consumer advocate, it is a strategic strike. By paying the filing fee for an Administrative Hearing, Kostman forced the HOA to hire expensive legal counsel and defend their “extortion racket” (as she termed it) in a court of record.

The gamble paid off. Judge Vanella didn’t just order the removal of the $20 delinquency fees; she ordered the HOA to reimburse Kostman for the $500 filing fee. By standing her ground, Kostman turned the tables, making the Association’s predatory administrative practices a net financial loss for them.

6. Takeaway 5: The Court’s Cold Shoulder: When a Win is Just a Piece of Paper

Winning in court is only half the battle; collecting the judgment is the other. A “Minute Entry” filed in February 2026—over a month after the final order—revealed that the HOA had still not paid the $500 reimbursement. When Kostman asked the court how to file a “writ of execution” to force payment, the court’s response was a chilling reminder of the limits of the legal system.

The Judge noted that the court could not provide legal advice and that Kostman’s inquiry “will not be considered.” This is the sobering reality of consumer litigation: even with a signed order from an Administrative Law Judge, a recalcitrant board can remain defiant, leaving the homeowner holding a “paper victory” while the HOA ignores the debt.

7. Conclusion: The Power of the Paper Trail

Virginia Kostman’s victory rested on a single, unassailable fact: she kept the receipts. She produced a bank bill-pay record initiated on January 31st, proving her intent to pay the address provided on the only official bill she had received. Without that digital and paper trail, the management company’s ledger would have been the final word.

In an era of shifting management companies and automated portals that “malfunction” at convenient times, are you keeping the records necessary to protect your home? As this case proves, a $20 fee isn’t always about the money—it’s about control. And as of February 2026, with the HOA still refusing to cut the check, the question remains: are you prepared for the long game required to actually get paid?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Virgina Kostman (petitioner)
    Spelled 'Virginia' in body of decision; appeared on own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Eric P. O’Connor (HOA attorney)
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
    Represented Bella Tierra Community Association
  • Sarah Malovich (witness)
    Agave Management Solutions
    CFO of Agave Management Solutions
  • Jaimie Petty (property manager)
    Agave Management Solutions
    Founder of Agave; former executive assistant at Platinum Management
  • Kathleen Petty (property manager)
    Platinum Management, Inc.
    Owner of Platinum Management; retired

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding Administrative Law Judge
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Received copy of decision

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton vs Sycamore Springs Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-06
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $150.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton Counsel Craig L. Cline
Respondent Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Nikolas Thompson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620, 33-1805, 33-1810, Bylaws Article 10.1.1, 10.3, 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1, and CC&R Article X Section 3
A.R.S. § 33-1803, CC&Rs Article IX Section 10, Section 18, Article XI Section 1, Section 5, HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition entirely, concluding that Petitioners failed to establish any of the alleged violations of statutes, CC&Rs, or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ found that the HOA provided reasonable explanations regarding delays in document production and that the Petitioners' security camera created a nuisance for a neighbor, requiring the submission of a Design Modification Request (DMR).

Why this result: Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof for the numerous alleged violations. The records requests claims failed because Petitioners did not satisfy prerequisites (e.g., payment, inspection request) or because the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays. The security camera issue failed because the device created a nuisance and Petitioners refused to submit a required DMR.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to follow governing documents & State laws with respect to preparation of mandatory records and documents; retention of required records and documents; and/or fulfillment of Owner requests for same.

Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to timely produce requested board minutes and financial compilations for 2022 and 2023. The ALJ found that A.R.S. §§ 10-11601 and 10-11620 were inapplicable. Regarding A.R.S. §§ 33-1805 and 33-1810, the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays (management transition, accountant extension). Petitioners failed to establish violations, noting they did not request inspection, offer to pay for copies, or inform the HOA of the missing 2022 compilation.

Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • A.R.S. § 10-11620
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • Bylaws Article 10.1.1
  • Bylaws Article 10.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.4
  • Bylaws Article 5.1
  • CC&R Article X Section 3

Misinterpreting the CC&Rs in regards to the Petitioners' security devices.

Petitioners argued their security camera installation was exempt (a “carve out”) from requiring a Design Modification Request (DMR). They also alleged improper notice and fining under A.R.S. § 33-1803 and CC&Rs Article XI Sec 5. The ALJ found the camera created a nuisance for the neighbor by invading privacy. Although the HOA may have had a technical violation in notice (Article XI Sec 5), Petitioners failed to establish overall violations, noting Petitioners refused to submit a DMR as required of all homeowners.

Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed. Petitioners are required to submit a DMR.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $150.00

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 10
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 18
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 5
  • HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records, minutes, financial statements, audit, compilation, security camera, nuisance, design modification request, DMR, failure to submit DMR, notice violation, burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • A.R.S. § 10-11620
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • Bylaws Article 10.1.1
  • Bylaws Article 10.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.4
  • Bylaws Article 5.1
  • CC&R Article X Section 3
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 10
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 18
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 5
  • HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1275948.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:25 (49.4 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1275971.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:29 (8.8 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1297318.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:33 (49.2 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1302228.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:37 (49.4 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1302231.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:42 (8.6 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1336572.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:45 (212.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H027-REL


Briefing on the Administrative Hearing: Schafer & Lawton v. Sycamore Springs HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 25F-H027-REL). The dispute centered on two core issues: the Homeowners Association’s (HOA) alleged failure to properly prepare, retain, and provide mandatory corporate records, and its alleged misinterpretation of governing documents concerning the installation of a security camera by the petitioners.

Following a hearing on July 22, 2025, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella issued a decision on August 6, 2025, dismissing the petition in its entirety. The ALJ concluded that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on all allegations.

Key findings indicate that the HOA’s explanations for delays and missing records—namely, a difficult transition between management companies and a tax filing extension—were deemed reasonable. Regarding the security camera, the ALJ determined that the device constituted a nuisance to a neighbor, a finding within the HOA board’s discretion, and upheld the HOA’s requirement for a Design Modification Request (DMR). The decision affirmed the respondent’s central legal argument distinguishing the duty to “keep” records from a requirement to “take” them.

Case Overview

Case Name

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton, Petitioners, v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent.

Case Number

25F-H027-REL

Tribunal

State of Arizona, Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

Hearing Date

July 22, 2025

Decision Date

August 6, 2025

Petitioners

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton (Represented by Craig Cline, Esq.)

Respondent

Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Represented by Nikolas Thompson, Esq.)

The matter was subject to several continuances at the request of the Respondent, moving the final hearing date to July 22, 2025.

Core Allegations and Disputed Issues

The dispute was formally divided into two primary areas of contention, each involving alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws).

Issue 1: Records and Document Management

• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA systematically failed to follow governing documents and state laws regarding the preparation, retention, and fulfillment of owner requests for mandatory records. This included the failure to provide five specific sets of board meeting minutes and the annual financial compilations for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 in a timely manner. Petitioners argued this constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of multiple statutes and bylaws.

• Respondent’s Position: The HOA contended that governing documents and statutes require them to keep records of minutes taken, but not to take minutes for every meeting. This interpretation was based on advice from legal counsel. They argued that most documents were available on the homeowner portal and that the failure to produce one specific set of minutes (December 2023) was due to them being lost by a previous “garbage” management company. The delay in providing the 2023 financial compilation was attributed to a reasonable circumstance: an extension filed for the association’s taxes.

Issue 2: Security Camera Installation

• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA misinterpreted its own CC&Rs by requiring a DMR for the petitioners’ security camera. Petitioners argued that Article IX, Section 18 of the CC&Rs provides a specific “carve out” for “security devices used exclusively for security purposes.” They further contended they were being targeted, as the HOA had no history of enforcing such a requirement for security cameras until after their device was installed and a neighbor complained.

• Respondent’s Position: The HOA board interpreted the CC&R “carve out” as applying only to sound-emitting devices (e.g., alarms, bells), as the clause is situated within a paragraph on noise nuisances. They argued a security camera is an “attachment to an existing structure,” which requires approval from the Architectural Control Committee under a separate CC&R article. Furthermore, the installation created a nuisance by invading a neighbor’s privacy, obligating the board to act. The HOA asserted that all homeowners, including the board president, were subsequently required to submit DMRs for their cameras to ensure consistent enforcement.

Key Testimony and Evidence

Patricia Lawton (Petitioner)

• A former HOA board president for three years, Ms. Lawton testified to having an expert-level understanding of the governing documents.

• Regarding records, she stated that of five requested sets of board minutes, only one was provided, and it was delivered late. She claimed she never received the 2022 financial compilation, only tax returns, and that the 2023 compilation was not provided within the statutorily required timeframe.

• She disputed the validity of the HOA’s tax-extension excuse, testifying that the association operates on a cash basis of accounting, which should not have prevented the timely completion of the compilation.

• She testified that due to security concerns (fear of being hacked), she does not have a registered account for the homeowner portal and accesses it through other community members.

• On the security camera, she asserted it was a residential-grade device installed in response to trespassing and property damage. She maintained that the CC&Rs provided a clear exemption and that the HOA’s enforcement action was retaliatory and inconsistent with historical practice.

