Tag Archives: SJV

Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120016-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-07-14
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Haining Xia Counsel —
Respondent Dorsey Place Condominium Association Counsel Nick Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated its Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4. The Respondent was found to be the prevailing party, and Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, specifically failing to establish that an election was required during the years alleged.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to elect the Board at Annual Members Meetings in 2018 and 2019

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to elect the board during the 2018 and 2019 Annual Members Meetings. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to establish a violation, specifically failing to establish that an election was required during those years.

Orders: Respondent is the prevailing party, and Petitioner's appeal is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-1202(10)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120016-REL Decision – 895555.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:30:48 (107.4 KB)

21F-H2120016-REL Decision – 849881.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:30:52 (109.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings, arguments, and legal proceedings from two Administrative Law Judge Decisions concerning a dispute between petitioner Haining Xia and the Dorsey Place Condominium Association (the Respondent). The core of the dispute revolves around Mr. Xia’s allegation that the Association violated its own bylaws by failing to conduct board elections during its 2018 and 2019 annual meetings.

The Respondent’s primary defense was a jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) could not hear the case because the Association’s condominium status was legally terminated in April 2019, prior to the filing of the petition. This termination was previously upheld by the Maricopa County Superior Court.

In the initial hearing on January 7, 2021, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof, relying solely on assertions without presenting any documentary evidence. Consequently, the petition was denied. A rehearing was granted and held on July 2, 2021, where the petitioner submitted documents but failed to provide testimony explaining their relevance or to establish that board elections were required in the years in question. The ALJ again concluded that the petitioner did not sustain his burden of proof. The final order dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and declared the Respondent the prevailing party.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 21F-H2120016-REL / 21F-H2120016-REL-RHG

• Tribunal: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

• Petitioner: Haining Xia

• Respondent: Dorsey Place Condominium Association

• Presiding Administrative Law Judge: Sondra J. Vanella

• Core Allegation: The petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated its Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4 by failing to include board elections on the agendas for the 2018 and 2019 Annual Members Meetings and by never electing a board at said meetings.

Chronology of Proceedings

September 21, 2020

Haining Xia files a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Resolution Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

November 20, 2020

The Department issues a Notice of Hearing.

January 7, 2021

The initial administrative hearing is held.

January 22, 2021

The ALJ issues a Decision denying the Petitioner’s Petition.

February 18, 2021

The Petitioner files a request for rehearing, citing errors of law and evidence.

March 23, 2021

The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate issues an Order Granting Rehearing.

July 2, 2021

The rehearing is conducted.

July 14, 2021

The ALJ issues the final Decision, declaring the Respondent the prevailing party and dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal.

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments

Haining Xia’s case rested on several key arguments presented across both hearings.

• Primary Claim: The central assertion was that the Respondent was in “direct violation of HOA Bylaws Article 3.3, Article 4.1 and Article 4.4” because board elections were not held or even placed on the agenda for the 2018 and 2019 annual meetings.

• Challenge to Condominium Termination: Mr. Xia actively disputed the validity of the Association’s termination as a condominium.

◦ He argued the “Condominium Termination Agreement” was invalid because it “does not contain valid signatures” and represented a “usurpation of corporate power.”

◦ He maintained that because he still holds the title to his unit and the sale has not been finalized, the condominium status could not be legally changed.

◦ He stated his intention to appeal a separate Maricopa County Superior Court ruling which had already upheld the termination agreement.

• Specific Meeting Grievances:

◦ 2018 Meeting: The annual meeting, scheduled for March, was delayed until August 2018. Its stated purpose was to vote on a special assessment, but Mr. Xia asserted there was “not a valid board for that meeting.”

◦ 2019 Meeting: This meeting was held to discuss the termination agreement, but Mr. Xia claimed there was “no election of board members or appointment of officers.”

• Stated Objective: The petitioner requested “a definitive answer as to whether there were valid corporate officers” and, in the rehearing, stated he “wants a finding that there was no legitimate board and no officers appointed.”

• Personal Motivation: During the rehearing, Mr. Xia asserted that he is the only homeowner “who stood up to fight,” that he is fighting “evil,” and is “looking for justice.”

Respondent’s Position and Arguments

The Dorsey Place Condominium Association’s defense was primarily procedural and jurisdictional.

• Jurisdictional Challenge: The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the OAH lacked jurisdiction over the dispute.

◦ The basis for this argument was that the Association’s status as a “Condominium” was terminated via a “Condominium Termination Agreement” recorded on April 9, 2019.

◦ As the entity no longer met the legal definition of a condominium under A.R.S. §33-1202(10), the OAH had no authority to hear a dispute between it and a unit owner.

• Superior Court Precedent: The Respondent emphasized that the validity of the termination agreement had already been adjudicated and upheld by the Maricopa County Superior Court. The ALJ noted that the OAH “does not have the authority to overturn or modify that ruling.”

• Mootness: The Respondent argued that since the termination, the property is “currently being utilized as an apartment complex,” making the petitioner’s claims moot.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The decisions issued by ALJ Sondra J. Vanella focused squarely on the legal standard of proof required of the petitioner.

The ALJ repeatedly established that the petitioner “bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

• Failure to Present Evidence: The ALJ found that Mr. Xia “failed to present any evidence at hearing, documentary or otherwise, but rather relied solely on his own assertions.”

• Conclusion: The petitioner did not meet his burden of proof to establish a violation of the specified bylaws.

• Order: The Petition was denied.

• Basis for Rehearing: The rehearing was granted based on the petitioner’s claim of “error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.”

• Evidence at Rehearing: Mr. Xia submitted several documents, including meeting notices for 2018 and 2019, an “Action by Written Consent,” and a “Board Resolution Filling Director and Officer Vacancies.” However, he “did not provide an explanation of the documents at hearing or testimony concerning the documents.”

