The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent, Citation Gardens Cooperative #1, does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, and therefore, the statute prohibiting the denial of solar panels (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1816, as the ALJ determined a cooperative's purposes and functions are separate and distinct from those of a planned community, excluding it from the planned community definition.
Key Issues & Findings
Denial of request to install solar panels
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1816(A) by prohibiting the installation of a solar energy device, arguing the Cooperative qualifies as a planned community. Respondent argued it was a Cooperative Corporation, not a planned community, and the statute did not apply.
Orders: No action is required of Respondent in this matter, and the petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1816
A.R.S. § 33-1802
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Solar Energy Device, Planned Community Definition, Cooperative Housing, Statutory Applicability, Burden of Proof
Does the Arizona law protecting a homeowner's right to install solar panels apply to housing cooperatives?
Short Answer
No. The ALJ ruled that housing cooperatives do not fit the legal definition of a 'planned community,' so the solar protection statute (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply to them.
Detailed Answer
In this case, a member of a cooperative sought to install solar panels, citing A.R.S. § 33-1816, which prevents planned communities from prohibiting solar devices. The judge determined that while the definition of a planned community does not explicitly list cooperatives as an exclusion, the nature and purpose of a cooperative are distinct enough that they do not fall under the planned community statutes. Therefore, the cooperative was not legally required to permit the installation.
Alj Quote
Although the definition of a planned community does not expressly exclude a cooperative, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community, as their purposes and functions are separate and distinct.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802; A.R.S. § 33-1816
Topic Tags
solar panels
cooperatives
planned community definition
Question
What happens if the HOA or respondent fails to attend the administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The hearing proceeds without them.
Detailed Answer
If the respondent (the HOA or Cooperative) has been properly notified of the hearing time and date but fails to appear or request a continuance, the Administrative Law Judge will conduct the hearing in their absence. The petitioner will still present their case, but the respondent loses the opportunity to defend themselves in person.
Alj Quote
Consequently, given that Respondent was properly noticed of the hearing, the hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence.
Legal Basis
Procedural Due Process
Topic Tags
hearing procedure
attendance
default
Question
Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
The petitioner (typically the homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The person bringing the complaint must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not up to the HOA to disprove the claims initially; the homeowner must affirmatively establish that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
Is a housing cooperative considered a 'planned community' under Arizona law?
Short Answer
No, a cooperative is legally distinct from a planned community.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarifies that a planned community generally involves real estate owned/operated by a nonprofit where owners are mandatory members. A cooperative, however, is formed to acquire, own, and operate a housing project where members hold shares. The judge ruled that these are separate legal concepts with different purposes, meaning statutes specific to 'planned communities' do not automatically apply to cooperatives.
Alj Quote
Respondent is a nonprofit corporation that was formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning and operating a cooperative housing project… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802
Topic Tags
definitions
cooperatives
planned community
Question
What is the standard of evidence required to win a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
To win, the evidence must show that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It means the evidence must incline a fair mind to one side even slightly more than the other.
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
Common Law / A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standards
Case
Docket No
23F-H026-REL
Case Title
Elizabeth Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1
Decision Date
2023-04-04
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Does the Arizona law protecting a homeowner's right to install solar panels apply to housing cooperatives?
Short Answer
No. The ALJ ruled that housing cooperatives do not fit the legal definition of a 'planned community,' so the solar protection statute (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply to them.
Detailed Answer
In this case, a member of a cooperative sought to install solar panels, citing A.R.S. § 33-1816, which prevents planned communities from prohibiting solar devices. The judge determined that while the definition of a planned community does not explicitly list cooperatives as an exclusion, the nature and purpose of a cooperative are distinct enough that they do not fall under the planned community statutes. Therefore, the cooperative was not legally required to permit the installation.
Alj Quote
Although the definition of a planned community does not expressly exclude a cooperative, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community, as their purposes and functions are separate and distinct.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802; A.R.S. § 33-1816
Topic Tags
solar panels
cooperatives
planned community definition
Question
What happens if the HOA or respondent fails to attend the administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The hearing proceeds without them.
Detailed Answer
If the respondent (the HOA or Cooperative) has been properly notified of the hearing time and date but fails to appear or request a continuance, the Administrative Law Judge will conduct the hearing in their absence. The petitioner will still present their case, but the respondent loses the opportunity to defend themselves in person.
Alj Quote
Consequently, given that Respondent was properly noticed of the hearing, the hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence.
Legal Basis
Procedural Due Process
Topic Tags
hearing procedure
attendance
default
Question
Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
The petitioner (typically the homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The person bringing the complaint must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not up to the HOA to disprove the claims initially; the homeowner must affirmatively establish that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
Is a housing cooperative considered a 'planned community' under Arizona law?
Short Answer
No, a cooperative is legally distinct from a planned community.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarifies that a planned community generally involves real estate owned/operated by a nonprofit where owners are mandatory members. A cooperative, however, is formed to acquire, own, and operate a housing project where members hold shares. The judge ruled that these are separate legal concepts with different purposes, meaning statutes specific to 'planned communities' do not automatically apply to cooperatives.
Alj Quote
Respondent is a nonprofit corporation that was formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning and operating a cooperative housing project… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802
Topic Tags
definitions
cooperatives
planned community
Question
What is the standard of evidence required to win a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
To win, the evidence must show that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It means the evidence must incline a fair mind to one side even slightly more than the other.
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
Common Law / A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standards
Case
Docket No
23F-H026-REL
Case Title
Elizabeth Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1
Decision Date
2023-04-04
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Elizabeth Flint(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf and testified.
Respondent Side
Andrew Vizcarra(respondent representative) Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management Services, L.L.C. Did not appear at the hearing; also referenced verbally as 'Andrew Biscara'.
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Other Participants
James Knupp(Acting Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed on the service list for the Order Setting Hearing dated Feb 2, 2023.
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed on the service list for the Decision dated April 4, 2023.
AHansen(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case documents via email address.
vnunez(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case documents via email address.
djones(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case documents via email address.
labril(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case documents via email address.
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) Bylaws, Article IV, Sections 1 and 2 A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on Petition Issues 1 and 3, establishing violations of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) and A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Respondent was deemed the prevailing party on Issue 2. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $1,000.00 of the filing fee and directed to comply with the violated statutes going forward. No Civil Penalty was imposed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the violation related to the appointed board positions (Issue 2) by a preponderance of the evidence.
Key Issues & Findings
The ballot for the annual election of Board members did not have the proper resident identifiers, lot number or physical address; and the process for write-in candidates was not provided or outlined.
The ballots utilized by Respondent did not contain the address of the person voting, violating the requirement that completed ballots shall contain the name, address, and signature of the person voting.
Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) going forward.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)
Bylaws, Article III, Section 3
At the Annual Meeting the Board President announced 2 new Board positions, but did not follow the electoral process for filling the 2 positions, instead appointed 2 residents to the new positions.
Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its Bylaws regarding the appointment of two board positions (RV Lot Manager and Architectural Review Manager), as the Board was within its limits to increase membership and fill vacancies until the next election.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Bylaws, Article IV, Section 1
Bylaws, Article IV, Section 2
The Board Secretary refused to comply to Petitioner's request, per ARS 33-1805(A), of supplying copies of HOA records, either electronically or by purchase of hard copies.
Petitioner requested copies in writing and offered to pay, but Respondent refused to provide copies, contrary to the statutory obligation that the association must provide copies of requested records upon request for purchase within ten business days.
Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) going forward.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Bylaws, Article VII, Section 3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Election, Ballot Requirements, HOA Records Request, Board Appointments, Filing Fee Refund
Must HOA election ballots include the voter's address?
Short Answer
Yes, unless the community documents explicitly permit secret ballots.
Detailed Answer
According to Arizona law, completed ballots must contain the name, address, and signature of the voter. The only exception is if community documents allow for secret ballots, in which case this information must be on the envelope.
Alj Quote
The ballots utilized by Respondent did not contain the address of the person voting. Therefore, Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6).
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)
Topic Tags
Elections
Ballots
Voting
Question
Can an HOA refuse to provide copies of records and force me to view them in person instead?
Short Answer
No. If a member requests to purchase copies, the HOA must provide them.
Detailed Answer
While an HOA can make records available for viewing, if a homeowner explicitly requests to purchase copies, the HOA is statutorily obligated to provide those copies within ten business days. Simply offering a viewing does not satisfy a request for copies.
Alj Quote
Respondent refused to provide copies of the requested documents and would only allow Petitioner to view the documents, contrary to its statutory obligation. … Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
Records Request
Transparency
HOA Obligations
Question
Can the HOA Board appoint people to fill vacancies or new positions without holding an election?
Short Answer
Yes, if the bylaws permit the Board to fill vacancies until the next election.
Detailed Answer
If the community bylaws allow the Board to increase its membership within certain limits and fill vacancies, the Board can appoint members to these positions. These appointees generally serve until the next scheduled election.
Alj Quote
The credible evidence of record established that Respondent appropriately appointed these positions and that the positions will appear on the ballot of the next election.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Article IV, Section 1
Topic Tags
Board Vacancies
Appointments
Bylaws
Question
Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner filing the petition is responsible for providing sufficient evidence to prove that the HOA violated statutes or community documents. The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Burden of Proof
Hearing Procedures
Question
How much can an HOA charge for copies of records?
Short Answer
The HOA may charge a fee of no more than 15 cents per page.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute limits the fee an association can charge for making copies of records requested by a member to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
Records Request
Fees
HOA Obligations
Question
If I win my case, will the HOA have to pay a civil penalty?
Short Answer
Not necessarily; civil penalties are discretionary.
Detailed Answer
Even if the HOA is found to have violated the law, the Administrative Law Judge is not required to impose a civil penalty. In this case, despite finding violations regarding ballots and records, the judge decided no penalty was appropriate.
Alj Quote
No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.
Legal Basis
Discretionary
Topic Tags
Penalties
Enforcement
Civil Penalty
Question
Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if the ALJ rules in my favor?
Short Answer
Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the homeowner prevails on the issues presented in the petition, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the filing fee back to the Petitioner.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner the filing fee of $1,000.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
Remedies
Filing Fees
Reimbursement
Case
Docket No
23F-H027-REL
Case Title
Kimberly Martinez v. Pineglen Owner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-09
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Must HOA election ballots include the voter's address?
Short Answer
Yes, unless the community documents explicitly permit secret ballots.