Kristen Rowlette (HOA Board President)

• Ms. Rowlette testified that critical documents, including the December 2023 minutes, were lost during a problematic transition from a prior management company, Adams LLC, to the current one, Mission Management. She stated Ms. Lawton was aware of these difficulties as she attended every board meeting.

• She admitted that the board made a decision to stop taking minutes for meetings where no votes were held. She stated this was done on the advice of legal counsel (Smith and Wamsley) and was a direct response to feeling “inundated with requests from Patricia.”

• Regarding the camera, she testified that the issue arose only after a neighbor filed a formal complaint citing privacy concerns for their children. She described visiting the neighbor’s property and observing the camera’s “eye” actively tracking her movements.

• She confirmed that following the complaint, the board, on legal advice, required all homeowners to retroactively submit DMRs for any existing security cameras to ensure uniform enforcement.

Central Legal Arguments

The “Keep” vs. “Take” Debate

The primary legal conflict regarding the meeting minutes centered on the interpretation of a single word.

• Petitioners’ Argument: Counsel for the petitioners argued that the phrase “keep the minutes” must be interpreted through a “common sense application,” meaning “maintaining a written record of proceedings and decisions.” It was described as a standard practice for nonprofit organizations for decades, and the respondent’s narrow definition was “overly simplistic.”

• Respondent’s Argument: Counsel for the HOA focused on a strict textual interpretation. He argued, “they cannot point to any language in any of the governing documents in any of the statutes that requires associations to take minutes. It just doesn’t exist. What they’ve done is they’ve conflated the word keep… to mean take.” He cited dictionary definitions to assert that “keep” means to hold, maintain, or retain, not to create.

The Security Camera “Carve Out”

The dispute over the camera hinged on whether it fell under an exception in the nuisance clause of the CC&Rs.

• Petitioners’ Argument: Article IX, Section 18 exempts “security devices used exclusively for security purposes” from the general prohibition on sound devices. Petitioners argued their camera fit this description, and this carve-out, combined with a total lack of historical enforcement or specific design guidelines for cameras, meant a DMR was not required.

• Respondent’s Argument: The exemption is located in a provision focused on noise nuisances (“speakers, horns, whistles, bells or other sound devices”). The board’s interpretation was that the exception logically applies only to sound-emitting security devices like driveway alarms. The camera, as a physical modification, was governed by architectural rules requiring a DMR and was also subject to the board’s “sole discretion” to determine if it constituted a nuisance to neighbors.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding the petitioners failed to establish their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rationale on Issue 1 (Records)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620 (Corporate Records)

No Jurisdiction

The tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33 (planned communities) and does not extend to these Title 10 (nonprofit corporations) statutes.

A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Availability)

No Violation

Respondent made records “reasonably available.” The loss of minutes during a management transition and the delay of financials due to a tax extension were deemed reasonable explanations.

A.R.S. § 33-1810 (Annual Audit)

No Violation

The request was made in 2024, entitling petitioners only to 2023 statements. The CC&Rs require owners to pay for audited statements, which petitioners did not offer to do.

CC&R Article X Section 3 & Bylaws Article 10.3 (Inspection)

No Violation

These provisions govern the inspection of documents. Petitioners requested copies without offering to pay for reproduction and never formally requested an in-person inspection.

Bylaws Articles 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1 (Secretary/Treasurer Duties, Meetings)

No Violation

Petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Secretary or Treasurer failed in their duties or that meetings were not held as required.

Rationale on Issue 2 (Camera)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

CC&Rs Art. IX §§ 10, 18 (Nuisance)

No Violation

The CC&Rs grant the Board “sole discretion” to determine the existence of a nuisance. The ALJ found the evidence credible that the camera invaded the neighbor’s privacy, thus creating a nuisance.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 1 (Enforcement)

No Violation

Petitioners were notified of their right to a hearing before the Board. The HOA’s request for a DMR was a reasonable enforcement action applied to all community members.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 5 (Notice by Mail)

Technical Violation, No Harm

While there may have been a “technical violation” of the certified mail requirement, the ALJ found that the “Petitioners clearly received all notices” and were not prejudiced.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kevin W. Schafer (petitioner)
  • Patricia A. Lawton (petitioner)
    Testified on her own behalf; Former HOA Board President
  • Craig L. Cline (petitioner attorney)
    Udall Law Firm, LLP
  • Maile L. Belongie (petitioner attorney)
    Udall Law Firm, LLP
  • c zauner (petitioner attorney staff)
    Udall Law Firm, LLP
    Listed on email distribution list

Respondent Side

  • Nikolas Thompson (respondent attorney)
    MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P.
  • Kristen Rowlette (board member)
    Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc.
    HOA President; Testified as witness
  • Jennifer Pembertton (property manager)
    Mission Management
    Community Manager; Mentioned as present at hearing
  • Kurt M. Zitzer (respondent attorney)
    MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P.
  • William Custer (witness)
    Neighbor/Complainant regarding security camera

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • mneat (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • lrecchia (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • gosborn (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list

Other Participants

  • Eric Harris (board member)
    Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Former)
    Former HOA Secretary

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton vs Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-06
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $150.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton Counsel Craig L. Cline
Respondent Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Nikolas Thompson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620, 33-1805, 33-1810, Bylaws Article 10.1.1, 10.3, 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1, and CC&R Article X Section 3
A.R.S. § 33-1803, CC&Rs Article IX Section 10, Section 18, Article XI Section 1, Section 5, HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition entirely, concluding that Petitioners failed to establish any of the alleged violations of statutes, CC&Rs, or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ found that the HOA provided reasonable explanations regarding delays in document production and that the Petitioners' security camera created a nuisance for a neighbor, requiring the submission of a Design Modification Request (DMR).

Why this result: Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof for the numerous alleged violations. The records requests claims failed because Petitioners did not satisfy prerequisites (e.g., payment, inspection request) or because the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays. The security camera issue failed because the device created a nuisance and Petitioners refused to submit a required DMR.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to follow governing documents & State laws with respect to preparation of mandatory records and documents; retention of required records and documents; and/or fulfillment of Owner requests for same.

Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to timely produce requested board minutes and financial compilations for 2022 and 2023. The ALJ found that A.R.S. §§ 10-11601 and 10-11620 were inapplicable. Regarding A.R.S. §§ 33-1805 and 33-1810, the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays (management transition, accountant extension). Petitioners failed to establish violations, noting they did not request inspection, offer to pay for copies, or inform the HOA of the missing 2022 compilation.

Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • A.R.S. § 10-11620
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • Bylaws Article 10.1.1
  • Bylaws Article 10.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.4
  • Bylaws Article 5.1
  • CC&R Article X Section 3

Misinterpreting the CC&Rs in regards to the Petitioners' security devices.

Petitioners argued their security camera installation was exempt (a “carve out”) from requiring a Design Modification Request (DMR). They also alleged improper notice and fining under A.R.S. § 33-1803 and CC&Rs Article XI Sec 5. The ALJ found the camera created a nuisance for the neighbor by invading privacy. Although the HOA may have had a technical violation in notice (Article XI Sec 5), Petitioners failed to establish overall violations, noting Petitioners refused to submit a DMR as required of all homeowners.

Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed. Petitioners are required to submit a DMR.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $150.00

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 10
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 18
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 5
  • HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records, minutes, financial statements, audit, compilation, security camera, nuisance, design modification request, DMR, failure to submit DMR, notice violation, burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • A.R.S. § 10-11620
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • Bylaws Article 10.1.1
  • Bylaws Article 10.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.4
  • Bylaws Article 5.1
  • CC&R Article X Section 3
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 10
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 18
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 5
  • HOA Hearing and Fine Policy




Briefing Doc – 25F-H027-REL


Briefing on the Administrative Hearing: Schafer & Lawton v. Sycamore Springs HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 25F-H027-REL). The dispute centered on two core issues: the Homeowners Association’s (HOA) alleged failure to properly prepare, retain, and provide mandatory corporate records, and its alleged misinterpretation of governing documents concerning the installation of a security camera by the petitioners.

Following a hearing on July 22, 2025, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella issued a decision on August 6, 2025, dismissing the petition in its entirety. The ALJ concluded that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on all allegations.

Key findings indicate that the HOA’s explanations for delays and missing records—namely, a difficult transition between management companies and a tax filing extension—were deemed reasonable. Regarding the security camera, the ALJ determined that the device constituted a nuisance to a neighbor, a finding within the HOA board’s discretion, and upheld the HOA’s requirement for a Design Modification Request (DMR). The decision affirmed the respondent’s central legal argument distinguishing the duty to “keep” records from a requirement to “take” them.

Case Overview

Case Name

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton, Petitioners, v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent.

Case Number

25F-H027-REL

Tribunal

State of Arizona, Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

Hearing Date

July 22, 2025

Decision Date

August 6, 2025

Petitioners

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton (Represented by Craig Cline, Esq.)

Respondent

Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Represented by Nikolas Thompson, Esq.)

The matter was subject to several continuances at the request of the Respondent, moving the final hearing date to July 22, 2025.

Core Allegations and Disputed Issues

The dispute was formally divided into two primary areas of contention, each involving alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws).