• Final Conclusion: After reviewing all evidence from both hearings, the ALJ concluded that the petitioner “failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation.” Critically, the ALJ noted that Mr. Xia “failed to establish that an election was required during either of those years [2018 and 2019].”

• Final Order: The Respondent was declared the prevailing party, and the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. This order is binding unless appealed to the superior court within 35 days.

Relevant Bylaw Articles

The petition was based on alleged violations of the following articles from the Dorsey Place Condominium Association Bylaws:

Article

Key Provision

Annual Members Meeting

States that at each annual meeting, “the Members shall elect the Board and transact such other business as may properly be brought before the meeting.”

Election

Stipulates that the Association’s affairs are managed by the Board and that “each director shall be elected at the annual meeting of Members concurrent with the expiration of the term of the director he or she is to succeed.”

Annual Board Meetings

Requires that “within thirty (30) days after each annual meeting of Members, the newly elected directors shall meet forthwith for the purpose of organization, the election of officers, and the transaction of other business.”

Study Guide: Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association

This guide reviews the administrative case between Haining Xia (Petitioner) and the Dorsey Place Condominium Association (Respondent) before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. It covers the core allegations, legal arguments, procedural history, and final rulings.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.

1. Who are the primary parties in this case and what are their roles?

2. What specific violations of the association’s Bylaws did the Petitioner allege?

3. What was the Respondent’s primary legal argument for why the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction?

4. According to the case documents, what is the legal standard known as “preponderance of the evidence”?

5. What was the initial ruling by the Administrative Law Judge on January 22, 2021, and what was the key reason for this decision?

6. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing of the case?

7. What evidence did the Petitioner submit during the rehearing on July 2, 2021?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge state that the Office of Administrative Hearings could not invalidate the “Condominium Termination Agreement”?

9. What specific requirements for annual meetings are outlined in Article 3.3 of the Respondent’s Bylaws?

10. What was the final outcome of the case after the rehearing, as detailed in the order dated July 14, 2021?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Haining Xia, the Petitioner, and Dorsey Place Condominium Association, the Respondent. The Petitioner is the unit owner who filed a dispute petition, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association accused of violating its own Bylaws.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4. He claimed the Respondent never elected a board at its Annual Members Meetings for 2018 and 2019 and that board elections were not included on the agendas for those meetings.

3. The Respondent argued that the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction because the association’s condominium status was terminated in April 2019 via a “Condominium Termination Agreement.” As it was no longer legally a condominium, the Respondent claimed it did not meet the statutory requirements for OAH jurisdiction over such disputes.

4. The legal standard is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” It is also described as “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

5. The initial ruling on January 22, 2021, denied the Petitioner’s Petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof because he presented no documentary evidence and relied solely on his own assertions to support his claims.

6. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that there was an “error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted this request.

7. During the rehearing, the Petitioner submitted Annual Membership Meeting Notices for 2018 and 2019, a document titled “Action by Written Consent of a Majority of the Unit Owners,” and a November 16, 2018, Board Resolution. However, he did not provide testimony or an explanation concerning these documents.

8. The Administrative Law Judge advised the Petitioner that the validity of the termination agreement had already been adjudicated and upheld by the Maricopa County Superior Court. The Office of Administrative Hearings does not have the legal authority to overturn or modify a ruling from the Superior Court.

9. Article 3.3 states that the annual meeting of Members shall be held in March each year, though it can be delayed until May 31. The purpose of this meeting is for the Members to elect the Board and transact other business that may properly be brought before the meeting.

10. After the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge again ruled against the Petitioner, ordering that his appeal be dismissed and naming the Respondent as the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the Petitioner once again failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation of the Bylaws.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-style response. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the jurisdictional challenge raised by the Respondent. How did the “Condominium Termination Agreement” of April 2019 fundamentally alter the legal status of the property and impact the proceedings before the Office of Administrative Hearings?

2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain in detail why the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden of proof in both the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing.

3. Trace the complete procedural history of this case, beginning with the filing of the petition on September 21, 2020, and ending with the final order on July 14, 2021. Identify the key events, decisions, and legal reasonings at each stage.

4. Evaluate the different arguments made by the Petitioner, including his claims about invalid board elections, the legitimacy of the termination agreement, and his status as a titled owner. Explain why the Office of Administrative Hearings was limited in its authority to rule on certain aspects of his claims.

5. Based on Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4, describe the prescribed process for electing the Board of Directors and conducting annual meetings. How did the Petitioner’s specific allegations in his petition directly challenge whether the Respondent had followed these procedures?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Sondra J. Vanella.

Affirmative Defense

A set of facts other than those alleged by the petitioner which, if proven by the respondent, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the respondent’s otherwise unlawful conduct. The respondent bears the burden of proof for affirmative defenses.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, the collection of laws for the state of Arizona.

Bylaws

The set of rules governing the internal management and affairs of an organization, such as a homeowners’ association. The Petitioner alleged violations of Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4 of the Respondent’s Bylaws.

Condominium Termination Agreement

A legal document recorded on April 9, 2019, that officially terminated the condominium status of Dorsey Place. The Respondent argued this action removed it from the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings for condominium disputes.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving homeowners’ associations.

Homeowners Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and residents. The Dorsey Place Condominium Association is the HOA in this case.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Respondent challenged the OAH’s jurisdiction on the basis that it was no longer legally a condominium.

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request made by a party to a court or other tribunal to dismiss a case. The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

A state agency that conducts hearings for other state agencies. In this case, the OAH conducted the hearing for the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Petition

The formal written request filed by the Petitioner to initiate the dispute resolution process with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner is Haining Xia.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The burden of proof in this civil case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” and as evidence that has “the most convincing force.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an action is brought. In this case, the Respondent is the Dorsey Place Condominium Association.