Detailed Answer
According to Arizona law, completed ballots must contain the name, address, and signature of the voter. The only exception is if community documents allow for secret ballots, in which case this information must be on the envelope.
Alj Quote
The ballots utilized by Respondent did not contain the address of the person voting. Therefore, Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6).
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)
Topic Tags
Elections
Ballots
Voting
Question
Can an HOA refuse to provide copies of records and force me to view them in person instead?
Short Answer
No. If a member requests to purchase copies, the HOA must provide them.
Detailed Answer
While an HOA can make records available for viewing, if a homeowner explicitly requests to purchase copies, the HOA is statutorily obligated to provide those copies within ten business days. Simply offering a viewing does not satisfy a request for copies.
Alj Quote
Respondent refused to provide copies of the requested documents and would only allow Petitioner to view the documents, contrary to its statutory obligation. … Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
Records Request
Transparency
HOA Obligations
Question
Can the HOA Board appoint people to fill vacancies or new positions without holding an election?
Short Answer
Yes, if the bylaws permit the Board to fill vacancies until the next election.
Detailed Answer
If the community bylaws allow the Board to increase its membership within certain limits and fill vacancies, the Board can appoint members to these positions. These appointees generally serve until the next scheduled election.
Alj Quote
The credible evidence of record established that Respondent appropriately appointed these positions and that the positions will appear on the ballot of the next election.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Article IV, Section 1
Topic Tags
Board Vacancies
Appointments
Bylaws
Question
Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner filing the petition is responsible for providing sufficient evidence to prove that the HOA violated statutes or community documents. The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Burden of Proof
Hearing Procedures
Question
How much can an HOA charge for copies of records?
Short Answer
The HOA may charge a fee of no more than 15 cents per page.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute limits the fee an association can charge for making copies of records requested by a member to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
Records Request
Fees
HOA Obligations
Question
If I win my case, will the HOA have to pay a civil penalty?
Short Answer
Not necessarily; civil penalties are discretionary.
Detailed Answer
Even if the HOA is found to have violated the law, the Administrative Law Judge is not required to impose a civil penalty. In this case, despite finding violations regarding ballots and records, the judge decided no penalty was appropriate.
Alj Quote
No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.
Legal Basis
Discretionary
Topic Tags
Penalties
Enforcement
Civil Penalty
Question
Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if the ALJ rules in my favor?
Short Answer
Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the homeowner prevails on the issues presented in the petition, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the filing fee back to the Petitioner.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner the filing fee of $1,000.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
Remedies
Filing Fees
Reimbursement
Case
Docket No
23F-H027-REL
Case Title
Kimberly Martinez v. Pineglen Owner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-09
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Kimberly Martinez(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
Christine McCabe(assistant/observer) Friend assisting Petitioner due to hearing deficit
Respondent Side
Susan Goeldner(HOA secretary/board member/representative) Pineglen Owner's Association Testified and acted as primary representative for Respondent
Warren Doty(HOA VP/board member/representative/witness) Pineglen Owner's Association Testified on Complaint Number 1
Tim Mahoney(HOA treasurer/board member/witness) Pineglen Owner's Association Observed proceedings; testified briefly on Complaint Number 3
Mark McElvain(former HOA president/observer) Pineglen Owner's Association Observed proceedings
Fred Bates(former board member/observer) Pineglen Owner's Association Observed proceedings
Addie Bassoon(HOA president) Pineglen Owner's Association Did not attend hearing due to personal issues; referenced in testimony/documents
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE Recipient of initial correspondence/minute entries
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) ADRE Recipient of final decision copies
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)
labril(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)
CC&Rs Section 4.3 Storage, Section 4.17 Motor Vehicles, Community Guidelines 2007
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association violated its governing documents regarding the storage of a truck camper.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner's 'truck camper' falls within the scope of prohibited items, specifically as 'other similar equipment' under the CC&Rs and rules, making her argument one of semantics.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the HOA violated its governing documents by issuing a fine for parking a mounted truck camper, based on the Petitioner's claimed 'legal loophole'.
Petitioner claimed a 'legal loophole' existed because the governing documents prohibited 'unmounted pickup camper units' or 'detached campers,' but not her currently mounted/attached truck camper. The ALJ found the truck camper was unequivocally prohibited as 'other similar equipment' under the CC&Rs and Rules, dismissing the petition.
Orders: Petition dismissed. No action is required of Respondent in this matter.
This legal transcript and subsequent judicial decision detail a dispute between homeowner Shawna Townsend and the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association regarding a fine for storing a truck camper in public view. Townsend argued that her equipment fell into a legal loophole because the association’s rules specifically prohibited “unmounted” or “detached” campers, while hers remained attached to her vehicle. In contrast, the Homeowners Association maintained that the camper violated multiple regulations prohibiting the storage of recreational type vehicles and similar equipment in driveways. During the administrative hearing, testimony was provided regarding the enforcement consistency of the community’s governing documents and the specific definitions of recreational vehicles under Arizona law. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, determining that the truck camper was clearly prohibited as “similar equipment” regardless of its attachment status. The petition was dismissed, confirming that the association acted within its authority when issuing the violation notices and fines.
What are the core legal arguments regarding the truck camper loophole?
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the association’s enforcement?
How do North Canyon Ranch guidelines define recreational vehicles and storage?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:12 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 23F-H018-REL
Select all sources
1027023.aac
1031834.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
23F-H018-REL
2 sources
This legal transcript and subsequent judicial decision detail a dispute between homeowner Shawna Townsend and the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association regarding a fine for storing a truck camper in public view. Townsend argued that her equipment fell into a legal loophole because the association’s rules specifically prohibited “unmounted” or “detached” campers, while hers remained attached to her vehicle. In contrast, the Homeowners Association maintained that the camper violated multiple regulations prohibiting the storage of recreational type vehicles and similar equipment in driveways. During the administrative hearing, testimony was provided regarding the enforcement consistency of the community’s governing documents and the specific definitions of recreational vehicles under Arizona law. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, determining that the truck camper was clearly prohibited as “similar equipment” regardless of its attachment status. The petition was dismissed, confirming that the association acted within its authority when issuing the violation notices and fines.
What are the core legal arguments regarding the truck camper loophole?
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the association’s enforcement?
How do North Canyon Ranch guidelines define recreational vehicles and storage?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:12 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Shawna Townsend(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf; also referred to as Shauna Townsen or Miss Townsen
Michael Townsen(co-owner) Co-owner and recipient of violation notices with Petitioner
Respondent Side
Haidyn DiLorenzo(HOA attorney) Represented Respondent North Canyon Ranch Owners Association
Justin DeLuca(HOA attorney) Represented Respondent North Canyon Ranch Owners Association
Josey Perkins(community manager/witness) North Canyon Ranch Owners Association Community Manager for the association, testified as a witness (also referred to as Joy Perkins)
Riner(board member) North Canyon Ranch Owners Association Board of Directors Made motion to deny petitioner's appeal
Robera Holler(board member) North Canyon Ranch Owners Association Board of Directors Seconded motion to deny petitioner's appeal
Petra Paul(Executive VP of Management Services) Management Services Vice President of management services, communicated with Petitioner about the appeal
Beth Mulcahy(HOA attorney) Mulcahy Law Firm, PC Listed as contact for transmission of the decision
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge (also referred to as Sandra Vanella)
James Knupp(Acting Commissioner, ADRE) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of the decision
Articles of Incorporation Article 8, Covenants, Limitations & Restrictions Article 19 Sec. A, Covenants, Limitations & Restrictions Article 19 Sec. B
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent HOA's Articles of Incorporation had been previously amended to be perpetual (1994, 1999) and that the CLRs automatically renew for an additional 25 years without requiring a homeowner vote, provided no modifications or changes are made.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that Respondent violated the Articles of Incorporation or the CLRs, as the evidence showed the corporation's existence was perpetual and the CLRs' automatic renewal was permissible without a vote.
Key Issues & Findings
Expiration of HOA Charter and unlawful extension of CLRs by Board resolution without member vote
Petitioner alleged the HOA's charter and CLRs expired after 50 years (2022) and that the Board unlawfully extended the CLRs for 25 years via a resolution (Resolution/Memorandum of September 27, 2022) without the required vote of the co-owners. The ALJ found that the Articles of Incorporation were perpetually extended by amendments in 1994 and 1999, and the CLRs automatically renewed without a vote because no modifications were made.
Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Articles of Incorporation (1972)
Articles of Amendment (1994)
Articles of Amendment (1999)
CLRs Unit One (1972)
Resolution 092722 (Sept 27, 2022)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Charter Expiration, CLRs Renewal, Perpetual Existence, Amendment Vote, HOA Board Authority, Arizona Real Estate Statute
If the CC&Rs (or CLRs) include an automatic renewal clause, does the HOA board require a homeowner vote to extend them?
Short Answer
No. If the documents allow for automatic renewal and no other changes are made, a vote is not required because renewal is not considered a modification.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that if the governing documents provide for automatic renewal for specific periods (e.g., 25 years), the simple act of renewing does not constitute a 'change' or 'modification' that would trigger a voting requirement. A vote is generally only required if the text of the documents is actually being altered.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any changes or modifications were made to the CLRs, and the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the automatic renewal of the CLRs does not constitute a modification/change that required a vote of the homeowners.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
CC&R Renewal
Voting Rights
Governing Documents
Question
Who bears the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the person filing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not initially have to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the HOA committed the violation.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 2; A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
Legal Procedure
Burden of Proof
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
It means the claim is 'more probably true than not.'
Detailed Answer
The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal court). Instead, it is based on the greater weight of the evidence, which must be sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side rather than the other.
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
Conclusion of Law 3
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
Can an HOA amend its Articles of Incorporation to exist perpetually if they originally had an expiration date?
Short Answer
Yes, an HOA can amend its Articles to extend its duration to be perpetual.
Detailed Answer
The decision upheld the validity of previous amendments where the HOA changed its corporate duration from a fixed term (e.g., 25 years) to 'perpetual.'
Alj Quote
Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation, Section VIII, on November 18, 1994, and again on January 15, 1999, which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 10-12; Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
Corporate Charter
Amendments
Articles of Incorporation
Question
Where can an Arizona homeowner file a dispute regarding violations of community documents?
Short Answer
A petition can be filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).
Detailed Answer
Arizona law allows homeowners or associations to file a petition with the Department regarding violations of the documents or statutes regulating planned communities. These are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Alj Quote
Arizona statute permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents or violations of statutes that regulate planned communities.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 1; A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
Dispute Resolution
ADRE
Jurisdiction
Question
Does a lack of knowledge about old amendments invalidate them?