Issue 1: Records and Document Management

• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA systematically failed to follow governing documents and state laws regarding the preparation, retention, and fulfillment of owner requests for mandatory records. This included the failure to provide five specific sets of board meeting minutes and the annual financial compilations for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 in a timely manner. Petitioners argued this constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of multiple statutes and bylaws.

• Respondent’s Position: The HOA contended that governing documents and statutes require them to keep records of minutes taken, but not to take minutes for every meeting. This interpretation was based on advice from legal counsel. They argued that most documents were available on the homeowner portal and that the failure to produce one specific set of minutes (December 2023) was due to them being lost by a previous “garbage” management company. The delay in providing the 2023 financial compilation was attributed to a reasonable circumstance: an extension filed for the association’s taxes.

Issue 2: Security Camera Installation

• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA misinterpreted its own CC&Rs by requiring a DMR for the petitioners’ security camera. Petitioners argued that Article IX, Section 18 of the CC&Rs provides a specific “carve out” for “security devices used exclusively for security purposes.” They further contended they were being targeted, as the HOA had no history of enforcing such a requirement for security cameras until after their device was installed and a neighbor complained.

• Respondent’s Position: The HOA board interpreted the CC&R “carve out” as applying only to sound-emitting devices (e.g., alarms, bells), as the clause is situated within a paragraph on noise nuisances. They argued a security camera is an “attachment to an existing structure,” which requires approval from the Architectural Control Committee under a separate CC&R article. Furthermore, the installation created a nuisance by invading a neighbor’s privacy, obligating the board to act. The HOA asserted that all homeowners, including the board president, were subsequently required to submit DMRs for their cameras to ensure consistent enforcement.

Key Testimony and Evidence

Patricia Lawton (Petitioner)

• A former HOA board president for three years, Ms. Lawton testified to having an expert-level understanding of the governing documents.

• Regarding records, she stated that of five requested sets of board minutes, only one was provided, and it was delivered late. She claimed she never received the 2022 financial compilation, only tax returns, and that the 2023 compilation was not provided within the statutorily required timeframe.

• She disputed the validity of the HOA’s tax-extension excuse, testifying that the association operates on a cash basis of accounting, which should not have prevented the timely completion of the compilation.

• She testified that due to security concerns (fear of being hacked), she does not have a registered account for the homeowner portal and accesses it through other community members.

• On the security camera, she asserted it was a residential-grade device installed in response to trespassing and property damage. She maintained that the CC&Rs provided a clear exemption and that the HOA’s enforcement action was retaliatory and inconsistent with historical practice.

Kristen Rowlette (HOA Board President)

• Ms. Rowlette testified that critical documents, including the December 2023 minutes, were lost during a problematic transition from a prior management company, Adams LLC, to the current one, Mission Management. She stated Ms. Lawton was aware of these difficulties as she attended every board meeting.

• She admitted that the board made a decision to stop taking minutes for meetings where no votes were held. She stated this was done on the advice of legal counsel (Smith and Wamsley) and was a direct response to feeling “inundated with requests from Patricia.”

• Regarding the camera, she testified that the issue arose only after a neighbor filed a formal complaint citing privacy concerns for their children. She described visiting the neighbor’s property and observing the camera’s “eye” actively tracking her movements.

• She confirmed that following the complaint, the board, on legal advice, required all homeowners to retroactively submit DMRs for any existing security cameras to ensure uniform enforcement.

Central Legal Arguments

The “Keep” vs. “Take” Debate

The primary legal conflict regarding the meeting minutes centered on the interpretation of a single word.

• Petitioners’ Argument: Counsel for the petitioners argued that the phrase “keep the minutes” must be interpreted through a “common sense application,” meaning “maintaining a written record of proceedings and decisions.” It was described as a standard practice for nonprofit organizations for decades, and the respondent’s narrow definition was “overly simplistic.”

• Respondent’s Argument: Counsel for the HOA focused on a strict textual interpretation. He argued, “they cannot point to any language in any of the governing documents in any of the statutes that requires associations to take minutes. It just doesn’t exist. What they’ve done is they’ve conflated the word keep… to mean take.” He cited dictionary definitions to assert that “keep” means to hold, maintain, or retain, not to create.

The Security Camera “Carve Out”

The dispute over the camera hinged on whether it fell under an exception in the nuisance clause of the CC&Rs.

• Petitioners’ Argument: Article IX, Section 18 exempts “security devices used exclusively for security purposes” from the general prohibition on sound devices. Petitioners argued their camera fit this description, and this carve-out, combined with a total lack of historical enforcement or specific design guidelines for cameras, meant a DMR was not required.

• Respondent’s Argument: The exemption is located in a provision focused on noise nuisances (“speakers, horns, whistles, bells or other sound devices”). The board’s interpretation was that the exception logically applies only to sound-emitting security devices like driveway alarms. The camera, as a physical modification, was governed by architectural rules requiring a DMR and was also subject to the board’s “sole discretion” to determine if it constituted a nuisance to neighbors.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding the petitioners failed to establish their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rationale on Issue 1 (Records)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620 (Corporate Records)

No Jurisdiction

The tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33 (planned communities) and does not extend to these Title 10 (nonprofit corporations) statutes.

A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Availability)

No Violation

Respondent made records “reasonably available.” The loss of minutes during a management transition and the delay of financials due to a tax extension were deemed reasonable explanations.

A.R.S. § 33-1810 (Annual Audit)

No Violation

The request was made in 2024, entitling petitioners only to 2023 statements. The CC&Rs require owners to pay for audited statements, which petitioners did not offer to do.

CC&R Article X Section 3 & Bylaws Article 10.3 (Inspection)

No Violation

These provisions govern the inspection of documents. Petitioners requested copies without offering to pay for reproduction and never formally requested an in-person inspection.

Bylaws Articles 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1 (Secretary/Treasurer Duties, Meetings)

No Violation

Petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Secretary or Treasurer failed in their duties or that meetings were not held as required.

Rationale on Issue 2 (Camera)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

CC&Rs Art. IX §§ 10, 18 (Nuisance)

No Violation

The CC&Rs grant the Board “sole discretion” to determine the existence of a nuisance. The ALJ found the evidence credible that the camera invaded the neighbor’s privacy, thus creating a nuisance.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 1 (Enforcement)

No Violation

Petitioners were notified of their right to a hearing before the Board. The HOA’s request for a DMR was a reasonable enforcement action applied to all community members.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 5 (Notice by Mail)

Technical Violation, No Harm

While there may have been a “technical violation” of the certified mail requirement, the ALJ found that the “Petitioners clearly received all notices” and were not prejudiced.


Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-02-20
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deatta M. Pleasants Counsel —
Respondent Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. Counsel David Onuschak

Alleged Violations

CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2. Maintenance and Repair, By the Association

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&Rs by the Association. The Association maintained the underground culverts in accordance with Navajo County approved plans, and the evidence established the culverts were functioning as intended. Flooding experienced by the Petitioner was expected due to the lot's location in a FEMA Floodway during an exceptional storm (likely a 100-year event).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&R provision; the culverts were maintained and functioning as intended, and flooding was anticipated given the lot's location in a FEMA Floodway during the exceptional storm event.

Key Issues & Findings

The association will not repair the culvert (common area) to allow the ditch to drain.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to repair or connect a culvert (common area), causing her lot located in a regulatory floodway to flood during a severe (100-year) storm in July 2021. The Respondent contended the drainage system was maintained, functioned as intended, and the flooding was due to the exceptional storm magnitude and the property's location in a floodway.

Orders: No action required of Respondent; Petitioner's Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Maintenance Violation, Drainage System, Culvert Maintenance, FEMA Floodway, 100-Year Storm, Civil Engineer Testimony
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2
  • CC&Rs Rev. September 2022, Article 1, D.

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H021-REL Decision – 1252432.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:15:12 (52.5 KB)

25F-H021-REL Decision – 1275219.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:15:14 (128.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H021-REL


Briefing Document: Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Deatta M. Pleasants versus the Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. (HOA). The core of the dispute centered on Ms. Pleasants’ allegation that the HOA violated community CC&Rs by failing to repair a common area culvert, which she claimed caused her property (Lot 185) to flood during a severe storm in July 2021.

The Respondent HOA countered that the drainage system was constructed in accordance with plans approved by Navajo County in the 1980s and has been properly maintained. The defense’s central arguments were that the July 2021 storm was a “100-year storm,” a weather event that exceeded the system’s “50-year storm” design capacity, and that Ms. Pleasants’ lot is situated within a FEMA-designated regulatory floodway, where flooding during such an event is an expected occurrence.

Expert testimony from Dr. Zachary Barlo, a licensed civil engineer retained by the HOA, was pivotal. Dr. Barlo concluded that the drainage system was constructed in “general substantial conformance” with the original plans, is adequately maintained, and functions as designed. He testified that the feature Ms. Pleasants believed to be a disconnected culvert was, in fact, a roadway hatch pattern on the design plans. Crucially, he affirmed that flooding on Lot 185 would be expected during a major storm event due to its location in the floodway, regardless of culvert improvements.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed Ms. Pleasants’ petition. The final decision held that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated the CC&Rs. The ruling affirmed that the HOA had maintained the system and that the flooding was a predictable consequence of an exceptionally severe storm impacting a property located in a high-risk flood zone.