Superior Court

A state trial court of general jurisdiction. The Maricopa County Superior Court had previously issued a ruling upholding the validity of the Condominium Termination Agreement.

He Fought His HOA and Lost—Twice. 3 Costly Mistakes Every Homeowner Should Avoid.

The Frustration and the Fight

For many homeowners, dealing with a Homeowners Association (HOA) can be a source of immense frustration. Rules can feel arbitrary, and board decisions can seem opaque. It’s a common feeling to believe the HOA is in the wrong and to want to stand up for your rights. But what happens when that conviction meets the cold, hard reality of the legal system?

The case of Haining Xia versus the Dorsey Place Condominium Association serves as a powerful cautionary tale for any homeowner considering a legal challenge. Mr. Xia’s core complaint was straightforward and, on its face, seemed reasonable: he alleged that his HOA violated its own bylaws by failing to hold board elections during its 2018 and 2019 annual meetings.

Despite his strong convictions, he lost his case. He was then granted a rehearing—a rare second chance—and lost again. This article explores the surprising and crucial lessons from his defeat, revealing why simply being right in principle is often not enough to win in practice.

1. Conviction Is Not Evidence

The single biggest reason for Mr. Xia’s failure was his inability to provide proof for his claims. In the initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was stark: the petitioner “failed to present any evidence at hearing, documentary or otherwise, but rather relied solely on his own assertions.”

Herein lies the central mistake for any potential litigant: in a legal proceeding, the outcome isn’t determined by who feels most wronged, but by who can meet the required standard of proof. In this case, that standard was the “preponderance of the evidence.” The legal definition clarifies this standard:

“The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Think of it as the scales of justice. Your evidence doesn’t need to slam one side to the ground, but it must be strong enough to tip the scale, even slightly, in your favor. Mr. Xia arrived with only his convictions, which carry no weight on the scale.

During the rehearing, his testimony was filled with passionate statements, asserting that he was the only homeowner “who stood up to fight,” that he was fighting “evil,” and was simply “looking for justice.” These heartfelt convictions, however, were met with the judge’s blunt conclusion that he failed to meet his evidentiary burden. This reveals a critical lesson: in a legal setting, the passion of one’s convictions is irrelevant without factual, documentary proof to back them up.

2. Fight the Right Battle in the Right Courtroom

A significant portion of Mr. Xia’s case was derailed by a fundamental strategic error. The HOA’s attorney argued that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)—the body hearing the dispute—had no power over the case because the property had ceased to be a condominium in 2019 pursuant to a “Condominium Termination Agreement.”

In response, Mr. Xia tried to argue that this termination agreement was invalid, claiming it “does not contain valid signatures” and was a “usurpation of corporate power.” This was the wrong argument to make in the wrong place.

The Administrative Law Judge explicitly advised him that the validity of the termination agreement had already been decided by a higher court, the Maricopa County Superior Court. The judge stated plainly that the OAH “does not have the authority to overturn or modify that ruling.”

This wasn’t just a procedural mistake; it was a credibility-damaging tactical blunder. By focusing on an issue the court had no power to address, he appeared unprepared and distracted from the one claim he was actually there to prove. This strategic error likely damaged his credibility with the judge from the outset, underscoring the importance of understanding a court’s specific jurisdiction before you ever step foot inside.

3. A Second Chance Requires a New Strategy, Not Just New Documents

Being granted a rehearing is a significant opportunity in any legal dispute. Mr. Xia was granted this second chance after citing a specific “error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” This wasn’t a general appeal to fairness; it was a procedural opening that offered a rare chance to correct the flaws of his first attempt.

Unfortunately, he failed to capitalize on it. While he did submit documents in the second hearing, the judge noted a fatal flaw in his presentation: he “did not provide an explanation of the documents at hearing or testimony concerning the documents.”

Submitting a stack of papers is not the same as building a case. Evidence doesn’t speak for itself. Each document needed a narrative. Mr. Xia should have walked the judge through each paper, explaining: “This is the notice for the 2018 meeting. As you can see, an election is not on the agenda, which violates Bylaw 3.3. This document proves my specific claim.” Without that narrative, he just presented a puzzle with no solution.

The final, unambiguous conclusion from the second hearing was that the “Petitioner failed to establish that an election was required during either of those years.” The key takeaway is clear: a procedural victory like a rehearing is meaningless if the fundamental flaws in your case—in this instance, a lack of compelling, well-explained evidence—are not corrected.

From Principle to Proof

Mr. Xia’s journey shows a fatal progression: he began with a case built on feeling instead of fact, tried to fight it in the wrong court over a settled issue, and when given a rare chance to fix these fundamental errors, he failed to change his approach. It’s a story of how a lack of preparation can doom a case from start to finish.

This case is a stark reminder that in the eyes of the law, a right that cannot be proven does not exist. Before you begin your fight, ask yourself: are you prepared to prove your case, not just believe in it?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Haining Xia (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Nick Nogami (attorney)
    Dorsey Place Condominium Association
    Represented Respondent
  • Edith Rudder (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Listed on service list

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge for initial hearing and rehearing
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner who issued Order Granting Rehearing
  • Daniel Martin (judge)
    Referenced regarding a prior Minute Entry

Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020059-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-02-12
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael J. Stoltenberg Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Counsel Nicole Payne

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 5.1; A.R.S. § 10-3842

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed after rehearing because Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner continually refused Respondent access to his locked back yard for landscaping maintenance, and the CC&Rs requiring landscaping do not mandate pool maintenance.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation due to refusal of access to the back yard and misinterpretation of CC&R obligations regarding pool maintenance.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain landscaping and acting in bad faith

Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to maintain landscaping in 2020 and acting in bad faith, asserting that pool/hardscape maintenance was included in landscaping duties, and requesting the maximum fine. Respondent countered that they consistently maintained the front yard but were denied access to the locked backyard due to Petitioner's pool liability concerns.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed/denied as Petitioner failed to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. However, Respondent was ordered, going forward, to communicate the days and times they will be performing back yard landscaping so Petitioner can provide access.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs § 5.1
  • CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3842
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • 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. § 32-1122(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Duties, Landscaping, Pool Maintenance, CC&Rs, Access Refusal, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • CC&Rs § 5.1
  • CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3842
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • 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. § 32-1122(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 855028.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-02T10:34:27 (139.1 KB)

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 815480.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-02T10:34:33 (124.1 KB)

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 855028.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:27:32 (139.1 KB)

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 815480.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:27:36 (124.1 KB)

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 815480.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:33:21 (124.1 KB)

Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute centers on the scope of landscaping maintenance obligations as defined by the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The Petitioner alleged the HOA failed its duties under CC&Rs § 5.1 by not maintaining his property’s unique landscaping, which he argued included replenishing rock, staining paths, and servicing his swimming pool and associated hardscape. He further claimed the HOA was acting in bad faith and failing to comply with a previous court ruling.

The Respondent countered that it had consistently performed standard landscaping on the Petitioner’s front yard since January 2020. However, it was repeatedly denied access to the backyard, a fact the Petitioner admitted, citing liability concerns due to his pool. The HOA provided evidence of multiple attempts to access the yard and testimony that its maintenance duties are uniform across the community and do not include “concierge” services or pool maintenance.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition in both the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The final decision rested on two key points: 1) The Petitioner failed to provide access to the area in question, preventing the HOA from performing its duties. 2) The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the term “landscaping” under the CC&Rs could be reasonably interpreted to include swimming pool maintenance. This conclusion was strongly supported by the separate licensing classifications for landscaping (R-21) and swimming pool service (R-6) issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, which establishes them as distinct services under state regulation.

Case Overview

Parties and Key Personnel

Name/Entity

Affiliation / Title

Petitioner

Michael J. Stoltenberg

Homeowner, 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ

Respondent

Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

Respondent Counsel

Nicole Payne, Esq.

Legal Representative

Respondent Witness

Diana Crites

Owner, Crites and Associates (Property Management Co.)

Respondent Witness

Rian Baas

Owner, Mowtown Landscape (HOA Landscaping Contractor)

Presiding Judge

Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Case Details

Details

Initial Case No.

20F-H2020059-REL

Initial Hearing

August 3, 2020

Initial Decision

August 17, 2020

Rehearing Case No.

20F-H2020059-REL-RHG

Rehearing

February 2, 2021

Rehearing Decision

February 12, 2021

Core Dispute

The central conflict involved the interpretation of the HOA’s maintenance obligations under its governing documents. The Petitioner argued for an expansive definition of “landscaping” that encompassed his entire property exterior, including a swimming pool. The HOA maintained that its duties were limited to standard, uniform landscaping services and that pool maintenance was explicitly excluded. The dispute was compounded by the Petitioner’s refusal to grant the HOA’s landscaper access to his backyard.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

Mr. Stoltenberg’s petition, filed on or about April 21, 2020, and subsequent arguments in two hearings, were based on the following claims:

• Violation of CC&Rs: The HOA violated § 5.1 of its CC&Rs by failing “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.”

• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: As the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the Petitioner contended it should include all types of features outside of structures. His specific demands included:

◦ Maintenance of unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.

◦ Replenishment of thin or worn-out rock ground cover.

◦ Staining of walking paths.

◦ Full maintenance of his “water feature,” identified as a swimming pool. This included the pump, filter, chemicals, patio, and all related hardscape.

• Refusal to Grant Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked.” He stated this was for liability reasons due to the pool and refused access to the HOA’s landscapers. At the rehearing, he argued the HOA failed to communicate its schedule to allow him to provide temporary access.

• Budgetary Failure: He asserted that the HOA did not properly budget for the costs associated with maintaining his unique landscaping.

• Grounds for Rehearing: After the initial denial, the Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including irregularity in proceedings, errors in evidence admission, and claims of “Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues” related to hearing loss.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

The Rancho Del Oro HOA presented a defense centered on its consistent attempts to fulfill its obligations and the Petitioner’s own actions preventing them from doing so.

• Consistent Front Yard Maintenance: Both the HOA property manager and its landscaping contractor testified that the Petitioner’s front yard had been continuously maintained since landscaping services began in January 2020.

• Denial of Backyard Access: The HOA’s primary defense was that it was physically prevented from servicing the backyard. Evidence presented to support this included:

◦ Testimony from Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): His crews were at the property weekly. Between January and March 2020, he or his crew knocked and left notes or business cards four to five times with no response.

◦ Witness Testimony: In March 2020, a woman at the residence (presumably the Petitioner’s wife) explicitly instructed a landscaper that “she does not want anyone in the back yard because she had a pool and that is the reason for the lock on gate.”

◦ Documentary Evidence: A text message dated March 24, 2020, from Mr. Baas to property manager Diana Crites memorialized this interaction. A photograph of the locked gate was also submitted.

• Scope of Services: Ms. Crites testified that HOA landscape services are uniform throughout the community and include front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing in backyards (if access is granted), and sprinkler system upkeep. They do not provide “concierge” services such as maintaining potted plants, driveways, or pools (except for the community pool, which is serviced by a separate contractor).

• Access as a Prerequisite: Ms. Crites explained that backyard maintenance is contingent on homeowners leaving their gates unlocked, and some owners choose not to grant access due to pets or other reasons.

Judicial Findings and Rulings

Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s initial petition based on a clear set of facts.