Short Answer
No. Even if a current homeowner was unaware of amendments filed decades ago, they are still binding if properly recorded.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the petitioner was unaware of amendments from 1994 and 1999 until the hearing, but the ALJ still relied on those documents to determine that the corporation had not expired.
Alj Quote
Petitioner was not aware of the 1994 and 1999 amendments to the Articles of Incorporation until hearing… The credible and probative evidence of record established that Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation… which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 13; Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
Record Keeping
Constructive Notice
Amendments
Case
Docket No
23F-H019-REL
Case Title
Pamela McKinney v. Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-01-31
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If the CC&Rs (or CLRs) include an automatic renewal clause, does the HOA board require a homeowner vote to extend them?
Short Answer
No. If the documents allow for automatic renewal and no other changes are made, a vote is not required because renewal is not considered a modification.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that if the governing documents provide for automatic renewal for specific periods (e.g., 25 years), the simple act of renewing does not constitute a 'change' or 'modification' that would trigger a voting requirement. A vote is generally only required if the text of the documents is actually being altered.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any changes or modifications were made to the CLRs, and the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the automatic renewal of the CLRs does not constitute a modification/change that required a vote of the homeowners.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
CC&R Renewal
Voting Rights
Governing Documents
Question
Who bears the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the person filing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not initially have to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the HOA committed the violation.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 2; A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
Legal Procedure
Burden of Proof
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
It means the claim is 'more probably true than not.'
Detailed Answer
The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal court). Instead, it is based on the greater weight of the evidence, which must be sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side rather than the other.
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
Conclusion of Law 3
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
Can an HOA amend its Articles of Incorporation to exist perpetually if they originally had an expiration date?
Short Answer
Yes, an HOA can amend its Articles to extend its duration to be perpetual.
Detailed Answer
The decision upheld the validity of previous amendments where the HOA changed its corporate duration from a fixed term (e.g., 25 years) to 'perpetual.'
Alj Quote
Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation, Section VIII, on November 18, 1994, and again on January 15, 1999, which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 10-12; Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
Corporate Charter
Amendments
Articles of Incorporation
Question
Where can an Arizona homeowner file a dispute regarding violations of community documents?
Short Answer
A petition can be filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).
Detailed Answer
Arizona law allows homeowners or associations to file a petition with the Department regarding violations of the documents or statutes regulating planned communities. These are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Alj Quote
Arizona statute permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents or violations of statutes that regulate planned communities.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 1; A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
Dispute Resolution
ADRE
Jurisdiction
Question
Does a lack of knowledge about old amendments invalidate them?
Short Answer
No. Even if a current homeowner was unaware of amendments filed decades ago, they are still binding if properly recorded.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the petitioner was unaware of amendments from 1994 and 1999 until the hearing, but the ALJ still relied on those documents to determine that the corporation had not expired.
Alj Quote
Petitioner was not aware of the 1994 and 1999 amendments to the Articles of Incorporation until hearing… The credible and probative evidence of record established that Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation… which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 13; Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
Record Keeping
Constructive Notice
Amendments
Case
Docket No
23F-H019-REL
Case Title
Pamela McKinney v. Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-01-31
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Pamela McKinney(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
Respondent Side
Alan A. Meda(HOA attorney) Burch & Cracchiolo Represented Respondent Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Sharon Grossi(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association President of the Board; testified as a witness for Respondent
Rebecca Bankov(property manager) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Also referred to as Rebecca fan
Amy Wood(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Secretary on the board
Thomas Noble(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Former President of the Board (mentioned in communication)
Stan Andrews(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Mentioned by Petitioner as a board member
Ray Rose(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Recently resigned from the board
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge
Jean Newman(CPA) Independent auditor who prepared financial report
Other Participants
Dennis Hope(Fire Chief) Northern Arizona Fire District External party cited in board communications regarding water shutoff threats
High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Counsel
Jason Smith, Esq.
Alleged Violations
HLR CCR 6.2.1 and HLR Association Rules: Nominating and Election Committee Mission and Procedures (approved 19 July 2021)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge upheld the Petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures by refusing to count otherwise valid couriered ballots and subsequent in-person attempts to vote at the July 5, 2022 Special Election. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $500 filing fee refund, and the HOA was assessed a $500 civil penalty.
Key Issues & Findings
Denial of the right to vote in Removal/Recall Special Election
Petitioners alleged they were denied the right to vote in the July 5, 2022 Removal/Recall Special Election after their initial ballots (couriered prior to the meeting) were rejected for lacking a postmark, and their subsequent attempts to cast new ballots in person were rejected for reasons including 'double voting' or being 'too late.' The ALJ found the HOA violated its established election procedures.
Orders: The Petition was upheld, and Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioners their $500.00 filing fee and pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department.
Can my HOA refuse to count a ballot simply because it was delivered by a courier or neighbor rather than mailed?
Short Answer
No. If the HOA's procedures do not explicitly forbid couriers and it has been past practice, they cannot reject ballots solely for lacking a postmark.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated its procedures by rejecting ballots placed in the ballot box prior to the election (via courier) simply because they lacked postmarks. The judge noted that the custodian of the box did not believe it was a problem and there was no reason for homeowners to believe they couldn't do so.
Alj Quote
Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to count Petitioners’ and other homeowners’ ballots that had been placed in the ballot box prior to the election… There was also no reason for Petitioners or the other homeowners to believe that they could not place their ballots in the ballot box prior to the election and have those ballots counted.
Legal Basis
Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
ballots
couriers
voting rights
Question
What are valid reasons for an HOA to consider a ballot ineligible or spoiled?
Short Answer
Valid reasons typically include incorrect vote counts, unconfirmed ownership, illegibility, unsigned envelopes, or lack of good standing.
Detailed Answer
The decision outlines specific criteria for invalidating ballots found in the HOA's procedures. Arbitrary reasons not listed in the governing documents (like lack of a postmark when not required) are not valid grounds for rejection.
Alj Quote
Reasons a ballot may not be valid include incorrect number of votes, lot ownership cannot be confirmed, ballot is illegible, ballot envelope is not signed, or a member is not in good standing.
Legal Basis
Association Election Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
ballot validity
rules
Question
Is the HOA obligated to try to count votes rather than looking for reasons to disqualify them?
Short Answer
Yes. If the election procedures state that every effort will be made to count votes to ensure fairness, the HOA must adhere to that standard.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ cited the HOA's own mission statement which promised to make every effort to count votes. Rejecting ballots for minor procedural issues (like lacking a postmark) when the voters are present and eligible violates this obligation.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures state that 'every effort will be made to count as many votes as possible assuring a fair, open and honest election.' This was not the case at the July 5, 2022 Special Election.
Legal Basis
Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
fairness
HOA obligations
Question
If my mailed ballot is rejected, can the HOA prevent me from voting in person at the meeting?
Short Answer
No. If you are present at the meeting and your absentee ballot is rejected, the HOA should allow you to cast a replacement ballot.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found a violation when the HOA refused to accept in-person ballots from homeowners whose courier ballots were rejected. The decision noted that these ballots were not ineligible for any valid reason (like lack of standing).
Alj Quote
Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to accept in-person ballots at the meeting, notwithstanding that those ballots could not be considered ineligible ballots.
Legal Basis
Voting Rights / Election Procedures
Topic Tags
in-person voting
ballot rejection
elections
Question
Can the HOA enforce a voting deadline strictly against some owners but not others?
Short Answer
No. It is a violation to tell some owners they are 'too late' while allowing others to vote after the deadline.
Detailed Answer
The decision noted that while the Petitioners were told voting was closed at 6:00 PM and they were 'too late,' another homeowner was allowed to place a ballot in the box at 6:15 PM.
Alj Quote
Homeowner Jeffrey Knox personally handed in his ballot at the meeting by placing it in the ballot box at approximately 6:15 p.m., notwithstanding that voting supposedly closed at 6:00 p.m.
Legal Basis
Fair Election Practices
Topic Tags
discrimination
deadlines
fairness
Question
What penalties can an HOA face if they are found to have violated election rules?
Short Answer
The HOA may be ordered to refund the homeowner's filing fee and pay a civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay $500 to the petitioners (reimbursement) and a $500 civil penalty to the state.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that… Respondent shall pay to the Department a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
penalties
fines
reimbursement
Question
What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Detailed Answer
The decision defines the evidentiary standard required for the petitioners to win their case.
Alj Quote
Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation(s) by a preponderance of the evidence… '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
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
hearing process
Case
Docket No
23F-H002-REL
Case Title
Eileen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2022-11-17
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA refuse to count a ballot simply because it was delivered by a courier or neighbor rather than mailed?
Short Answer
No. If the HOA's procedures do not explicitly forbid couriers and it has been past practice, they cannot reject ballots solely for lacking a postmark.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated its procedures by rejecting ballots placed in the ballot box prior to the election (via courier) simply because they lacked postmarks. The judge noted that the custodian of the box did not believe it was a problem and there was no reason for homeowners to believe they couldn't do so.
Alj Quote
Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to count Petitioners’ and other homeowners’ ballots that had been placed in the ballot box prior to the election… There was also no reason for Petitioners or the other homeowners to believe that they could not place their ballots in the ballot box prior to the election and have those ballots counted.
Legal Basis
Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
ballots
couriers
voting rights
Question
What are valid reasons for an HOA to consider a ballot ineligible or spoiled?
Short Answer
Valid reasons typically include incorrect vote counts, unconfirmed ownership, illegibility, unsigned envelopes, or lack of good standing.
Detailed Answer
The decision outlines specific criteria for invalidating ballots found in the HOA's procedures. Arbitrary reasons not listed in the governing documents (like lack of a postmark when not required) are not valid grounds for rejection.
Alj Quote
Reasons a ballot may not be valid include incorrect number of votes, lot ownership cannot be confirmed, ballot is illegible, ballot envelope is not signed, or a member is not in good standing.
Legal Basis
Association Election Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
ballot validity
rules
Question
Is the HOA obligated to try to count votes rather than looking for reasons to disqualify them?
Short Answer
Yes. If the election procedures state that every effort will be made to count votes to ensure fairness, the HOA must adhere to that standard.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ cited the HOA's own mission statement which promised to make every effort to count votes. Rejecting ballots for minor procedural issues (like lacking a postmark) when the voters are present and eligible violates this obligation.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures state that 'every effort will be made to count as many votes as possible assuring a fair, open and honest election.' This was not the case at the July 5, 2022 Special Election.