1. Case Overview

• Case Number: 25F-H021-REL

• Petitioner: Deatta M. Pleasants, owner of Lot 185

• Respondent: Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

• Jurisdiction: Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), Phoenix, Arizona

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

• Hearing Date: February 4, 2025

• Decision Date: February 20, 2025

2. Petitioner’s Allegation and Testimony

Core Claim

The Petitioner, Deatta M. Pleasants, alleged that the Respondent violated Article II, Section I of the revised 2022 CC&Rs. This section assigns the HOA the “full power and duty to maintain, repair and make necessary improvements in the COMMON AREA,” including underground culverts. The petition asserted, “The association will not repair the culvert (common area) to allow the ditch to drain.”

Central Arguments and Evidence

• The July 2021 Storm: The complaint originated from a single, severe storm in July 2021, which caused significant flooding on Petitioner’s property, Lot 185. Ms. Pleasants testified that while the storm was severe, she believes subsequent flooding was due to a malfunctioning drainage system, not the storm’s magnitude alone.

• Interpretation of Design Plans: Ms. Pleasants asserted that a double-line feature on the original circa 1986 drainage plans represented a proposed culvert. She believed this culvert was intended to connect a roadside ditch to the main regional drainage infrastructure but was improperly installed or left disconnected, causing a blockage and subsequent overflow.

• Observed Conditions: The Petitioner presented photographs from the 2021 storm depicting a 21-foot by 5-foot ditch in front of her property completely full of water and not draining. She argued this demonstrated a functional failure of the system.

• Rejection of Floodway Argument: Ms. Pleasants testified that she was “highly disappointed in the engineering report” and that her lot’s location within a FEMA flood plain “has absolutely nothing to do with the functionality and performance of this storm drain channel that is meant to keep from flooding.”

• HOA Responsibility: The Petitioner maintained that it is the HOA’s “fiduciary responsibility” to remedy the issue by connecting what she believes to be the main drain.

3. Respondent’s Position and Defense

Core Defense

The Respondent HOA’s position was that it has fulfilled its maintenance obligations under the CC&Rs and that the flooding was an unavoidable result of an extreme weather event impacting a property in a high-risk area.

Key Arguments and Testimony

• System Design and Approval: The drainage system was constructed in the mid-1980s based on plans approved by Navajo County. The design standards at the time, and currently, require the system to handle a 50-year storm event.

• Storm Severity: The July 2021 storm was characterized as an exceptional event, a “100-year storm,” that produced approximately three inches of rain within hours. This exceeded the design capacity of the drainage infrastructure.

• FEMA Floodway Designation: A critical element of the defense was that Lot 185 is located within a FEMA-designated regulatory floodway. Testimony established this as the highest-risk flood category, specifically designated to allow for the unimpeded flow of floodwater.

• Maintenance Record: HOA President Sharon Seekins testified that the association periodically inspects and maintains the common area drainage system, including recent improvement projects on the Oklahoma Draw Wash. She noted that under the CC&Rs, individual lot owners are responsible for maintaining the drainage ditches directly in front of their properties.

• Lack of Other Complaints: Ms. Seekins testified that no other homeowners filed formal complaints about the drainage system’s performance following the July 2021 storm.

4. Expert Witness Testimony: Dr. Zachary Barlo

Dr. Zachary Barlo, a Senior Civil Engineer with a PhD, was retained by the Respondent to inspect the drainage system and provide an expert opinion. His testimony was a cornerstone of the Respondent’s case.

Credentials and Experience

• Position: Senior Engineer at Ironside Engineering Development, Inc.

• Education: PhD and Master of Science in Civil Engineering from Oregon State University; undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech.

• Licensure: Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Arizona.

• Expertise: Extensive experience with drainage systems, Navajo County codes, and FEMA regulations.

Inspection and Analysis

Dr. Barlo conducted two field visits in June and December of 2024. His process involved:

1. Reviewing the original circa 1986 construction and drainage plans.

2. Conducting a visual and physical inspection of the as-built infrastructure near Lot 185, including measuring culverts.

3. Speaking with both Ms. Pleasants and HOA representatives to understand the concerns.

Key Findings and Professional Opinion

Finding Category

Dr. Barlo’s Testimony and Conclusions

Conformance with Plans

The existing infrastructure was found to be in “general substantial conformance with the original plan.” Notably, a 24-inch pipe was installed where an 18-inch pipe was specified, which he described as a “betterment to the design” as it increases the capacity to convey water.

The Disputed “Culvert”

The double-line feature on the plans, which the Petitioner believed was a disconnected culvert, is not a culvert. Dr. Barlo identified it as part of the “hatch pattern of the roadway track.” He supported this by noting the absence of design specifications like invert elevations, which are present on all actual culverts shown in the plans.

System Functionality

The drainage system is designed to handle a 50-year storm. The July 2021 storm was “generally believed” to be larger than a 50-year event. He opined that the Respondent has adequately maintained the drainage system and that it is not in a state of disrepair.

Impact of FEMA Designation

Lot 185’s location in a regulatory floodway is highly significant. Dr. Barlo explained this area is designed for “unimpeded discharge” and is expected to have “deeper discharge depths” during major storms.

Conclusion on Flooding

Dr. Barlo stated definitively: “flooding of the area would be expected in this area in large storm events based on the FEMA designation regardless of the culvert improvements.” He testified that the conditions Ms. Pleasants experienced were what he would expect during a 100-year storm event on that specific lot.

5. Hearing Outcome and Judicial Decision

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision, issued on February 20, 2025, ruled conclusively in favor of the Respondent.

Conclusions of Law

• The Judge found that the Petitioner, who bore the burden of proof, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated Article II, Section I of the CC&Rs.

• The ruling stated, “The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.”

• It was further established that “the underground culverts are functioning as intended.”

Final Determination

The Judge concluded that the flooding experienced by the Petitioner was a predictable and expected outcome given the circumstances: “Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.”

IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.






Study Guide – 25F-H021-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H021-REL”, “case_title”: “Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-02-20”, “alj_name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”, “tribunal”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”, “agency”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the CC&Rs during a hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner to prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The HOA does not have to prove they are innocent unless they are establishing an affirmative defense.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA responsible for flooding damage caused by an unusually severe storm?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the drainage system was properly maintained and the flooding was due to the severity of the storm and property location.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA maintains its drainage system according to the approved design plans, it is not necessarily liable for flooding caused by extreme weather events (like a 100-year storm) that exceed the system’s design capacity, especially if the home is located in a known flood zone.”, “alj_quote”: “Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.”, “legal_basis”: “Factual Finding / Liability Standards”, “topic_tags”: [ “Flooding”, “Maintenance”, “Liability” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to upgrade old infrastructure to meet modern standards?”, “short_answer”: “The decision implies no, as long as the system is maintained according to the originally approved plans.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA met its obligations by maintaining the system in accordance with the plans approved at the time of construction (late 1980s), which were designed for a ’50-year storm,’ even if modern severe storms exceed that capacity.”, “alj_quote”: “The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Infrastructure”, “Grandfathering” ] }, { “question”: “How much evidence is needed to win a case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “A ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the claim is more probably true than not.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must provide evidence that has ‘superior evidentiary weight’ and is more convincing than the HOA’s evidence. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence presented.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “Evidence”, “Legal Standards” ] }, { “question”: “Can I rely on my own interpretation of engineering plans to prove a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Likely not, if the HOA presents conflicting expert testimony.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the homeowner believed a marking on the plan was a missing culvert, but the HOA’s expert engineer testified it was a roadway hatch pattern. The ALJ relied on the expert’s interpretation over the homeowner’s assumption.”, “alj_quote”: “Dr. Barlow testified that Petitioner’s belief that double lines in the red box on the plans are supposed to be a designated culvert, is erroneous, as those lines are part of the roadway designation.”, “legal_basis”: “Expert Testimony”, “topic_tags”: [ “Evidence”, “Expert Witnesses”, “Dispute Resolution” ] }, { “question”: “Is a single incident of failure enough to prove the HOA isn’t maintaining common areas?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the incident was caused by exceptional circumstances.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the petition was based on a single storm event in July 2021 described as ‘exceptional and unusually severe,’ and there were no other complaints. This isolated incident was insufficient to prove a failure to maintain.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Seekins testified (and Petitioner agreed) that the Petition was filed due to an occurrence from a single storm in July 2021, and that there have been no other complaints to the Board regarding the culverts.”, “legal_basis”: “Factual Finding”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Enforcement”, “Violations” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 25F-H021-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H021-REL”, “case_title”: “Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-02-20”, “alj_name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”, “tribunal”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”, “agency”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the CC&Rs during a hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner to prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The HOA does not have to prove they are innocent unless they are establishing an affirmative defense.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA responsible for flooding damage caused by an unusually severe storm?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the drainage system was properly maintained and the flooding was due to the severity of the storm and property location.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA maintains its drainage system according to the approved design plans, it is not necessarily liable for flooding caused by extreme weather events (like a 100-year storm) that exceed the system’s design capacity, especially if the home is located in a known flood zone.”, “alj_quote”: “Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.”, “legal_basis”: “Factual Finding / Liability Standards”, “topic_tags”: [ “Flooding”, “Maintenance”, “Liability” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to upgrade old infrastructure to meet modern standards?”, “short_answer”: “The decision implies no, as long as the system is maintained according to the originally approved plans.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA met its obligations by maintaining the system in accordance with the plans approved at the time of construction (late 1980s), which were designed for a ’50-year storm,’ even if modern severe storms exceed that capacity.”, “alj_quote”: “The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Infrastructure”, “Grandfathering” ] }, { “question”: “How much evidence is needed to win a case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “A ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the claim is more probably true than not.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must provide evidence that has ‘superior evidentiary weight’ and is more convincing than the HOA’s evidence. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence presented.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “Evidence”, “Legal Standards” ] }, { “question”: “Can I rely on my own interpretation of engineering plans to prove a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Likely not, if the HOA presents conflicting expert testimony.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the homeowner believed a marking on the plan was a missing culvert, but the HOA’s expert engineer testified it was a roadway hatch pattern. The ALJ relied on the expert’s interpretation over the homeowner’s assumption.”, “alj_quote”: “Dr. Barlow testified that Petitioner’s belief that double lines in the red box on the plans are supposed to be a designated culvert, is erroneous, as those lines are part of the roadway designation.”, “legal_basis”: “Expert Testimony”, “topic_tags”: [ “Evidence”, “Expert Witnesses”, “Dispute Resolution” ] }, { “question”: “Is a single incident of failure enough to prove the HOA isn’t maintaining common areas?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the incident was caused by exceptional circumstances.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the petition was based on a single storm event in July 2021 described as ‘exceptional and unusually severe,’ and there were no other complaints. This isolated incident was insufficient to prove a failure to maintain.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Seekins testified (and Petitioner agreed) that the Petition was filed due to an occurrence from a single storm in July 2021, and that there have been no other complaints to the Board regarding the culverts.”, “legal_basis”: “Factual Finding”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Enforcement”, “Violations” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Deatta M. Pleasants (petitioner)
    Lot 185 owner; testified on her own behalf
  • Larry Rice (co-owner, present with petitioner)
    Present with Petitioner
  • Daphna Rice (co-owner, present with petitioner)
    Present with Petitioner (referred to as 'D. Rice')