• Findings of Fact: The judge found the evidence presented by the Respondent to be credible. The Petitioner’s own admission that he refused to allow access to his backyard since January 2020 was a critical factor. The evidence established that the HOA had consistently maintained the front yard and made multiple, documented attempts to access the backyard.

• Conclusions of Law: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.” Because the Petitioner denied access, he could not establish that the Respondent had violated any CC&R.

Rehearing and Final Decision (February 12, 2021)

After the Commissioner for the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, the judge again reviewed the case and ultimately dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”

• Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool and hardscape. The Petitioner failed to offer any definition or legal authority to support his expansive interpretation.

• Analysis of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the common definitions of “landscaping” from various dictionary and legal sources “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”

• Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC) Licensing: The judge’s conclusion was decisively reinforced by the State of Arizona’s contractor licensing classifications:

◦ The R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems license (formerly Landscaping) is for installing garden walls, irrigation, and other landscape features. It specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”

◦ The R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair license is a separate classification required to service residential pools.

◦ The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services.”

• Final Order: The petition was dismissed. The judge noted that because the Petitioner denied access, the Respondent was not in violation. However, the judge provided a forward-looking recommendation: “it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”

Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. It covers the key arguments, evidence presented, and legal conclusions from two separate hearings. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what were their respective roles?

2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the initial petition filed on April 21, 2020?

3. According to Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs, what is the Association’s primary maintenance obligation regarding individual lots?

4. What specific and unique types of landscaping did the Petitioner claim required maintenance by the HOA?

5. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?

6. What evidence did Diana Crites, the property manager, present to demonstrate the landscaper’s attempts to gain access to the backyard?

7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge initially deny the Petitioner’s petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?

8. What reasons did the Petitioner give for his request for a rehearing after the initial decision?

9. In the rehearing, how did the Administrative Law Judge legally define “landscaping” to determine the scope of the HOA’s duties?

10. What was the final order in the decision dated February 12, 2021, and what recommendation did the judge make for future interactions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Michael J. Stoltenberg, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner brought the complaint alleging the HOA was not fulfilling its duties, while the Respondent defended its actions. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842. Specifically, he claimed the HOA failed “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.” He also referenced a refusal to follow a previous court ruling.

3. Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This clause formed the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that the HOA was responsible for all landscaping on his property.

4. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (which was a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He also contended that when the rock in his front yard wore thin, the Respondent should be responsible for replenishing it.

5. The landscaping contractor could not access the Petitioner’s backyard because the gate was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the presence of his pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.”

6. Diana Crites presented a text message from the landscaper, Rian Baas, dated March 24, 2020, detailing how a woman at the residence stated she did not want anyone in the backyard because of the pool. Ms. Crites also presented a photograph of the locked gate and read a letter from Mr. Baas explaining his crew had knocked and left business cards weekly for two months without response.

7. The judge denied the petition because the Petitioner’s own admission established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted that the HOA had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard landscaping.

8. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularity in the proceedings by the judge, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the decision was not supported by evidence. He also asserted that there were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues related to his hearing loss and privacy issues.

9. The judge referenced multiple online dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.) and, most significantly, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ license classifications. She noted that landscaping (R-21 license) and swimming pool service (R-6 license) are two separate and distinct services, supporting the conclusion that pool maintenance is not included under the term “landscaping.”

10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed. However, the judge recommended that, going forward, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times for landscaping so the Petitioner could provide access to his backyard while maintaining his safety precautions.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer as a short essay.

1. Analyze the role of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means according to the source text and discuss how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both hearings.

2. Discuss the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to secure his property (the locked gate) and the Respondent’s obligation to perform maintenance. How did the judge’s final recommendation attempt to resolve this practical conflict, even while legally siding with the Respondent?

3. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning in the rehearing for defining “landscaping.” Why was the reference to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing scheme a particularly persuasive piece of evidence compared to dictionary definitions alone?

4. Trace the evolution of the Petitioner’s arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. How did his claims regarding the scope of “landscaping” and his introduction of issues like ADA accommodation and the HOA’s legitimacy reflect a shift in legal strategy?

5. Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent’s witnesses (Diana Crites and Rian Baas), assess the HOA’s efforts to fulfill its maintenance obligations. Were the HOA’s actions reasonable under the circumstances described in the proceedings?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 10-3842 (Code of Conduct for Board Members) and the proceedings operated under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and other related statutes.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community. The central issue of this case was the interpretation of Section 5.1(a) of the Rancho Del Oro HOA’s CC&Rs regarding maintenance duties.

Concierge Landscape Services

A term used by witness Diana Crites to describe specialized, non-uniform services the HOA does not provide. Examples given included maintaining potted plants, driveways, or walls dividing properties, in contrast to the uniform mowing and blowing provided to all homeowners.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This office heard the dispute after it was referred by the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.

Xeriscape

A style of landscaping utilizing drought-tolerant plants and rock to minimize water use. The Petitioner mentioned his unique xeriscape with geometric patterns as part of the landscaping he expected the HOA to maintain.

Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. It covers the key arguments, evidence presented, and legal conclusions from two separate hearings. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what were their respective roles?

2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the initial petition filed on April 21, 2020?

3. According to Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs, what is the Association’s primary maintenance obligation regarding individual lots?

4. What specific and unique types of landscaping did the Petitioner claim required maintenance by the HOA?

5. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?

6. What evidence did Diana Crites, the property manager, present to demonstrate the landscaper’s attempts to gain access to the backyard?

7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge initially deny the Petitioner’s petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?

8. What reasons did the Petitioner give for his request for a rehearing after the initial decision?

9. In the rehearing, how did the Administrative Law Judge legally define “landscaping” to determine the scope of the HOA’s duties?