Legal Basis
Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
fairness
HOA obligations
Question
If my mailed ballot is rejected, can the HOA prevent me from voting in person at the meeting?
Short Answer
No. If you are present at the meeting and your absentee ballot is rejected, the HOA should allow you to cast a replacement ballot.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found a violation when the HOA refused to accept in-person ballots from homeowners whose courier ballots were rejected. The decision noted that these ballots were not ineligible for any valid reason (like lack of standing).
Alj Quote
Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to accept in-person ballots at the meeting, notwithstanding that those ballots could not be considered ineligible ballots.
Legal Basis
Voting Rights / Election Procedures
Topic Tags
in-person voting
ballot rejection
elections
Question
Can the HOA enforce a voting deadline strictly against some owners but not others?
Short Answer
No. It is a violation to tell some owners they are 'too late' while allowing others to vote after the deadline.
Detailed Answer
The decision noted that while the Petitioners were told voting was closed at 6:00 PM and they were 'too late,' another homeowner was allowed to place a ballot in the box at 6:15 PM.
Alj Quote
Homeowner Jeffrey Knox personally handed in his ballot at the meeting by placing it in the ballot box at approximately 6:15 p.m., notwithstanding that voting supposedly closed at 6:00 p.m.
Legal Basis
Fair Election Practices
Topic Tags
discrimination
deadlines
fairness
Question
What penalties can an HOA face if they are found to have violated election rules?
Short Answer
The HOA may be ordered to refund the homeowner's filing fee and pay a civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay $500 to the petitioners (reimbursement) and a $500 civil penalty to the state.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that… Respondent shall pay to the Department a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
penalties
fines
reimbursement
Question
What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Detailed Answer
The decision defines the evidentiary standard required for the petitioners to win their case.
Alj Quote
Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation(s) by a preponderance of the evidence… '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
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
hearing process
Case
Docket No
23F-H002-REL
Case Title
Eileen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2022-11-17
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Eileen Ahearn(petitioner)
Robert Barfield(petitioner)
Randy Kling(witness / former board member) Testified for Petitioners. Also referred to as Randy Clling/Clean.
Claire Peachey(witness / election committee member) Testified for Petitioners. Custodian of the ballot box.
Joyce Green(witness) Testified for Petitioners.
Jeffrey Knox(witness) Testified for Petitioners. Property owner who received rejected ballots.
Respondent Side
Jason Smith(HOA attorney) Smith & Wamsley PLLC
Nancy Sakarelli(board member) High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Board President; appeared virtually.
Corinthia Pangalinan(former board president / board member) High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Subject of recall petition; responded to original complaint.
Becky Hilgart(Election Committee Chair / board member) High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Subject of recall petition. Also referred to as Rebecca Kilgart/Gilgart/Elart.
Tommy Smith(Election Committee Volunteer / property owner) Involved in denying votes.
Wally Oliday(board member) High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Subject of recall petition.
Amanda Miller(board member) High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Subject of recall petition.
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) OAH staff transmitting documents.
c. serrano(Administrative Staff) Staff transmitting documents.
AHansen(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
vnunez(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
labril(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Edna Barton(observer) On the line during the hearing.
Jill Burns(observer) Present in the hearing room.
John Kron(observer) Present in the hearing room.
Stacy(board director) Director mentioned in meeting agenda.
Deborah Bonesac(property owner) Referenced in testimony regarding past courier procedures.
Billy McFarland(board member) Subject of previous recall election.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) because the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) had ceased holding regularly scheduled meetings since March 2022, thereby negating the statutory requirement that such committee meetings must be open to members.
Why this result: The ARC successfully argued that A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) only mandates open access for 'any regularly scheduled committee meetings.' Since they transitioned to using an online portal on an irregular schedule, they were no longer holding 'regularly scheduled meetings,' meaning the statute did not require them to be open.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure of Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to hold open meetings where members can comment prior to a vote.
Petitioner alleged the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was violating A.R.S. § 33-1804 (open meetings statute) by failing to hold open meetings, particularly after the ARC began processing requests using an online portal which allows for discussion and voting among members outside of noticed meetings. Historically, the ARC held regularly scheduled meetings on the first Tuesday of every month until March 2022. The ALJ ultimately ruled that since March 2022, the ARC was not holding 'regularly scheduled committee meetings' as defined by the statute.
Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Article 6.2 of the Bylaws
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
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Open Meeting Law, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Regularly Scheduled Meetings, Online Portal, Statutory Interpretation
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H008-REL”, “case_title”: “Amy Hilburn v. Stetson Valley Owners Association”, “decision_date”: “2022-11-17”, “alj_name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does my HOA’s architectural committee have to hold open meetings for every decision?”, “short_answer”: “No, only “regularly scheduled” committee meetings are required to be open to members.”, “detailed_answer”: “The law specifically mandates that meetings of the members, the board of directors, and ‘regularly scheduled’ committee meetings be open. If a committee does not maintain a regular schedule, the open meeting requirement may not apply.”, “alj_quote”: “Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Committees”, “Homeowner Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA committee conduct business through an online portal instead of meeting in person?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, utilizing an online portal to process requests is permitted and may result in the activity not being classified as a “regularly scheduled meeting.””, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that moving committee business to an online portal where members review and vote on their own time effectively meant they were not holding ‘regularly scheduled meetings,’ thus bypassing the open meeting requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Miglio testified that since August 2022, the ARC has not held regularly scheduled meetings because the ARC conducts its business through an online portal.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(e)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Digital Tools”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA committee required by law to hold regularly scheduled meetings?”, “short_answer”: “No, there is generally no statutory requirement that committees must hold regularly scheduled meetings.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision explicitly states that nothing in the cited statutes or bylaws required the Architectural Review Committee to adhere to a regular meeting schedule.”, “alj_quote”: “…nothing in the provisions cited by Petitioner require the ARC to hold regularly scheduled meetings.”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 6”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA Obligations”, “Committees”, “Scheduling” ] }, { “question”: “Do committee members have to discuss and vote on requests at the same time?”, “short_answer”: “No, committee members can review requests and vote asynchronously on their own time.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ accepted testimony that committee members could view requests and vote individually whenever they chose, rather than convening at a specific time.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Wilsey testified that there is no regularly scheduled time to look at the requests, comment, and/or vote.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(h)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Voting”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard means the homeowner must convince the judge that their claim is ‘more probably true than not.’ It refers to the convincing force of the evidence rather than the amount.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence… 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”: “Conclusion of Law 2-3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Standards”, “Burden of Proof”, “Dispute Process” ] }, { “question”: “Can committee members comment to each other online without it being an open meeting?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ability to comment via a portal does not necessarily create a “meeting” if done asynchronously.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision noted that members could comment to each other through the portal, but because there was no regularly scheduled time for this interaction, it did not trigger the open meeting statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Members of the ARC have the ability to comment to each other through the portal and vote on the requests through the portal.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(g)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Communication”, “Committees”, “Open Meetings” ] }, { “question”: “If an HOA committee previously held regular meetings, are they forced to continue doing so?”, “short_answer”: “No, past practices do not mandate future behavior if the committee changes its process.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the committee had a history of regular monthly meetings from 2011 to 2022, the ALJ ruled based on their current practice of using a portal, finding no violation because they were not currently meeting regularly.”, “alj_quote”: “The credible and probative evidence of record established that… prior to the ARC utilizing the online portal system, the ARC was holding regularly scheduled meetings. However, since March 2022, the ARC has not been holding regularly scheduled meetings…”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 6”, “topic_tags”: [ “Precedent”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 23F-H008-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H008-REL”, “case_title”: “Amy Hilburn v. Stetson Valley Owners Association”, “decision_date”: “2022-11-17”, “alj_name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does my HOA’s architectural committee have to hold open meetings for every decision?”, “short_answer”: “No, only “regularly scheduled” committee meetings are required to be open to members.”, “detailed_answer”: “The law specifically mandates that meetings of the members, the board of directors, and ‘regularly scheduled’ committee meetings be open. If a committee does not maintain a regular schedule, the open meeting requirement may not apply.”, “alj_quote”: “Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Committees”, “Homeowner Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA committee conduct business through an online portal instead of meeting in person?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, utilizing an online portal to process requests is permitted and may result in the activity not being classified as a “regularly scheduled meeting.””, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that moving committee business to an online portal where members review and vote on their own time effectively meant they were not holding ‘regularly scheduled meetings,’ thus bypassing the open meeting requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Miglio testified that since August 2022, the ARC has not held regularly scheduled meetings because the ARC conducts its business through an online portal.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(e)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Digital Tools”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA committee required by law to hold regularly scheduled meetings?”, “short_answer”: “No, there is generally no statutory requirement that committees must hold regularly scheduled meetings.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision explicitly states that nothing in the cited statutes or bylaws required the Architectural Review Committee to adhere to a regular meeting schedule.”, “alj_quote”: “…nothing in the provisions cited by Petitioner require the ARC to hold regularly scheduled meetings.”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 6”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA Obligations”, “Committees”, “Scheduling” ] }, { “question”: “Do committee members have to discuss and vote on requests at the same time?”, “short_answer”: “No, committee members can review requests and vote asynchronously on their own time.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ accepted testimony that committee members could view requests and vote individually whenever they chose, rather than convening at a specific time.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Wilsey testified that there is no regularly scheduled time to look at the requests, comment, and/or vote.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(h)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Voting”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard means the homeowner must convince the judge that their claim is ‘more probably true than not.’ It refers to the convincing force of the evidence rather than the amount.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence… 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”: “Conclusion of Law 2-3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Standards”, “Burden of Proof”, “Dispute Process” ] }, { “question”: “Can committee members comment to each other online without it being an open meeting?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ability to comment via a portal does not necessarily create a “meeting” if done asynchronously.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision noted that members could comment to each other through the portal, but because there was no regularly scheduled time for this interaction, it did not trigger the open meeting statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Members of the ARC have the ability to comment to each other through the portal and vote on the requests through the portal.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(g)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Communication”, “Committees”, “Open Meetings” ] }, { “question”: “If an HOA committee previously held regular meetings, are they forced to continue doing so?”, “short_answer”: “No, past practices do not mandate future behavior if the committee changes its process.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the committee had a history of regular monthly meetings from 2011 to 2022, the ALJ ruled based on their current practice of using a portal, finding no violation because they were not currently meeting regularly.”, “alj_quote”: “The credible and probative evidence of record established that… prior to the ARC utilizing the online portal system, the ARC was holding regularly scheduled meetings. However, since March 2022, the ARC has not been holding regularly scheduled meetings…”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 6”, “topic_tags”: [ “Precedent”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Amy Hilburn(petitioner) Stetson Valley Owners Association member Appeared pro se; former Board President
Respondent Side
Melissa Doolan(HOA attorney) Travis Law Firm
Danielle Miglio(community manager, witness) Oasis Community Management
Ann Renee Wilsey(ARC member, witness) Stetson Valley Owners Association ARC
Nichollet Widner(board member, witness) Stetson Valley Owners Association Board President
Tom Young(board member, observer) Stetson Valley Owners Association Board
Pam Weller(ARC member, observer) Stetson Valley Owners Association ARC
Omar Chavez(board member, observer) Stetson Valley Owners Association Board
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) Travis Law Firm Transmitting staff
Elizabeth Franco(community manager staff) Oasis Community Management Referenced in Petitioner's Exhibit 6 testimony
Benjamin Butler(ARC chairperson) Stetson Valley Owners Association ARC Referenced in Petitioner's Exhibit 6 testimony
The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the petition, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by improperly holding a closed executive session primarily focused on reviewing homeowner comments on design guidelines that did not meet the statutory exceptions for closure. The ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse the petitioner's filing fee and comply with the statute in the future.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of open meetings requirements regarding closed executive session.