Respondent Side

  • Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. (respondent (entity))
  • David Onuschak (HOA attorney)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
    Represented Respondent
  • Sharon Seekins (board president, witness)
    Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.
    President of Respondent's Board
  • Zachary Barlo (witness, civil engineer)
    Ironside Engineering and Development, Inc.
    Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of Decision
  • vnunez (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of documents/decision
  • djones (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of documents/decision
  • labril (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of documents/decision
  • mneat (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of documents/decision
  • lrecchia (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of documents/decision
  • gosborn (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of documents/decision

Other Participants

  • Ryan J. McCarthy (attorney)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
    Affiliated with Respondent's counsel; specific hearing role unclear

Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-02-20
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deatta M. Pleasants Counsel —
Respondent Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. Counsel David Onuschak

Alleged Violations

CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2. Maintenance and Repair, By the Association

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&Rs by the Association. The Association maintained the underground culverts in accordance with Navajo County approved plans, and the evidence established the culverts were functioning as intended. Flooding experienced by the Petitioner was expected due to the lot's location in a FEMA Floodway during an exceptional storm (likely a 100-year event).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&R provision; the culverts were maintained and functioning as intended, and flooding was anticipated given the lot's location in a FEMA Floodway during the exceptional storm event.

Key Issues & Findings

The association will not repair the culvert (common area) to allow the ditch to drain.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to repair or connect a culvert (common area), causing her lot located in a regulatory floodway to flood during a severe (100-year) storm in July 2021. The Respondent contended the drainage system was maintained, functioned as intended, and the flooding was due to the exceptional storm magnitude and the property's location in a floodway.

Orders: No action required of Respondent; Petitioner's Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Maintenance Violation, Drainage System, Culvert Maintenance, FEMA Floodway, 100-Year Storm, Civil Engineer Testimony
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2
  • CC&Rs Rev. September 2022, Article 1, D.




Briefing Doc – 25F-H021-REL


Briefing Document: Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Deatta M. Pleasants versus the Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. (HOA). The core of the dispute centered on Ms. Pleasants’ allegation that the HOA violated community CC&Rs by failing to repair a common area culvert, which she claimed caused her property (Lot 185) to flood during a severe storm in July 2021.

The Respondent HOA countered that the drainage system was constructed in accordance with plans approved by Navajo County in the 1980s and has been properly maintained. The defense’s central arguments were that the July 2021 storm was a “100-year storm,” a weather event that exceeded the system’s “50-year storm” design capacity, and that Ms. Pleasants’ lot is situated within a FEMA-designated regulatory floodway, where flooding during such an event is an expected occurrence.

Expert testimony from Dr. Zachary Barlo, a licensed civil engineer retained by the HOA, was pivotal. Dr. Barlo concluded that the drainage system was constructed in “general substantial conformance” with the original plans, is adequately maintained, and functions as designed. He testified that the feature Ms. Pleasants believed to be a disconnected culvert was, in fact, a roadway hatch pattern on the design plans. Crucially, he affirmed that flooding on Lot 185 would be expected during a major storm event due to its location in the floodway, regardless of culvert improvements.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed Ms. Pleasants’ petition. The final decision held that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated the CC&Rs. The ruling affirmed that the HOA had maintained the system and that the flooding was a predictable consequence of an exceptionally severe storm impacting a property located in a high-risk flood zone.

1. Case Overview

• Case Number: 25F-H021-REL

• Petitioner: Deatta M. Pleasants, owner of Lot 185

• Respondent: Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

• Jurisdiction: Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), Phoenix, Arizona

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

• Hearing Date: February 4, 2025

• Decision Date: February 20, 2025

2. Petitioner’s Allegation and Testimony

Core Claim

The Petitioner, Deatta M. Pleasants, alleged that the Respondent violated Article II, Section I of the revised 2022 CC&Rs. This section assigns the HOA the “full power and duty to maintain, repair and make necessary improvements in the COMMON AREA,” including underground culverts. The petition asserted, “The association will not repair the culvert (common area) to allow the ditch to drain.”

Central Arguments and Evidence

• The July 2021 Storm: The complaint originated from a single, severe storm in July 2021, which caused significant flooding on Petitioner’s property, Lot 185. Ms. Pleasants testified that while the storm was severe, she believes subsequent flooding was due to a malfunctioning drainage system, not the storm’s magnitude alone.

• Interpretation of Design Plans: Ms. Pleasants asserted that a double-line feature on the original circa 1986 drainage plans represented a proposed culvert. She believed this culvert was intended to connect a roadside ditch to the main regional drainage infrastructure but was improperly installed or left disconnected, causing a blockage and subsequent overflow.

• Observed Conditions: The Petitioner presented photographs from the 2021 storm depicting a 21-foot by 5-foot ditch in front of her property completely full of water and not draining. She argued this demonstrated a functional failure of the system.

• Rejection of Floodway Argument: Ms. Pleasants testified that she was “highly disappointed in the engineering report” and that her lot’s location within a FEMA flood plain “has absolutely nothing to do with the functionality and performance of this storm drain channel that is meant to keep from flooding.”

• HOA Responsibility: The Petitioner maintained that it is the HOA’s “fiduciary responsibility” to remedy the issue by connecting what she believes to be the main drain.

3. Respondent’s Position and Defense

Core Defense

The Respondent HOA’s position was that it has fulfilled its maintenance obligations under the CC&Rs and that the flooding was an unavoidable result of an extreme weather event impacting a property in a high-risk area.

Key Arguments and Testimony

• System Design and Approval: The drainage system was constructed in the mid-1980s based on plans approved by Navajo County. The design standards at the time, and currently, require the system to handle a 50-year storm event.

• Storm Severity: The July 2021 storm was characterized as an exceptional event, a “100-year storm,” that produced approximately three inches of rain within hours. This exceeded the design capacity of the drainage infrastructure.

• FEMA Floodway Designation: A critical element of the defense was that Lot 185 is located within a FEMA-designated regulatory floodway. Testimony established this as the highest-risk flood category, specifically designated to allow for the unimpeded flow of floodwater.

• Maintenance Record: HOA President Sharon Seekins testified that the association periodically inspects and maintains the common area drainage system, including recent improvement projects on the Oklahoma Draw Wash. She noted that under the CC&Rs, individual lot owners are responsible for maintaining the drainage ditches directly in front of their properties.

• Lack of Other Complaints: Ms. Seekins testified that no other homeowners filed formal complaints about the drainage system’s performance following the July 2021 storm.

4. Expert Witness Testimony: Dr. Zachary Barlo

Dr. Zachary Barlo, a Senior Civil Engineer with a PhD, was retained by the Respondent to inspect the drainage system and provide an expert opinion. His testimony was a cornerstone of the Respondent’s case.

Credentials and Experience

• Position: Senior Engineer at Ironside Engineering Development, Inc.

• Education: PhD and Master of Science in Civil Engineering from Oregon State University; undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech.

• Licensure: Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Arizona.