10. What was the final order in the decision dated February 12, 2021, and what recommendation did the judge make for future interactions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Michael J. Stoltenberg, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner brought the complaint alleging the HOA was not fulfilling its duties, while the Respondent defended its actions. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842. Specifically, he claimed the HOA failed “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.” He also referenced a refusal to follow a previous court ruling.

3. Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This clause formed the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that the HOA was responsible for all landscaping on his property.

4. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (which was a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He also contended that when the rock in his front yard wore thin, the Respondent should be responsible for replenishing it.

5. The landscaping contractor could not access the Petitioner’s backyard because the gate was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the presence of his pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.”

6. Diana Crites presented a text message from the landscaper, Rian Baas, dated March 24, 2020, detailing how a woman at the residence stated she did not want anyone in the backyard because of the pool. Ms. Crites also presented a photograph of the locked gate and read a letter from Mr. Baas explaining his crew had knocked and left business cards weekly for two months without response.

7. The judge denied the petition because the Petitioner’s own admission established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted that the HOA had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard landscaping.

8. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularity in the proceedings by the judge, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the decision was not supported by evidence. He also asserted that there were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues related to his hearing loss and privacy issues.

9. The judge referenced multiple online dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.) and, most significantly, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ license classifications. She noted that landscaping (R-21 license) and swimming pool service (R-6 license) are two separate and distinct services, supporting the conclusion that pool maintenance is not included under the term “landscaping.”

10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed. However, the judge recommended that, going forward, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times for landscaping so the Petitioner could provide access to his backyard while maintaining his safety precautions.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer as a short essay.

1. Analyze the role of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means according to the source text and discuss how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both hearings.

2. Discuss the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to secure his property (the locked gate) and the Respondent’s obligation to perform maintenance. How did the judge’s final recommendation attempt to resolve this practical conflict, even while legally siding with the Respondent?

3. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning in the rehearing for defining “landscaping.” Why was the reference to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing scheme a particularly persuasive piece of evidence compared to dictionary definitions alone?

4. Trace the evolution of the Petitioner’s arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. How did his claims regarding the scope of “landscaping” and his introduction of issues like ADA accommodation and the HOA’s legitimacy reflect a shift in legal strategy?

5. Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent’s witnesses (Diana Crites and Rian Baas), assess the HOA’s efforts to fulfill its maintenance obligations. Were the HOA’s actions reasonable under the circumstances described in the proceedings?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 10-3842 (Code of Conduct for Board Members) and the proceedings operated under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and other related statutes.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community. The central issue of this case was the interpretation of Section 5.1(a) of the Rancho Del Oro HOA’s CC&Rs regarding maintenance duties.

Concierge Landscape Services

A term used by witness Diana Crites to describe specialized, non-uniform services the HOA does not provide. Examples given included maintaining potted plants, driveways, or walls dividing properties, in contrast to the uniform mowing and blowing provided to all homeowners.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This office heard the dispute after it was referred by the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.

Xeriscape

A style of landscaping utilizing drought-tolerant plants and rock to minimize water use. The Petitioner mentioned his unique xeriscape with geometric patterns as part of the landscaping he expected the HOA to maintain.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael J. Stoltenberg (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
    Represented Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
  • Diana Crites (property manager)
    Crites and Associates
    Owner of Respondent’s property management company; appeared as witness
  • Rian Baas (witness)
    Mowtown Landscape
    Owner of landscaping company contracted by Respondent
  • Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Listed as recipient of the decision
  • Luis (employee)
    Mowtown Landscape (Implied)
    Crew member mentioned in text message regarding attempted access to petitioner's yard
  • Jill (employee)
    Mowtown Landscape (Implied)
    Printed papers for Luis regarding access to petitioner's yard

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Jones, Michael J. vs. Westwind Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1213001-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-11-26
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome Respondent violated CC&Rs Article 11.7 and 6.5 by adopting Rental Rules and Crime Free Lease Addendum that restricted leasing rights (inconsistent with Article 8.13) without obtaining the required 75% member vote. The conflicting rules were declared unenforceable.
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $400.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael J. Jones Counsel —
Respondent Westwind Homeowners Association Counsel Chandler Travis

Alleged Violations

Article 11.7
A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
Article 6.5

Outcome Summary

Respondent violated CC&Rs Article 11.7 and 6.5 by adopting Rental Rules and Crime Free Lease Addendum that restricted leasing rights (inconsistent with Article 8.13) without obtaining the required 75% member vote. The conflicting rules were declared unenforceable.

Key Issues & Findings

Unilateral Amendment of CC&Rs

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&Rs by amending rental rules to include minimum lease terms and Crime Free Lease Addendum without the required 75% affirmative vote of the membership.

Orders: Westwind shall not enforce conflicting provisions of Rental Rules and CFLA; declared unenforceable.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article 11.7
  • Article 8.13

Unreasonable Penalties and Due Process

Petitioner alleged the Crime Free Lease Addendum violated statute by deeming single violations irreparable and denying due process/opportunity to be heard.

Orders: ALJ did not address this statute as it relates to monetary penalties and no evidence of improper penalties was presented.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: no_decision

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Authority to Adopt Rules / Discrimination

Petitioner alleged rules discriminated between owners. ALJ found rules inconsistent with CC&Rs (Art 8.13 leasing rights), thus violating Board's rulemaking authority under Article 6.5.

Orders: Westwind shall not enforce inconsistent rules.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article 6.5
  • Article 8.13

Related election workflow tool

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

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

12F-H1213001-BFS Decision – 314883.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:43:22 (110.2 KB)

12F-H1213001-BFS Decision – 319377.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:43:26 (58.6 KB)

12F-H1213001-BFS Decision – 314883.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:39 (110.2 KB)

12F-H1213001-BFS Decision – 319377.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:40 (58.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Michael J. Jones v. Westwind Homeowners Association (No. 12F-H1213001-BFS)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative law case Michael J. Jones v. Westwind Homeowners Association. The dispute centered on the Westwind Homeowners Association Board’s unilateral adoption of new Rental Rules and a Crime Free Lease Addendum (CFLA). Petitioner Michael J. Jones, an owner who leases his property, challenged these rules on the grounds that they violated the Association's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arizona state law.