The Respondent HOA held a closed executive session on June 9, 2022, noticed under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) (legal advice), to discuss approximately 72 homeowner comments on proposed design guideline revisions. The ALJ found that the meeting did not qualify under exceptions (A)(1) or (A)(2) as no legal advice was given and the discussion of most comments did not constitute pending or contemplated litigation.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is affirmed. Respondent must reimburse the Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee and is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.
Can my HOA board hold a closed meeting to discuss homeowner feedback on design guidelines?
Short Answer
No, discussing general homeowner feedback does not qualify for a closed executive session unless it meets specific statutory exceptions like pending litigation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that reviewing general comments from homeowners regarding proposed changes to design guidelines is not a valid reason to close a meeting. Even if some comments are critical, the board must discuss them in an open meeting unless they specifically relate to pending or contemplated litigation or legal advice.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge concludes… that the issue discussed at the June 9, 2022 executive session does not fall under the exceptions listed in A.R.S. §§ 33-1804(A)(1) or (A)(2), and Respondent did not properly consider the issue in an executive session closed to its members.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
open meetings
design guidelines
executive session
Question
Does a homeowner saying they 'can and will challenge' a rule in court count as pending litigation?
Short Answer
No, vague statements about potential legal challenges do not necessarily constitute 'contemplated litigation' sufficient to close a meeting.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that comments stating changes 'can and will be challenged in court' did not put the Board on notice of imminent lawsuits. Therefore, such comments did not justify closing the meeting under the 'pending or contemplated litigation' exception.
Alj Quote
Further, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that none of the comments can be reasonably construed as contemplating litigation.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)
Topic Tags
litigation
definitions
executive session
Question
Can the board close an entire meeting if they receive just one threat of litigation?
Short Answer
No, the board should only close the portion of the meeting dealing with the specific threat.
Detailed Answer
If an HOA receives many comments and only one contains a potential legal threat (e.g., copying an attorney), the board should hold an executive session for that specific item and discuss the remaining general business in an open meeting.
Alj Quote
As acknowledged by Mr. Chambers, the Board could have held an executive session to discuss only that one comment/letter in which an attorney was copied, and held an open meeting to discuss the other solicited comments.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)
Topic Tags
procedure
litigation
open meetings
Question
Can the HOA claim 'legal advice' as a reason to close a meeting if no attorney is present?
Short Answer
No, the 'legal advice' exception generally requires actual advice being given or discussed from an attorney.
Detailed Answer
The board cannot use the 'legal advice' exception to close a meeting if they are simply preparing questions for an attorney or reviewing documents before sending them to counsel. In this case, the attorney had not yet reviewed the documents, so no legal advice could be discussed.
Alj Quote
Prior to the June 9, 2022 executive session, an attorney had not yet reviewed the proposed revisions to the Guidelines and therefore, did not provide feedback for discussion at that meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)
Topic Tags
legal advice
attorney
executive session
Question
How should HOA board members and managers interpret open meeting laws?
Short Answer
They must interpret the laws in favor of open meetings.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute explicitly states that the policy of the state is to conduct meetings openly. Any ambiguity in the law should be construed by board members and managers to support openness rather than secrecy.
Alj Quote
Toward this end, any person or entity that is charged with the interpretation of these provisions, including members of the board of directors and any community manager, shall take into account this declaration of policy and shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)
Topic Tags
statutory interpretation
policy
open meetings
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) has the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means they must show it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
hearing procedure
evidence
Question
Can I get my filing fee back if I win my case against the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes, the ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the homeowner prevails in showing a violation occurred, the judge may order the association to pay back the cost of filing the petition.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
remedies
fees
penalties
Question
Will the HOA always be fined if they violate open meeting laws?
Short Answer
Not necessarily; the judge has discretion on whether to impose a civil penalty.
Detailed Answer
Even if a violation is found, the judge may decide not to issue a civil penalty based on the specific facts of the case.
Alj Quote
Based on the facts presented, the Administrative Law Judge finds no civil penalty is appropriate in this matter.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact
Topic Tags
penalties
enforcement
fines
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222064-REL
Case Title
Kathy J. Green v. Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Decision Date
2022-09-29
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA board hold a closed meeting to discuss homeowner feedback on design guidelines?
Short Answer
No, discussing general homeowner feedback does not qualify for a closed executive session unless it meets specific statutory exceptions like pending litigation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that reviewing general comments from homeowners regarding proposed changes to design guidelines is not a valid reason to close a meeting. Even if some comments are critical, the board must discuss them in an open meeting unless they specifically relate to pending or contemplated litigation or legal advice.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge concludes… that the issue discussed at the June 9, 2022 executive session does not fall under the exceptions listed in A.R.S. §§ 33-1804(A)(1) or (A)(2), and Respondent did not properly consider the issue in an executive session closed to its members.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
open meetings
design guidelines
executive session
Question
Does a homeowner saying they 'can and will challenge' a rule in court count as pending litigation?
Short Answer
No, vague statements about potential legal challenges do not necessarily constitute 'contemplated litigation' sufficient to close a meeting.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that comments stating changes 'can and will be challenged in court' did not put the Board on notice of imminent lawsuits. Therefore, such comments did not justify closing the meeting under the 'pending or contemplated litigation' exception.
Alj Quote
Further, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that none of the comments can be reasonably construed as contemplating litigation.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)
Topic Tags
litigation
definitions
executive session
Question
Can the board close an entire meeting if they receive just one threat of litigation?
Short Answer
No, the board should only close the portion of the meeting dealing with the specific threat.
Detailed Answer
If an HOA receives many comments and only one contains a potential legal threat (e.g., copying an attorney), the board should hold an executive session for that specific item and discuss the remaining general business in an open meeting.
Alj Quote
As acknowledged by Mr. Chambers, the Board could have held an executive session to discuss only that one comment/letter in which an attorney was copied, and held an open meeting to discuss the other solicited comments.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)
Topic Tags
procedure
litigation
open meetings
Question
Can the HOA claim 'legal advice' as a reason to close a meeting if no attorney is present?
Short Answer
No, the 'legal advice' exception generally requires actual advice being given or discussed from an attorney.
Detailed Answer
The board cannot use the 'legal advice' exception to close a meeting if they are simply preparing questions for an attorney or reviewing documents before sending them to counsel. In this case, the attorney had not yet reviewed the documents, so no legal advice could be discussed.
Alj Quote
Prior to the June 9, 2022 executive session, an attorney had not yet reviewed the proposed revisions to the Guidelines and therefore, did not provide feedback for discussion at that meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)
Topic Tags
legal advice
attorney
executive session
Question
How should HOA board members and managers interpret open meeting laws?
Short Answer
They must interpret the laws in favor of open meetings.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute explicitly states that the policy of the state is to conduct meetings openly. Any ambiguity in the law should be construed by board members and managers to support openness rather than secrecy.
Alj Quote
Toward this end, any person or entity that is charged with the interpretation of these provisions, including members of the board of directors and any community manager, shall take into account this declaration of policy and shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)
Topic Tags
statutory interpretation
policy
open meetings
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) has the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means they must show it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
hearing procedure
evidence
Question
Can I get my filing fee back if I win my case against the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes, the ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the homeowner prevails in showing a violation occurred, the judge may order the association to pay back the cost of filing the petition.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
remedies
fees
penalties
Question
Will the HOA always be fined if they violate open meeting laws?
Short Answer
Not necessarily; the judge has discretion on whether to impose a civil penalty.
Detailed Answer
Even if a violation is found, the judge may decide not to issue a civil penalty based on the specific facts of the case.
Alj Quote
Based on the facts presented, the Administrative Law Judge finds no civil penalty is appropriate in this matter.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact
Topic Tags
penalties
enforcement
fines
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222064-REL
Case Title
Kathy J. Green v. Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Decision Date
2022-09-29
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Kathy J. Green(petitioner) Cross Creek Ranch Owner Also referred to as Dr. Green, Colonel (retired),
Peter Calogero(witness) Spouse of Petitioner,
Respondent Side
Cross Creek Ranch Community Association(respondent)
Nick Eicher(HOA attorney) Cross Creek Ranch Community Association, Also referred to as Nick Iker
Greg Chambers(board president) Cross Creek Ranch Board Also appeared as a witness,
Charles Olden(HOA attorney) Carpenter Hazelwood
Steve Germaine(board member/ARC chair) Cross Creek Ranch Board/ARC, Subpoenaed individual,,
John Kinich(board member) Cross Creek Ranch Board Also referred to as John Halenich
Lynn Grigg(ARC member) Cross Creek Ranch ARC,
Dan Donahghue(board member) Cross Creek Ranch Board,
Lisa Henson(board member) Cross Creek Ranch Board
Laura Malone(property manager) Community association manager,,
Edith I. Rudder(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP, Recipient of final order
Edward D. O'Brien(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP, Recipient of final order
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH Presided over the matter,
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE),
Other Participants
Brian(regional manager) Homeco/Property Management Provided guidance to Laura Malone
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 11. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners themselves violated Section 11 by constructing the shed without prior written approval.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated CC&R Section 11; the construction of the shed occurred prior to seeking or obtaining architectural approval, violating Section 11.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged unfair, arbitrary, and capricious rejection of Architectural Change Form based on a non-existent rule (shed must not be higher than patio wall).