• Expertise: Extensive experience with drainage systems, Navajo County codes, and FEMA regulations.

Inspection and Analysis

Dr. Barlo conducted two field visits in June and December of 2024. His process involved:

1. Reviewing the original circa 1986 construction and drainage plans.

2. Conducting a visual and physical inspection of the as-built infrastructure near Lot 185, including measuring culverts.

3. Speaking with both Ms. Pleasants and HOA representatives to understand the concerns.

Key Findings and Professional Opinion

Finding Category

Dr. Barlo’s Testimony and Conclusions

Conformance with Plans

The existing infrastructure was found to be in “general substantial conformance with the original plan.” Notably, a 24-inch pipe was installed where an 18-inch pipe was specified, which he described as a “betterment to the design” as it increases the capacity to convey water.

The Disputed “Culvert”

The double-line feature on the plans, which the Petitioner believed was a disconnected culvert, is not a culvert. Dr. Barlo identified it as part of the “hatch pattern of the roadway track.” He supported this by noting the absence of design specifications like invert elevations, which are present on all actual culverts shown in the plans.

System Functionality

The drainage system is designed to handle a 50-year storm. The July 2021 storm was “generally believed” to be larger than a 50-year event. He opined that the Respondent has adequately maintained the drainage system and that it is not in a state of disrepair.

Impact of FEMA Designation

Lot 185’s location in a regulatory floodway is highly significant. Dr. Barlo explained this area is designed for “unimpeded discharge” and is expected to have “deeper discharge depths” during major storms.

Conclusion on Flooding

Dr. Barlo stated definitively: “flooding of the area would be expected in this area in large storm events based on the FEMA designation regardless of the culvert improvements.” He testified that the conditions Ms. Pleasants experienced were what he would expect during a 100-year storm event on that specific lot.

5. Hearing Outcome and Judicial Decision

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision, issued on February 20, 2025, ruled conclusively in favor of the Respondent.

Conclusions of Law

• The Judge found that the Petitioner, who bore the burden of proof, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated Article II, Section I of the CC&Rs.

• The ruling stated, “The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.”

• It was further established that “the underground culverts are functioning as intended.”

Final Determination

The Judge concluded that the flooding experienced by the Petitioner was a predictable and expected outcome given the circumstances: “Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.”

IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.


Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the CC&Rs during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner to prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The HOA does not have to prove they are innocent unless they are establishing an affirmative defense.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Procedure

Question

Is the HOA responsible for flooding damage caused by an unusually severe storm?

Short Answer

Generally no, if the drainage system was properly maintained and the flooding was due to the severity of the storm and property location.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA maintains its drainage system according to the approved design plans, it is not necessarily liable for flooding caused by extreme weather events (like a 100-year storm) that exceed the system's design capacity, especially if the home is located in a known flood zone.

Alj Quote

Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.

Legal Basis

Factual Finding / Liability Standards

Topic Tags

  • Flooding
  • Maintenance
  • Liability

Question

Does the HOA have to upgrade old infrastructure to meet modern standards?

Short Answer

The decision implies no, as long as the system is maintained according to the originally approved plans.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA met its obligations by maintaining the system in accordance with the plans approved at the time of construction (late 1980s), which were designed for a '50-year storm,' even if modern severe storms exceed that capacity.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Maintenance
  • Infrastructure
  • Grandfathering

Question

How much evidence is needed to win a case against the HOA?

Short Answer

A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must provide evidence that has 'superior evidentiary weight' and is more convincing than the HOA's evidence. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence presented.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Legal Standards

Question

Can I rely on my own interpretation of engineering plans to prove a violation?

Short Answer

Likely not, if the HOA presents conflicting expert testimony.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner believed a marking on the plan was a missing culvert, but the HOA's expert engineer testified it was a roadway hatch pattern. The ALJ relied on the expert's interpretation over the homeowner's assumption.

Alj Quote

Dr. Barlow testified that Petitioner’s belief that double lines in the red box on the plans are supposed to be a designated culvert, is erroneous, as those lines are part of the roadway designation.

Legal Basis

Expert Testimony

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Expert Witnesses
  • Dispute Resolution

Question

Is a single incident of failure enough to prove the HOA isn't maintaining common areas?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if the incident was caused by exceptional circumstances.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the petition was based on a single storm event in July 2021 described as 'exceptional and unusually severe,' and there were no other complaints. This isolated incident was insufficient to prove a failure to maintain.

Alj Quote

Ms. Seekins testified (and Petitioner agreed) that the Petition was filed due to an occurrence from a single storm in July 2021, and that there have been no other complaints to the Board regarding the culverts.

Legal Basis

Factual Finding

Topic Tags

  • Maintenance
  • Enforcement
  • Violations

Case

Docket No

25F-H021-REL

Case Title

Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

Decision Date

2025-02-20

Alj Name

Sondra J. Vanella

Tribunal

Office of Administrative Hearings

Agency

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the CC&Rs during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner to prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The HOA does not have to prove they are innocent unless they are establishing an affirmative defense.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Procedure

Question

Is the HOA responsible for flooding damage caused by an unusually severe storm?

Short Answer

Generally no, if the drainage system was properly maintained and the flooding was due to the severity of the storm and property location.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA maintains its drainage system according to the approved design plans, it is not necessarily liable for flooding caused by extreme weather events (like a 100-year storm) that exceed the system's design capacity, especially if the home is located in a known flood zone.

Alj Quote

Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.

Legal Basis

Factual Finding / Liability Standards

Topic Tags

  • Flooding
  • Maintenance
  • Liability

Question

Does the HOA have to upgrade old infrastructure to meet modern standards?

Short Answer

The decision implies no, as long as the system is maintained according to the originally approved plans.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA met its obligations by maintaining the system in accordance with the plans approved at the time of construction (late 1980s), which were designed for a '50-year storm,' even if modern severe storms exceed that capacity.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Maintenance
  • Infrastructure
  • Grandfathering

Question

How much evidence is needed to win a case against the HOA?

Short Answer

A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must provide evidence that has 'superior evidentiary weight' and is more convincing than the HOA's evidence. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence presented.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Legal Standards

Question

Can I rely on my own interpretation of engineering plans to prove a violation?

Short Answer

Likely not, if the HOA presents conflicting expert testimony.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner believed a marking on the plan was a missing culvert, but the HOA's expert engineer testified it was a roadway hatch pattern. The ALJ relied on the expert's interpretation over the homeowner's assumption.

Alj Quote

Dr. Barlow testified that Petitioner’s belief that double lines in the red box on the plans are supposed to be a designated culvert, is erroneous, as those lines are part of the roadway designation.

Legal Basis

Expert Testimony

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Expert Witnesses
  • Dispute Resolution

Question

Is a single incident of failure enough to prove the HOA isn't maintaining common areas?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if the incident was caused by exceptional circumstances.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the petition was based on a single storm event in July 2021 described as 'exceptional and unusually severe,' and there were no other complaints. This isolated incident was insufficient to prove a failure to maintain.

Alj Quote

Ms. Seekins testified (and Petitioner agreed) that the Petition was filed due to an occurrence from a single storm in July 2021, and that there have been no other complaints to the Board regarding the culverts.

Legal Basis

Factual Finding

Topic Tags

  • Maintenance
  • Enforcement
  • Violations

Case

Docket No

25F-H021-REL

Case Title

Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

Decision Date

2025-02-20

Alj Name

Sondra J. Vanella

Tribunal

Office of Administrative Hearings

Agency

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Kenneth M. Halal v. Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H045-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-06-26
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kenneth M. Halal Counsel —
Respondent Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel Alexandra M. Kurtyka

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1803, 33-1804; Bylaws Article 2.3, 5.2

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's request was dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the restriction of access to the Townsquare forum was a unilateral decision made by Townsquare, a separate legal entity. The cited statutes and Bylaws regarding due process for violations of Project Documents were found inapplicable because Townsquare and its Terms of Use are not governed by the HOA’s Project Documents.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, and the cited statutes and bylaw provisions were found inapplicable since the Townsquare platform is not owned or managed by the HOA, and the restriction was imposed solely by Townsquare based on its Terms of Use, which are not HOA Project Documents.

Key Issues & Findings

Due process violation regarding removal from HOA website forum (Townsquare Forum)

Petitioner alleged violation of A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 33-1804, and Bylaws 2.3 and 5.2, arguing the HOA failed to provide due process when restricting his access to the Townsquare online forum. The ALJ found the cited provisions inapplicable as the restriction was imposed solely by Townsquare, a third-party entity whose Terms of Use are not Project Documents.

Orders: Petition dismissed because Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the cited statutes or Bylaws.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • Bylaws Article 2.3
  • Bylaws Section 5.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Due Process, Online Forum, Townsquare, Third-Party Vendor, Project Documents
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • Bylaws Article 2.3
  • Bylaws Section 5.2
  • CC&Rs Article 1 Section 1.36
  • Townsquare Terms of Use

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1183806.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:08:33 (61.3 KB)

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1186944.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:08:40 (45.9 KB)

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1193702.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:08:55 (171.0 KB)

Questions

Question

Can my HOA be held responsible if a third-party vendor (like a website or app) bans me from their platform?