On November 26, 2012, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella ruled in favor of Mr. Jones, determining that the Board had exceeded its authority by effectively amending the CC&Rs without the required 75% homeowner vote. The decision was certified as the final administrative action on January 2, 2013. The Association was ordered to cease enforcement of the contested rules, reimburse the Petitioner’s $2,000 filing fee, and pay $400 in civil penalties.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Limits of Board Rule-Making Authority

The central legal tension in this matter was the distinction between a Board's authority to adopt "rules" and the formal process required to amend "CC&Rs."

  • The Board’s Argument: The Board contended that Article 6.5 of the CC&Rs granted them the power to adopt and amend rules. They argued that because the term "from time to time" regarding leasing in the CC&Rs was vague, they had the authority to clarify it by mandating 12-month minimum lease terms.
  • The ALJ’s Finding: The ALJ concluded that while the Board can adopt rules, those rules cannot be inconsistent with the Declaration. By imposing a 12-month minimum and granting the Board the power to approve shorter terms or terminate leases, the Board effectively amended the CC&Rs. Under Article 11.7, such amendments require a 75% affirmative vote from the total eligible membership, which the Board did not obtain.
2. Consistency with Governing Documents

The case underscores the principle that Association Rules are subordinate to the CC&Rs.

  • The Conflict: Article 8.13 of the CC&Rs states that "nothing in the Declaration will be deemed to prevent the leasing of a Lot."
  • The Violation: The newly adopted Rental Rules and CFLA created conditions that could prevent the leasing of a lot (e.g., through disapproval of lease terms or immediate termination of tenancy). Because these rules were inconsistent with the "primary" governing document, they were deemed improperly adopted and unenforceable.
3. Third-Party Enforcement and Tenant Rights

The Crime Free Lease Addendum (CFLA) attempted to establish the Association as a "third-party beneficiary" of the lease between an owner and a tenant.

  • Expanded Authority: The CFLA claimed to give the HOA the same remedies as a landlord, including the power of "forcible detainer" (eviction).
  • The Petitioner's Concern: Mr. Jones argued that this granted the Board the ability to evict tenants for minor non-criminal violations (e.g., trashcans or landscaping) without due process, as the CFLA labeled any violation of community documents as "material and irreparable."
  • The Association's Defense: The Board President testified the CFLA was a response to criminal activity and was intended to protect property values and safety. However, the ALJ found the potential for the Board to "immediately terminate a lease" was a restriction on leasing rights not permitted by the existing CC&Rs.
4. Discrimination Among Owners

The Petitioner alleged that the CFLA discriminated against owners who lease their homes compared to those who reside in them with guests or family. While the ALJ ultimately found the discrimination claim "moot" because the rules were already invalid due to the lack of a 75% vote, the case highlights the risks of creating rules that apply only to a specific class of homeowners.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote Source & Context Significance
"The Association Rules will not be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with this Declaration… and, upon adoption, the Association Rules will have the same force and effect as if they were set forth in full…" CC&Rs Article 6.5 (Ex. A at 23). Foundational rule regarding the Board's authority to create regulations. Establishes the hierarchy of documents; rules are only valid if they align with the Declaration.
"A single violation of any provisions of the community documents… shall be deemed a serious violation, and a material and irreparable non-compliance." CFLA Paragraph 6 (Ex. C at 3). Language in the compulsory contract for tenants. This was the basis for the Petitioner’s fear that minor infractions could lead to immediate eviction without due process.
"The Rental Rules and CFLA impose restrictions that could potentially prevent the leasing of a Lot… [they] are inconsistent with the CC&Rs and therefore, are in violation of Article 6.5, as well." ALJ Conclusion of Law #3. The Judge's final determination on the conflict. This confirms that the Board's attempt to "interpret" vague language was actually an unauthorized restriction on property rights.
"The provisions… that were determined to conflict with the CC&Rs were not properly adopted, have no legal effect, and are unenforceable." ALJ Conclusion of Law #5. The final status of the contested rules. Renders the 12-month lease requirement and the CFLA null and void for this Association.

Findings of Fact and Legal Consequences

Violations Identified

The ALJ identified two primary violations:

  1. Violation of Article 11.7: Attempting to amend the Declaration (restricting leasing) without a 75% homeowner vote.
  2. Violation of Article 6.5: Adopting Association Rules that were inconsistent with the Declaration.
Financial and Regulatory Penalties

The Office of Administrative Hearings imposed the following:

Penalty/Cost Amount Payee
Civil Penalty $400.00 Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Reimbursement $2,000.00 Petitioner Michael J. Jones (Filing Fee)
Total Liability $2,400.00

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners Association Boards
  • Verify Amendment Thresholds: Before implementing rules that restrict property use (such as lease durations), Boards must verify if such restrictions require a formal amendment to the CC&Rs rather than a simple rule adoption.
  • Ensure Consistency: All new rules must be cross-referenced with the CC&Rs. If the Declaration says "nothing shall prevent" an action, a rule cannot subsequently "restrict" that action.
  • Evidence of Monetary Penalties: In administrative hearings regarding A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), specific evidence of improper monetary fines must be presented for the court to rule on statutory violations.
For Homeowners
  • Burden of Proof: In these proceedings, the Petitioner bears the burden of proving the violation by a "preponderance of the evidence"—meaning the claim is "more probable than not."
  • Recourse for Filing Fees: If a homeowner prevails in a case against an HOA regarding governing documents, they may be entitled to a full reimbursement of their filing fees (in this case, $2,000).
  • Finality of ALJ Decisions: If the relevant state department (in this case, Fire, Building and Life Safety) does not act to modify or reject an ALJ decision within the statutory timeframe, the decision becomes a certified final agency action.