Petitioners claimed the HOA violated CC&Rs Section 11 by arbitrarily denying their request to construct a shed based on an unwritten rule regarding shed height (must be 3 inches below the wall). Petitioners acknowledged they constructed the shed prior to obtaining approval.
Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.
These sources document a legal dispute between homeowners Dennis Anderson and Mary Scheller and the Tara Condominiums Association regarding the unauthorized installation of a backyard storage shed. The conflict began when the association denied a retrospective architectural application, citing that the structure was too high and improperly attached to the building. During an evidentiary hearing held in August 2022, the petitioners argued that the board was enforcing non-existent rules, while the association maintained that the homeowners failed to seek the mandatory prior approval required by their governing documents. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the association, determining that the petitioners had violated the community’s CC&Rs by building the shed before obtaining written consent. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and a subsequent attempt by the homeowners to submit further evidence via email was rejected.
How did the lack of written rules influence the case?
Why did the judge ultimately dismiss the petitioners’ claim?
How does CC&R Section 11 impact homeowner architectural changes?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 1:37 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 22F-H2222062-REL
Select all sources
986010.pdf
990077.aac
991586.pdf
991600.pdf
996350.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
22F-H2222062-REL
5 sources
These sources document a legal dispute between homeowners Dennis Anderson and Mary Scheller and the Tara Condominiums Association regarding the unauthorized installation of a backyard storage shed. The conflict began when the association denied a retrospective architectural application, citing that the structure was too high and improperly attached to the building. During an evidentiary hearing held in August 2022, the petitioners argued that the board was enforcing non-existent rules, while the association maintained that the homeowners failed to seek the mandatory prior approval required by their governing documents. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the association, determining that the petitioners had violated the community’s CC&Rs by building the shed before obtaining written consent. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and a subsequent attempt by the homeowners to submit further evidence via email was rejected.
How did the lack of written rules influence the case?
Why did the judge ultimately dismiss the petitioners’ claim?
How does CC&R Section 11 impact homeowner architectural changes?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 1:37 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Dennis Anderson(petitioner)
Mary Scheller(petitioner) Tara Condominiums Association (former board) Former President of the HOA Board; also referred to as Mary Shell
Kiara(Owner) Daughter and co-owner who received violation letter
Respondent Side
Lisa Marks(board member) Tara Condominiums Association Chairperson and Secretary of the Board; testified for Respondent
Renee Snow(board member) Tara Condominiums Association Treasurer and President of the Board; testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official transmission
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official transmission
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official transmission
labril(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official transmission
c. serrano(Clerk/Staff) OAH/ADRE Transmitting staff member
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) OAH/ADRE Transmitting staff member
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
21F-H2121058-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2022-03-11
Administrative Law Judge
Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome
partial
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Daniel B Belt
Counsel
—
Respondent
Beaver Valley Improvement Association
Counsel
Ellen B. Davis, Esq.
Alleged Violations
No violations listed
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order dismissing the Petitioner’s Petition because the Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing on March 10, 2022, and thus failed to meet the burden of proof.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing. Petitioner had previously indicated he would unequivocally not participate in the hearing.
Key Issues & Findings
Petition alleging violation
Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing and thus failed to sustain the burden of proof required to establish the alleged violation.
Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed because Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing and failed to sustain the burden of proof.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
Briefing Document: Daniel B. Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcomes of the administrative case Daniel B. Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association (No. 21F-H2121058-REL), a dispute adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Daniel B. Belt, alleged that the Beaver Valley Improvement Association (BVIA) violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1812(6) by refusing to provide him with unredacted copies of election ballots, a matter he characterized as “voter fraud” and of “life and death” importance.
The case was ultimately dismissed twice. The initial decision on October 5, 2021, dismissed the petition on its merits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the petitioner failed to prove a violation, concluding that the HOA’s community documents permitted secret ballots and that state law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)) prohibited the disclosure of the personal voting information requested. Following the petitioner’s request for a rehearing, the case was dismissed a second time on March 11, 2022, after the petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, thereby failing to meet his burden of proof.
A significant theme throughout the proceedings was the petitioner’s conduct. Testimony from the HOA’s accounting services provider, Planned Development Services (PDS), described the petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” This conduct included a 45-day picket of the PDS office, verbal threats, and behavior that led PDS to obtain an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against the petitioner and ultimately resign its contract with the HOA. After the initial dismissal, the petitioner filed pleadings demanding that the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings act in an “appellate capacity” to “dispense justice,” a request the Director found he had no legal authority to grant. The petitioner also indicated his intent to not participate in the rehearing and to pursue the matter in federal court.
I. Case Overview and Procedural History
The Core Dispute: Access to Election Ballots
On June 8, 2021, Daniel B. Belt filed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged a single violation by the Beaver Valley Improvement Association of A.R.S. § 33-1812(6), a statute governing election materials.
The specific allegation, as articulated in the petition narrative, was that “…PDS refused to give petitioner the ballots containing the names, addresses and signatures, in compliance with ARS 33-1812(6)…”. The petitioner asserted that his petition, which he characterized as addressing “voter fraud,” was a “life and death matter.”
Key Parties
Name/Entity
Representation/Affiliation
Petitioner
Daniel B. Belt
Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent
Beaver Valley Improvement Association
Represented by Ellen B. Davis, Esq.
Witness (Initial Hearing)
Petra Paul
Managing Agent, Planned Development Services (PDS)
Witness (Initial & Final Hearing)
William Campbell
Member, BVIA Board of Directors
Administrative Law Judge
Sondra J. Vanella
Office of Administrative Hearings
Director
Greg Hanchett
Office of Administrative Hearings
Procedural Timeline
• June 8, 2021: Petitioner Daniel B. Belt files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• September 10, 2021: An initial hearing is held before ALJ Sondra J. Vanella.
• October 5, 2021: ALJ Vanella issues a decision dismissing the petition.
• January 4, 2022: A minute entry is issued continuing a scheduled rehearing to March 10, 2022.
• January 14, 2022: Petitioner files a pleading perceived by the Director as a motion for a change of judge.
• January 28, 2022: Petitioner files a subsequent pleading clarifying he is not seeking a change of judge but is demanding the Director review the prior proceeding.
• January 31, 2022: Director Greg Hanchett issues an order stating he lacks the statutory authority to review the case in an “appellate capacity” as requested.
• March 10, 2022: The rehearing convenes. The petitioner fails to appear. Respondent’s counsel moves for dismissal.
• March 11, 2022: ALJ Vanella issues a final decision dismissing the petition due to the petitioner’s failure to appear and sustain his burden of proof.
II. Analysis of the Initial Hearing and Decision
Respondent’s Defense and Evidence
The BVIA’s defense centered on the established practice and legal basis for maintaining voter privacy through secret ballots. Key points included:
• Policy on Secret Ballots: The BVIA Board of Directors approved a “Ballot/Proxy Handling Procedure” on July 10, 2004, which explicitly states that ballots will be folded “TO MAINTAIN THE SECRECY OF THE BALLOT.”
• Reaffirmation of Policy: In a meeting on May 8, 2021, the Board unanimously passed two motions: one to allow members to review ballots without personally identifying information, and a second to “reaffirm that all Board of Directors elections be conducted with a secret ballot.”
• Bylaws Protecting Privacy: The BVIA’s Bylaws (Article VII) explicitly state that “Personal . . . information about an individual Member of the Association” is not subject to inspection by parties other than the Board or its agent.
• Statutory Protection: Respondent argued that A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) prohibits the disclosure of personal records of an individual member, which includes how they voted.
• Constitutional Basis: Board member William Campbell cited Article VII, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution, which provides that “secrecy in voting shall be preserved,” opining that non-secret ballots would have a “chilling effect” on member participation.
• Accommodations Offered: The petitioner was offered the opportunity to review the un-redacted ballots in person (but not take copies) and was provided with redacted copies of the ballots. He refused both offers.
Key Witness Testimony
Petra Paul, Managing Agent for PDS, testified that her company’s contract with BVIA was for accounting services only, not HOA management. PDS’s involvement in the election was limited to mailing ballots, collecting returns, and verifying a quorum.
Ms. Paul’s testimony detailed the petitioner’s conduct:
• Escalating Demands: The petitioner demanded ballots before the election (which was denied) and demanded un-redacted copies the Monday after the election.
• Harassment and Intimidation: Ms. Paul described the petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” She testified that his actions grew increasingly agitated, that he refused to leave PDS’s premises, and that PDS staff was intimidated and concerned for their personal safety.
• Workplace Injunction: The petitioner’s behavior, which impacted PDS’s business operations, culminated in PDS obtaining an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against him. This came after he spent 45 days picketing outside the PDS office with a large sign that stated, “PDS Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars.”
• Threats: The injunction noted threats made by the petitioner against PDS employees, including, “You’ll be sorry,” “You’ll regret this,” and “You haven’t seen the end of me.”
• Contract Resignation: Due to the petitioner’s “abusive and erratic” interactions, PDS resigned its contract with the BVIA and demanded its legal fees be paid by the association.
William Campbell testified about the association’s long-standing policy of secret ballots. He acknowledged a procedural deviation—the ballots were folded for secrecy rather than being placed in manila envelopes as stipulated by the 2004 policy—but maintained that secrecy was preserved. Mr. Campbell also testified that multiple opportunities were provided in May, June, and July 2021 for members to view the ballots and confirm their votes were counted, but no one took advantage of the offers in June or July.
ALJ’s Conclusions of Law and Order (October 5, 2021)
ALJ Vanella concluded that the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the BVIA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6). The decision found that:
1. The credible evidence established that the ballots were intended to be secret pursuant to community documents.
2. The Respondent was precluded by A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) from disclosing the personal voting information demanded by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner was offered the chance to review the ballots and was provided redacted copies, both of which he declined. Based on these findings, the petition was ordered dismissed.