Short Answer

No, not if the vendor is a separate legal entity that makes its own decisions regarding its Terms of Use.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that if a platform is a separate legal entity and the HOA has no control over its Terms of Use or decisions, the HOA is not responsible for the vendor's unilateral decision to restrict a user.

Alj Quote

Townsquare is a separate and distinct legal entity from Respondent and Respondent has no control over Townsquare, its Terms of Use, or its decisions.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • HOA obligations
  • third-party vendors
  • liability

Question

Are the 'Terms of Use' for a community website considered official HOA 'Project Documents'?

Short Answer

No, third-party Terms of Use are not considered Project Documents.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarified that terms set by a third-party vendor do not fall under the legal definition of Project Documents (like CC&Rs or Bylaws), meaning a violation of them is not a violation of HOA rules.

Alj Quote

Townsquare’s Terms of Use is not a Project Document as that term is defined in the CC&Rs Article 1, Section 1.36.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #18

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • definitions
  • online platforms

Question

Does the HOA have to provide notice and a hearing before I am restricted from an online forum?

Short Answer

Not if the restriction is by a third party and no fine is levied by the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The due process requirements (notice and hearing) found in HOA bylaws typically apply when the Board alleges a violation of Project Documents or levies a fine. They do not apply when a third party restricts access based on their own rules.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge finds that this section is inapplicable to this matter as the Board has not levied a fine against Petitioner, nor has the Board alleged a violation of the Project Documents by Petitioner.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #18

Topic Tags

  • due process
  • hearings
  • fines

Question

What specifically counts as a 'Project Document' in an Arizona HOA?

Short Answer

The Declaration, Articles, Bylaws, Association Rules, and Architectural Committee Rules.

Detailed Answer

The decision cites the specific definition from the CC&Rs, limiting Project Documents to the formal governing instruments of the association.

Alj Quote

Project Document means this Replacement Declaration, the Articles, the Bylaws, the Association Rules and the Architectural Committee Rules.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #4

Topic Tags

  • definitions
  • governing documents

Question

Does the HOA Board need to vote in an open meeting to ban a resident from a third-party app?

Short Answer

No, if the decision is made unilaterally by the app provider.

Detailed Answer

If the third-party entity makes the sole determination to restrict a user based on a violation of their Terms of Use, the HOA Board is not taking an action that requires a vote or meeting.

Alj Quote

In this case, Townsquare, a separate legal entity not affiliated with Respondent, made the unilateral decision to restrict Petitioner’s use of the platform based upon its sole decision that Petitioner violated its Terms of Use.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #6

Topic Tags

  • open meetings
  • board voting
  • procedural requirements

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a complaint against their HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their claims are more probably true than not. This is the standard evidentiary weight required in these administrative hearings.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #2

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof

Question

Does a platform's 'Terms of Use' override the lack of HOA policy on social media?

Short Answer

Yes, the platform's rules apply independently of HOA documents.

Detailed Answer

Even if the HOA doesn't have a specific policy for the platform, the platform's own Terms of Use govern user behavior, and the platform is not governed by the HOA's documents.

Alj Quote

Townsquare is not governed by Respondent’s community documents and its Terms of Use are not Project Documents.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #6

Topic Tags

  • social media
  • rules enforcement
  • jurisdiction

Case

Docket No
24F-H045-REL
Case Title
Kenneth M. Halal v. Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2024-06-26
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA be held responsible if a third-party vendor (like a website or app) bans me from their platform?

Short Answer

No, not if the vendor is a separate legal entity that makes its own decisions regarding its Terms of Use.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that if a platform is a separate legal entity and the HOA has no control over its Terms of Use or decisions, the HOA is not responsible for the vendor's unilateral decision to restrict a user.

Alj Quote

Townsquare is a separate and distinct legal entity from Respondent and Respondent has no control over Townsquare, its Terms of Use, or its decisions.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • HOA obligations
  • third-party vendors
  • liability

Question

Are the 'Terms of Use' for a community website considered official HOA 'Project Documents'?

Short Answer

No, third-party Terms of Use are not considered Project Documents.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarified that terms set by a third-party vendor do not fall under the legal definition of Project Documents (like CC&Rs or Bylaws), meaning a violation of them is not a violation of HOA rules.

Alj Quote

Townsquare’s Terms of Use is not a Project Document as that term is defined in the CC&Rs Article 1, Section 1.36.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #18

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • definitions
  • online platforms

Question

Does the HOA have to provide notice and a hearing before I am restricted from an online forum?

Short Answer

Not if the restriction is by a third party and no fine is levied by the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The due process requirements (notice and hearing) found in HOA bylaws typically apply when the Board alleges a violation of Project Documents or levies a fine. They do not apply when a third party restricts access based on their own rules.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge finds that this section is inapplicable to this matter as the Board has not levied a fine against Petitioner, nor has the Board alleged a violation of the Project Documents by Petitioner.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #18

Topic Tags

  • due process
  • hearings
  • fines

Question

What specifically counts as a 'Project Document' in an Arizona HOA?

Short Answer

The Declaration, Articles, Bylaws, Association Rules, and Architectural Committee Rules.

Detailed Answer

The decision cites the specific definition from the CC&Rs, limiting Project Documents to the formal governing instruments of the association.

Alj Quote

Project Document means this Replacement Declaration, the Articles, the Bylaws, the Association Rules and the Architectural Committee Rules.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #4

Topic Tags

  • definitions
  • governing documents

Question

Does the HOA Board need to vote in an open meeting to ban a resident from a third-party app?

Short Answer

No, if the decision is made unilaterally by the app provider.

Detailed Answer

If the third-party entity makes the sole determination to restrict a user based on a violation of their Terms of Use, the HOA Board is not taking an action that requires a vote or meeting.

Alj Quote

In this case, Townsquare, a separate legal entity not affiliated with Respondent, made the unilateral decision to restrict Petitioner’s use of the platform based upon its sole decision that Petitioner violated its Terms of Use.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #6

Topic Tags

  • open meetings
  • board voting
  • procedural requirements

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a complaint against their HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their claims are more probably true than not. This is the standard evidentiary weight required in these administrative hearings.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #2

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof

Question

Does a platform's 'Terms of Use' override the lack of HOA policy on social media?

Short Answer

Yes, the platform's rules apply independently of HOA documents.

Detailed Answer

Even if the HOA doesn't have a specific policy for the platform, the platform's own Terms of Use govern user behavior, and the platform is not governed by the HOA's documents.

Alj Quote

Townsquare is not governed by Respondent’s community documents and its Terms of Use are not Project Documents.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #6

Topic Tags

  • social media
  • rules enforcement
  • jurisdiction

Case

Docket No
24F-H045-REL
Case Title
Kenneth M. Halal v. Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2024-06-26
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kenneth M. Halal (petitioner)
  • Margot Castro (witness)
  • Patricia Schell (witness)
    Also referred to as Patricia Shell

Respondent Side

  • Alexandra M. Kurtyka (HOA attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
  • Donald A. Morris (board member)
    Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association
    Testified as witness for Respondent; former President of the Board
  • Claudia Oberthier (witness)
    Spelled as 'O B E R T H I E R' during appearance; initially listed as 'Claudia Albert'
  • Salina Watson (property manager)
    Associa Arizona
    Subpoenaed by Petitioner

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on service list
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on service list
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on service list
  • mneat (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on service list
  • lrecchia (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on service list
  • gosborn (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on service list

Other Participants

  • Bryan Hughes (witness (subpoenaed))
    Subpoena quashed
  • Ken Humphrey (witness (subpoenaed))
    Subpoena quashed
  • Eli Boyd (witness (subpoenaed))
    Subpoena quashed
  • Dane Gilmore (witness (subpoenaed))
    Subpoena quashed

Robert P Fink & Brittany L Oleson v. Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H023-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-05-16
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert P. Fink & Brittany L. Oleson Counsel —
Respondent Casas Arroyo Association, Inc. Counsel David Onuschak, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article II Section 1(c)

Outcome Summary

Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R Article II Section 1(c). The cited provision was inapplicable because the security gate installation did not involve transferring common area to a public agency or increasing the density of residences (the clause was read conjunctively).

Why this result: CC&R Article II Section 1(c) was inapplicable because the sentence regarding improvements and density was written in the conjunctive using the word “and,” meaning the improvement must both be placed upon the common area AND increase the density of residences, neither of which applied to the security gate installation.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs regarding vote threshold for placing improvements on common area.

Petitioners alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article II Section 1(c) by approving the installation of a security gate on the common area using a two-thirds standard of those who voted (resulting in 27 affirmative votes, 69-72% approval rate) when they asserted three quarters (3/4 or 30 votes out of 39 eligible lots) of eligible votes was required for an improvement on the common area.

Orders: Petitioners’ Petition is dismissed; no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • CC&R Article II Section 1(c)
  • CC&R Article IV Section 2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1133251.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:24 (51.2 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1135497.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:25 (54.9 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1168799.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:26 (47.6 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1178674.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:29 (136.5 KB)

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the CC&Rs during a dispute hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner filing the petition to prove that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The standard of proof required is a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • procedural requirements
  • evidence

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

This legal standard requires that the evidence presented has superior weight and is convincing enough to incline a fair mind to one side of the issue over the other. It is not necessarily about having a greater number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence
  • definitions

Question

Can I interpret a specific sentence in the CC&Rs in isolation to prove a violation?