III. Rehearing Proceedings and Final Disposition
Petitioner’s Post-Decision Filings
Following the initial dismissal, the petitioner requested a rehearing. In subsequent filings, he created confusion regarding his intentions. A January 14, 2022 filing was perceived as a motion for a change of judge. However, in a January 28, 2022 pleading, the petitioner clarified this was not his intent. Instead, he demanded the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings intervene directly:
“if Director Hanchett declines to make the case, with rationale, that the actions of Petra Paul and ALJ Vanella did not constitute the felony crimes as cited by the Petitioner, and if Director Hanchett declines to dispense justice in this case . . . as outlined by Petitioner, those issues will be decided in federal court.“
He further stated that the Director did not have the right to “pervert Petitioner’s request… for Impartial Justice and Equal Protection of the Laws, into a motion for a Change of Judge.”
Director’s Response
On January 31, 2022, Director Greg Hanchett issued an order rescinding a prior order that required the respondent to reply to the petitioner’s motion. The Director stated that the petitioner was not seeking a change of judge, but rather “seeks to have the Director review the earlier proceeding in some appellate capacity and pass judgment on the propriety of that proceeding.” Director Hanchett concluded that “There is no authority contained in either statute or rule that would permit the Director to undertake such action,” as an administrative agency has only those powers prescribed by law.
The Final Hearing and Dismissal (March 10-11, 2022)
The rehearing was held on March 10, 2022. The petitioner, Daniel Belt, failed to appear, despite having received proper notice at his address of record and email addresses. The hearing transcript notes that the petitioner had previously stated in a January 14 filing that he “would unequivocally not participate in the hearing.”
As the petitioner bears the burden of proof, and having failed to appear to present his case, the respondent’s counsel made a motion to dismiss. ALJ Vanella granted the motion. The final order, issued March 11, 2022, dismissed the petition, stating: “Because Petitioner failed to appear, Petitioner failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation by Respondent.” This decision was binding on the parties.
Study Guide – 21F-H2121058-REL-RHG
Study Guide for the Case of Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the information presented in the case documents.
1. Identify the petitioner and respondent in this case and state the petitioner’s central allegation.
2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did the petitioner claim the respondent violated, and what does this statute generally require?
3. What was the role of Planned Development Services (PDS) in the respondent’s election process, according to the testimony of Petra Paul?
4. Describe the petitioner’s behavior that prompted PDS to obtain an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment.
5. According to William Campbell, what was the respondent’s long-standing policy regarding elections, and what documents supported this policy?
6. Explain the two offers the respondent and its agent made to the petitioner to allow him to review the election ballots.
7. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final order in the initial decision on October 5, 2021, and what were the two key statutes cited to support this conclusion?
8. After filing for a rehearing, what was the petitioner’s stated intention regarding his participation, and what was the ultimate outcome of the March 10, 2022, hearing?
9. What did the petitioner demand from the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings in January 2022, and how did the Director respond?
10. What evidentiary standard was the petitioner required to meet, and did the judge find that he met this standard in either the initial hearing or the rehearing?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The petitioner was Daniel B. Belt, and the respondent was the Beaver Valley Improvement Association (HOA). Belt alleged the HOA violated state law by refusing to provide him with election ballots containing the names, addresses, and signatures of the voters, an act he characterized as “voter fraud.”
2. The petitioner claimed a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(6). This statute requires completed ballots to contain the voter’s name, address, and signature, but it provides an exception for secret ballots, where this identifying information need only appear on the envelope.
3. Petra Paul testified that PDS was contracted for accounting services only, not HOA management. PDS’s involvement in the election was limited to mailing the annual meeting documents, collecting the returned ballots, and reviewing the number of returns to ensure a quorum was met. PDS did not conduct the election or tabulate the ballots.
4. The petitioner’s behavior was described as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” He picketed the PDS office for 45 days with a sign calling employees “Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars,” made threats such as “You’ll be sorry,” and refused to leave the premises, causing employees to fear for their personal safety.
5. William Campbell testified that the respondent had a long-standing practice of using a secret ballot. This was supported by a Ballot/Proxy Handling Procedure approved in 2004 and a unanimous Board vote on May 8, 2021, to reaffirm that all Board of Directors elections would be conducted with a secret ballot.
6. First, Petra Paul of PDS offered the petitioner copies of the ballots with personal information such as names and signatures redacted, which he refused. Paul also offered him the opportunity to review the non-redacted ballots in the office but advised him he could not take them with him.
7. The judge ordered that the petitioner’s Petition be dismissed. The judge cited A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6), noting that the community’s documents permitted secret ballots, and A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4), which precludes an HOA from disclosing personal records of its members.
8. In a January 14, 2022, filing, the petitioner stated he would “unequivocally not participate in the hearing.” Consequently, the petitioner failed to appear at the March 10, 2022, hearing, and the judge dismissed his petition for failure to sustain his burden of proof.
9. The petitioner demanded that the Director, Greg Hanchett, review the previous hearing in an appellate capacity, determine if felony crimes were committed, and “dispense justice.” The Director responded that he had no statutory authority to perform such an appellate review and rescinded his order related to what he had mistakenly perceived as a motion for a change of judge.
10. The petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” In the initial hearing, the judge found he failed to meet this burden because the evidence showed the respondent had not violated the law. In the rehearing, he failed to meet the burden because he did not appear to present any evidence at all.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to promote a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, incorporating specific details and legal principles from the provided source documents.
1. Analyze the conflict between a member’s right to inspect association records under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and the protection of individual members’ personal information and voting privacy as outlined in the same statute and the association’s bylaws.
2. Discuss the legal concept of “burden of proof” as it applied to the petitioner in both the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing. How did the petitioner’s actions (and inaction) directly lead to the dismissal of his case on two separate occasions?
3. Evaluate the actions of the Beaver Valley Improvement Association and its agent, PDS, in response to the petitioner’s demands for election materials. Did their responses align with their own bylaws, state law, and established procedures as presented in the hearings?
4. Trace the petitioner’s escalating behavior as described in the testimony of Petra Paul. How did this behavior impact PDS and ultimately factor into the context of the hearing, even if it was not the direct legal violation being adjudicated?
5. Examine the petitioner’s apparent misunderstanding of the administrative legal process, as evidenced by his filings with Director Greg Hanchett. Contrast what the petitioner demanded of the Director with the actual legal authority vested in the Director’s office according to the case documents.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent, impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ.
A.R.S. § 33-1805
An Arizona Revised Statute concerning the examination of a homeowners association’s financial and other records. It grants members the right to inspect records but also allows the association to withhold certain information, including personal records of individual members.
A.R.S. § 33-1812(6)
An Arizona Revised Statute detailing requirements for ballots used in HOA meetings. It mandates that ballots contain the voter’s name, address, and signature, but creates an exception for secret ballots permitted by community documents.
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the petitioner had the burden to prove the respondent committed the alleged violation.
Bylaws
The official rules and regulations that govern a corporation or association. The respondent’s Bylaws, specifically Article VII, were cited to justify withholding personal member information.
Homeowners Association (HOA)
An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium building that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Beaver Valley Improvement Association is the HOA in this case.
Injunction Against Workplace Harassment
A court order obtained by an employer to prohibit a person from committing acts of harassment against the business and its employees. PDS obtained one against Daniel B. Belt.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition or initiates a legal action. In this case, Daniel B. Belt is the petitioner.
Planned Development Services (PDS)
An HOA management and accounting company. PDS provided accounting-only services to the respondent and was the entity that interacted directly with the petitioner regarding his ballot requests.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative case. It means that the trier of fact must be convinced that it is more probably true than not that the contention is correct.
Quorum
The minimum number of members of an association that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid. PDS reviewed ballot returns to ensure a quorum was established for the respondent’s election.
Redacted
Edited to remove or obscure confidential or private information. The respondent offered the petitioner redacted copies of the ballots with names, email addresses, and signatures removed.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues and evidence, which may be granted upon request after an initial decision. The petitioner was granted a rehearing but failed to appear.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, the Beaver Valley Improvement Association is the respondent.
Secret Ballot
A voting method in which a voter’s choices are anonymous, preventing intimidation and protecting privacy. The respondent’s bylaws and policies permitted the use of secret ballots for its elections.
Blog Post – 21F-H2121058-REL-RHG
An HOA Ballot Dispute, a 45-Day Picket, and 4 Shocking Lessons in Community Conflict
Introduction: When Neighborly Disagreements Go Nuclear
Disputes within Homeowners Associations (HOAs) are common, often revolving around landscaping, dues, or parking violations. But rarely do they escalate into a nearly year-long legal battle involving workplace harassment injunctions and vendor resignations. The story of one homeowner’s quest for election transparency in Arizona serves as a startling case study in how quickly a simple request can spiral out of control, offering crucial lessons for any community association. What began as a demand to see election ballots ended in a dismissed court case, but not before triggering a workplace harassment injunction, forcing its accounting firm to resign, and handing the HOA the bill for its legal fees.
——————————————————————————–
1.A Request for Ballots Can Escalate into a Harassment Injunction
The dispute began when petitioner Daniel B. Belt filed a petition against his HOA, the Beaver Valley Improvement Association. Alleging “voter fraud,” he demanded copies of unredacted election ballots in a conflict he framed as a “life and death matter.” When the HOA denied his request for unredacted copies, Mr. Belt’s tactics escalated from formal petitioning to direct, public confrontation aimed at the HOA’s accounting firm, Planned Development Services (PDS).
He picketed the PDS office for 45 consecutive days, holding a large sign that read, “PDS Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars.” According to court documents, he also allegedly made threats to PDS employees, stating, “You’ll be sorry,” “You’ll regret this,” and “You haven’t seen the end of me.” These actions crossed a critical legal line, resulting in PDS obtaining an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against the petitioner.
This escalation provides a crucial lesson in community governance. The line between passionate advocacy and unlawful harassment is critical because volunteer boards and their essential vendors are uniquely vulnerable. Tactics involving defamatory signage and direct threats don’t just amplify a grievance; they can cripple an association’s ability to function, turning a dispute over records into an existential threat to its day-to-day management.
Ms. Paul described Petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying” and that she and other employees were concerned for their personal safety.
——————————————————————————–
2.The “Right to Know” vs. The Right to Privacy and a Secret Ballot
The central conflict pitted one homeowner’s demand for total transparency against the community’s right to privacy. The petitioner insisted on receiving unredacted copies of all completed ballots, which contained the names, addresses, and signatures of every voter.
In response, the HOA did not deny access outright but instead offered a compromise. The petitioner was given the choice to either review the unredacted ballots in person under supervision or accept redacted copies with personal information removed. He refused both options. Notably, the HOA went a step further in its attempt to balance transparency with privacy. Board member William Campbell testified that he “devised a way in which he could match a members’ demographic information to the members’ vote if upon Petitioner’s inspection, something appeared irregular.”
The HOA grounded its refusal in multiple sources of authority, citing its own bylaws protecting member information, a long-standing practice of secret ballots, and, most critically, Arizona state law. A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) explicitly permits an association to withhold the personal records of its members. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately agreed, ruling that the HOA acted correctly and that state law sided with protecting member privacy.
Mr. Campbell referenced Article VII, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution which provides that “all elections by the people shall be by ballot, or by such other method as may be prescribed by law; Provided, that secrecy in voting shall be preserved.”
——————————————————————————–
3.Third Parties Can Become Expensive Collateral Damage
This dispute demonstrates how community conflicts can ensnare and inflict significant damage on essential third-party vendors. The accounting firm, PDS, had a limited, non-managerial role. Its contract was for accounting services only; it facilitated the mailing of election documents, collected the returned ballots, and confirmed a quorum was met. PDS did not conduct the election or tabulate the votes.
Despite this narrow involvement, PDS bore the brunt of the petitioner’s aggressive campaign. The harassment severely impacted its business operations and, according to testimony, created an “abusive and erratic” environment. This led the firm to take two drastic steps: first, obtaining the legal injunction, and second, resigning its contract with the HOA. Critically, the collateral damage had a direct financial cost for the entire community. Court documents reveal that “PDS demanded its legal fees be paid by Respondent [the HOA]” for the costs of securing the harassment injunction.
This outcome reveals the cascading governance failures that result from such conflicts. When a key vendor like an accounting firm resigns under duress, it creates instability, raises the prospect of missed payments or financial errors, and makes it harder to secure a new vendor, who may now view the HOA as a high-risk client—with any increased costs ultimately passed on to all homeowners.
——————————————————————————–
4.You Can’t Win a Legal Battle You Refuse to Fight
In a final, counter-intuitive act, the petitioner successfully filed for a rehearing after losing his initial case, earning a second chance to argue his claims. His actions leading up to the new hearing, however, signaled a preference for performative conflict over substantive legal engagement. He attempted to have the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings review the case in an “appellate capacity,” a power the Director confirmed he did not possess, and threatened to escalate the matter to federal court.
Then came the final twist. After securing the rehearing, the petitioner submitted a filing stating he would “unequivocally not participate in the hearing.”
True to his word, on the day of the hearing—March 10, 2022—the petitioner failed to appear. As the party bringing the complaint, he carried the burden of proof. His absence meant the judge had no evidence to consider and was compelled to dismiss the case. This chapter serves as a stark lesson in strategic failure. After doing the difficult work of securing a second hearing, the petitioner abandoned the field. The legal system, for all its complexities, responds to procedure and participation, not to external threats or pronouncements. Passionate conviction is powerless if you refuse to show up and fight the battle you initiated.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: Drawing the Line Between Advocacy and Anarchy
The arc of this conflict—from a simple request for ballots to a multi-stage legal dispute that ended not with a bang, but a whimper—is a cautionary tale. It illustrates how a homeowner’s campaign for transparency, when pursued without regard for legal boundaries or civil discourse, can backfire completely. It left a vendor harassed, forced the community to pay its agent’s legal fees, and ultimately left the original issue unresolved. This case leaves all community leaders and members with a critical question: How can we foster a culture that balances the legitimate need for transparency with the equally important need for member privacy and basic civility?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Daniel B. Belt(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Ellen B. Davis(HOA attorney) HENZE COOK MURPHY, PLLC
William Campbell(board member, witness) Beaver Valley Improvement Association Member of Respondent's Board of Directors; testified for Respondent
President Mexal(board member) Beaver Valley Improvement Association President of Respondent's Board
Director Hallett(board member) Beaver Valley Improvement Association Director of Respondent's Board
Sarah Linkey(board member) Beaver Valley Improvement Association Treasurer of Respondent's Board
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Greg Hanchett(Director) Office of Administrative Hearings Issued an order regarding Petitioner’s pleading
c. serrano(admin staff) Signed transmittals
Miranda A.(admin staff) Signed transmittal
Other Participants
Petra Paul(witness, property manager) Planned Development Services HOA Management & Accounting Company (PDS) Managing Agent for PDS; testified regarding services provided to Respondent
Lori Rutledge(unknown) Recipient of official transmittal
Brandee Abraham(unknown) Recipient of official transmittal
The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed after finding that the Petitioner failed to sustain her burden to establish a violation by the Respondent of the cited sections of the CC&Rs.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&Rs, and did not establish that Respondent was obligated to provide her with an individual access code separate from the one already provided to the Lot.
Key Issues & Findings
The dispute between Petitioner and Respondent arises from Community Document Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions Article 1 Section 26, Article 4 Section 4.6, and Article 2, Section 2.4.
Petitioner filed an HOA Dispute Process Petition alleging a violation of community documents because the HOA refused to grant her a personal access gate code. Petitioner argued that as an owner and member, she was entitled to her own personal and individual access code. Respondent disputed the violation, asserting the lot already had multiple modes of access, and was not obligated to provide an additional individual code.
Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
CC&Rs Article 1 Section 26
CC&Rs Article 4 Section 4.6
CC&Rs Article 2, Section 2.4
A.R.S. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 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)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Violation, Gate Access, Access Code Policy
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 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. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221003-REL Decision – 930504.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:28 (109.5 KB)
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (the person filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden is not on the HOA to prove they are innocent. Instead, the homeowner filing the petition must prove that the HOA committed the violation.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
Topic Tags
Burden of Proof
Hearing Procedures
Question
What is the legal standard of proof required to win a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
This standard means that the evidence must show that the claim is more likely true than not true. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the 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
Question
If Association Rules conflict with the CC&Rs (Declaration), which document controls?
Short Answer
The Declaration (CC&Rs) prevails.
Detailed Answer
The governing documents usually establish a hierarchy. If the Board adopts rules that are inconsistent with the recorded Declaration, the Declaration is the superior document.
Alj Quote
In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Declaration and the Association Rules, the provisions of this Declaration shall prevail.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Article 4 Section 4.3
Topic Tags
Governing Documents
Rules vs CC&Rs
Question
Is an HOA obligated to provide a unique gate access code to every individual owner?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, if access is provided to the Lot.
Detailed Answer
If the HOA provides valid methods of access for a Lot (such as a shared code, key fob, or remote), they may not be legally obligated to provide a specific 'personal' code for each individual owner of that Lot.
Alj Quote
Petitioner did not establish that Respondent is obligated to provide her with a “personal” or “individual” access code.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law 4
Topic Tags
Access Rights
Gate Codes
Security
Question
Can the Administrative Law Judge resolve disputes between co-owners regarding access to the property?
Short Answer
No, disputes between co-owners are personal matters.
Detailed Answer
If one co-owner restricts another co-owner from using a shared access code, the Department of Real Estate views this as a private issue between the owners, not a violation by the HOA.
Alj Quote
Mr. Gribble, as co-owner, has placed restrictions upon Petitioner’s use of the code for the Lot. That is an issue for Petitioner to take up with Mr. Gribble, not the Department.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law 4
Topic Tags
Co-owner Disputes
Jurisdiction
Question
Are Association Rules as enforceable as the CC&Rs?
Short Answer
Yes, generally rules are enforceable to the same extent as the Declaration.
Detailed Answer
Once validly adopted, Association Rules regarding the management and operation of the community can be enforced just like the recorded covenants.
Alj Quote
The Association Rules shall be enforceable in the same manner and to the same extent as the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in this Declaration.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Article 4 Section 4.3
Topic Tags
Enforcement
Rules
Case
Docket No
22F-H2221003-REL
Case Title
Kathy Padalino v. Legend Trail Parcel A
Decision Date
2021-12-08
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (the person filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden is not on the HOA to prove they are innocent. Instead, the homeowner filing the petition must prove that the HOA committed the violation.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
Topic Tags
Burden of Proof
Hearing Procedures
Question
What is the legal standard of proof required to win a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
This standard means that the evidence must show that the claim is more likely true than not true. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the 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
Question
If Association Rules conflict with the CC&Rs (Declaration), which document controls?
Short Answer
The Declaration (CC&Rs) prevails.
Detailed Answer
The governing documents usually establish a hierarchy. If the Board adopts rules that are inconsistent with the recorded Declaration, the Declaration is the superior document.
Alj Quote
In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Declaration and the Association Rules, the provisions of this Declaration shall prevail.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Article 4 Section 4.3
Topic Tags
Governing Documents
Rules vs CC&Rs
Question
Is an HOA obligated to provide a unique gate access code to every individual owner?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, if access is provided to the Lot.
Detailed Answer
If the HOA provides valid methods of access for a Lot (such as a shared code, key fob, or remote), they may not be legally obligated to provide a specific 'personal' code for each individual owner of that Lot.
Alj Quote
Petitioner did not establish that Respondent is obligated to provide her with a “personal” or “individual” access code.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law 4
Topic Tags
Access Rights
Gate Codes
Security
Question
Can the Administrative Law Judge resolve disputes between co-owners regarding access to the property?
Short Answer
No, disputes between co-owners are personal matters.
Detailed Answer
If one co-owner restricts another co-owner from using a shared access code, the Department of Real Estate views this as a private issue between the owners, not a violation by the HOA.
Alj Quote
Mr. Gribble, as co-owner, has placed restrictions upon Petitioner’s use of the code for the Lot. That is an issue for Petitioner to take up with Mr. Gribble, not the Department.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law 4
Topic Tags
Co-owner Disputes
Jurisdiction
Question
Are Association Rules as enforceable as the CC&Rs?
Short Answer
Yes, generally rules are enforceable to the same extent as the Declaration.
Detailed Answer
Once validly adopted, Association Rules regarding the management and operation of the community can be enforced just like the recorded covenants.
Alj Quote
The Association Rules shall be enforceable in the same manner and to the same extent as the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in this Declaration.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Article 4 Section 4.3
Topic Tags
Enforcement
Rules
Case
Docket No
22F-H2221003-REL
Case Title
Kathy Padalino v. Legend Trail Parcel A
Decision Date
2021-12-08
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Kathy Padalino(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
Respondent Side
Kelsey Dressen(attorney) LAW OFFICES OF CHOATE & WOOD Represented Respondent Legend Trail Parcel A
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ)
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Vance Gribble(co-owner) Co-owns home with Petitioner