Short Answer

No, CC&R provisions must be interpreted within the context of the entire provision.

Detailed Answer

A homeowner cannot cherry-pick a specific clause or sentence to claim a violation. The Administrative Law Judge will look at the entire section to understand the intended scope and application of the restriction.

Alj Quote

One cannot read Section 1(c) of Article II without taking into consideration the context of the entire provision

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation Principles

Topic Tags

  • CC&R interpretation
  • legal standards
  • context

Question

How does the word 'and' affect the interpretation of restrictions in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

The word 'and' is conjunctive, meaning clauses it connects must be read together, not as separate independent choices.

Detailed Answer

If a CC&R provision lists restrictions connected by 'and' (e.g., no improvements AND no actions increasing density), it implies the conditions are linked. The ALJ distinguished this from the disjunctive 'or'. In this case, a restriction on improvements was linked to increasing density/transferring land because they were joined by 'and'.

Alj Quote

This sentence is written in the conjunctive. The word 'and' is used to connect the two clauses. It is not written in the disjunctive, as the word 'or' is not part of the sentence.

Legal Basis

Grammatical Interpretation of Contracts

Topic Tags

  • contract interpretation
  • grammar
  • legal standards

Question

Can the HOA use general assessment funds for safety improvements without a special homeowner vote?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant authority to use assessments for health, safety, and welfare.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs state that assessments are for promoting the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of residents, the Board may use general funds for improvements like security gates without a specific supermajority vote typically reserved for special assessments or land transfers.

Alj Quote

Article IV Section 2 of the 2006 recorded CC&Rs grant authority to Respondent to use the general assessment monies to 'promote the recreation, health, safety and welfare of the residents.'

Legal Basis

CC&R Article IV Section 2

Topic Tags

  • assessments
  • HOA powers
  • safety improvements

Question

Does a CC&R requirement for a 3/4 vote to 'transfer' common area apply to installing a gate?

Short Answer

No, installing a gate is not considered dedicating or transferring land.

Detailed Answer

A CC&R clause requiring a supermajority vote to dedicate or transfer common area to a public agency does not apply to the installation of a security gate, as the gate does not constitute a transfer of land ownership.

Alj Quote

The installation of a security gate does not dedicate or transfer all or any part of the common area to any public agency, authority or utility. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article II Section 1(c)

Topic Tags

  • voting requirements
  • common area
  • improvements

Question

Does a restriction on increasing the 'density of residences' apply to security improvements?

Short Answer

No, security improvements like gates do not increase residential density.

Detailed Answer

If a voting requirement in the CC&Rs is triggered by actions that 'increase the density of residences,' it does not apply to infrastructure improvements like security gates that have no effect on the number of homes or density.

Alj Quote

Further, the installation of a security gate is not an improvement that increases the density of the residences. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article II Section 1(c)

Topic Tags

  • density
  • improvements
  • voting requirements

Case

Docket No
24F-H023-REL
Case Title
Robert P. Fink & Brittany L. Oleson v. Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-05-16
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the CC&Rs during a dispute hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner filing the petition to prove that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The standard of proof required is a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • procedural requirements
  • evidence

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

This legal standard requires that the evidence presented has superior weight and is convincing enough to incline a fair mind to one side of the issue over the other. It is not necessarily about having a greater number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence
  • definitions

Question

Can I interpret a specific sentence in the CC&Rs in isolation to prove a violation?

Short Answer

No, CC&R provisions must be interpreted within the context of the entire provision.

Detailed Answer

A homeowner cannot cherry-pick a specific clause or sentence to claim a violation. The Administrative Law Judge will look at the entire section to understand the intended scope and application of the restriction.

Alj Quote

One cannot read Section 1(c) of Article II without taking into consideration the context of the entire provision

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation Principles

Topic Tags

  • CC&R interpretation
  • legal standards
  • context

Question

How does the word 'and' affect the interpretation of restrictions in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

The word 'and' is conjunctive, meaning clauses it connects must be read together, not as separate independent choices.

Detailed Answer

If a CC&R provision lists restrictions connected by 'and' (e.g., no improvements AND no actions increasing density), it implies the conditions are linked. The ALJ distinguished this from the disjunctive 'or'. In this case, a restriction on improvements was linked to increasing density/transferring land because they were joined by 'and'.

Alj Quote

This sentence is written in the conjunctive. The word 'and' is used to connect the two clauses. It is not written in the disjunctive, as the word 'or' is not part of the sentence.

Legal Basis

Grammatical Interpretation of Contracts

Topic Tags

  • contract interpretation
  • grammar
  • legal standards

Question

Can the HOA use general assessment funds for safety improvements without a special homeowner vote?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant authority to use assessments for health, safety, and welfare.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs state that assessments are for promoting the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of residents, the Board may use general funds for improvements like security gates without a specific supermajority vote typically reserved for special assessments or land transfers.

Alj Quote

Article IV Section 2 of the 2006 recorded CC&Rs grant authority to Respondent to use the general assessment monies to 'promote the recreation, health, safety and welfare of the residents.'

Legal Basis

CC&R Article IV Section 2

Topic Tags

  • assessments
  • HOA powers
  • safety improvements

Question

Does a CC&R requirement for a 3/4 vote to 'transfer' common area apply to installing a gate?

Short Answer

No, installing a gate is not considered dedicating or transferring land.

Detailed Answer

A CC&R clause requiring a supermajority vote to dedicate or transfer common area to a public agency does not apply to the installation of a security gate, as the gate does not constitute a transfer of land ownership.

Alj Quote

The installation of a security gate does not dedicate or transfer all or any part of the common area to any public agency, authority or utility. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article II Section 1(c)

Topic Tags

  • voting requirements
  • common area
  • improvements

Question

Does a restriction on increasing the 'density of residences' apply to security improvements?

Short Answer

No, security improvements like gates do not increase residential density.

Detailed Answer

If a voting requirement in the CC&Rs is triggered by actions that 'increase the density of residences,' it does not apply to infrastructure improvements like security gates that have no effect on the number of homes or density.

Alj Quote

Further, the installation of a security gate is not an improvement that increases the density of the residences. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article II Section 1(c)

Topic Tags

  • density
  • improvements
  • voting requirements

Case

Docket No
24F-H023-REL
Case Title
Robert P. Fink & Brittany L. Oleson v. Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-05-16
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert P. Fink (petitioner)
    Testified on own behalf
  • Brittany L. Oleson (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Brittany L. Olsen
  • Juanita Havill (witness)
    Former HOA board President, Vice President, and Treasurer

Respondent Side

  • David Onuschak (HOA attorney)
    Jones Skelton & Hochuli
  • Tom Hardesty (board president)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
  • Thomas Ryan (board member)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
    Current Treasurer
  • Eric Powell (board member)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
    Also referred to as Erik Powell; testified for Respondent; former President and Secretary
  • Jim Chepales (board member)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
  • Paula Miller (witness)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
    Board Secretary
  • Leslie Kramer (HOA attorney)
    Provided legal opinions to the HOA; Affidavit admitted as Exhibit 32
  • Edwin Gaines (HOA attorney)
    Provided legal opinion to the HOA; Declaration admitted as Exhibit 31
  • Michael Shupe (HOA attorney)
    Consulted by the Board regarding the petition
  • Kevin Wallace (former board member)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
    Former Vice President

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Rosalyn Buchas (Border Patrol Agent)
    US Customs and Border Protection
    Author of 2014 report referenced
  • Ben Cummings (Border Patrol Agent)
    US Customs and Border Protection
    Attended 2014 meeting

Other Participants

  • David Steedman (former board member)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
    Former Treasurer; present as an observer
  • Emily Masta (community member)
    Mentioned in board email communications
  • Jay Deforest (community member)
    Called 2014 Border Patrol meeting
  • Mark Stroberg (community member)
    Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting
  • Barbara Stoneberg (community member)
    Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting
  • Steven Sue Archbald (community member)
    Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting
  • Laura Brown (community member)
    Long-time resident referenced regarding historic gate removal
  • Archerald Brown (community member)
    Long-time resident referenced regarding historic gate removal

SAMEUL T. PAPARAZZO v. CORONADO RANCH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H011-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-22
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Samuel T. Paparazzo Counsel —
Respondent Coronado Ranch Community Association Counsel Ashley Turner

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to show the Respondent violated the open meeting statute (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)). The Board provided open meetings where the management contract discussions and votes occurred, including allowing the Petitioner and other homeowners to comment.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of the open meeting statute regarding entering into a contract with a new Community Association Management Company.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by canceling the existing community management contract and entering a contract with a new company (Haywood Realty & Investment, Inc.) without allowing open discussion, member comment, motion, and a vote regarding the change and the acquisition of Requests for Proposals (RFPs).

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meetings, Management Contract, Request for Proposals, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARS 33-1804(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H011-REL Decision – 1116173.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:52 (111.6 KB)





Study Guide – 24F-H011-REL



Select all sources