Study Guide: Michael J. Jones v. Westwind Homeowners Association

Case Overview and Key Concepts

This study guide examines the administrative law case of Michael J. Jones v. Westwind Homeowners Association (No. 12F-H1213001-BFS). The case centers on the authority of a Homeowners Association (HOA) Board of Directors to implement new rental regulations and crime-prevention measures without a full vote of the association membership.

Core Legal Issues
  1. Unauthorized Amendment of Governing Documents: Whether the Board’s adoption of "Rental Rules" (specifically a 12-month minimum lease term) constituted a unilateral amendment of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in violation of the required 75% membership approval.
  2. Statutory Compliance (A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)): Whether the Crime Free Lease Addendum (CFLA) violated state law by imposing compulsory contracts, denying due process, or establishing unreasonable penalties.
  3. Discrimination Among Owners: Whether the new rules unfairly targeted and discriminated against owners who lease their properties compared to those who reside in them.
Hierarchy of Authority

The case highlights a critical legal hierarchy within planned communities:

  • Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.): State laws that govern HOA operations and member rights.
  • CC&Rs (Declaration): The superior governing document of the association. Amendments typically require a high threshold of member votes (75% in this case).
  • Association Rules/Bylaws: Rules adopted by a majority of the Board. These must remain consistent with the CC&Rs and cannot be used to circumvent the amendment process of the Declaration.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. What was the specific voting threshold required to amend the Westwind CC&Rs according to Article 11.7?

  • Answer: An affirmative vote of 75% or more of the total number of eligible votes in the Association.

2. How did the Board justify its decision to set a 12-month minimum lease term?

  • Answer: The Board argued it was clarifying the "vague" term "from time to time" found in Article 8.13 of the CC&Rs and was acting to preserve neighborhood safety and property values.

3. What is the "Crime Free Lease Addendum" (CFLA), and what power did it attempt to give the Association?

  • Answer: The CFLA is a rental agreement form that tenants and owners must sign. It attempted to establish the Association as a "third-party beneficiary" of the lease, allowing the HOA to enforce lease terms and use "forcible detainer" (eviction) laws against tenants for violations.

4. According to the ALJ’s findings, why were the Rental Rules and CFLA considered inconsistent with Article 6.5 of the CC&Rs?

  • Answer: Article 6.5 allows the Board to adopt rules but mandates they cannot be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the Declaration. Because the rules restricted the right to lease (specifically regarding lease duration and immediate termination), they effectively amended the CC&Rs without the required 75% vote.

5. What was the "burden of proof" required in this administrative hearing, and who held it?

  • Answer: The Petitioner, Michael J. Jones, held the burden of proof by a "preponderance of the evidence."

6. What financial penalties were imposed against the Westwind Homeowners Association?

  • Answer: A civil penalty of $400 ($200 per violation) and a reimbursement of the $2,000 filing fee to the Petitioner.

Essay Questions for Deeper Exploration

1. The Limits of Board Authority vs. Member Rights

Analyze the conflict between a Board’s duty to manage a community (Article 6.5) and the members' rights established in the CC&Rs (Article 8.13). At what point does a "clarifying rule" become an "unauthorized amendment"? Use the ALJ’s reasoning regarding the 12-month lease requirement to support your argument.

2. Due Process and the Crime Free Lease Addendum

The Petitioner argued that the CFLA denied owners and tenants due process by deeming a single violation "irreparable" before a hearing could occur. Discuss the legal implications of an HOA acting as a "third-party beneficiary" to a private lease agreement. Is it reasonable for an HOA to have the power of "forcible detainer" over a tenant?

3. Discrimination in HOA Rulemaking

The Board argued that lease rules are similar to pet rules—they only apply to those who choose to have pets (or tenants). The Petitioner argued this created a discriminatory class of owners. Evaluate these two perspectives based on the source text. Why did the ALJ ultimately declare the discrimination issue "moot"?

Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B): An Arizona statute governing the imposition of reasonable monetary penalties by an association after notice and an opportunity to be heard.
  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes between individuals and government agencies or regulated entities.
  • CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The legal documents that lay out the guidelines for a planned community; they are "recorded" and stay with the land.
  • Crime Free Lease Addendum (CFLA): A specific document adopted by the Westwind Board intended to reduce criminal activity in rental units by making any violation cause for immediate lease termination.
  • Forcible Detainer: A legal action (often called an eviction) taken by a landlord to regain possession of a property from a tenant.
  • Moot: A legal point that does not require a decision because the underlying issue has already been resolved by other means or the ruling would have no practical effect.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning the evidence shows that the fact sought to be proved is "more probable than not."
  • Third-Party Beneficiary: A person or entity who is not a party to a contract but stands to benefit from it and may have the legal right to enforce its terms.
  • Unilateral Amending: The act of changing governing documents by one party (the Board) without the required consent or vote of the other parties (the homeowners).

HOA Power Play: When Board Rules Clash with Homeowner Rights

CASE SUMMARY Matter: Michael J. Jones v. Westwind Homeowners Association Case No: 12F-H1213001-BFS Core Conflict: The scope of a Board’s rule-making authority versus the fundamental property rights protected by the community’s Declaration (CC&Rs).

1. Introduction: The High Stakes of HOA Governance

For homeowners and property investors, the Homeowners Association (HOA) Board is the local government with the most direct impact on property values and owner autonomy. However, a recurring point of friction in planned communities is the boundary of Board power. In the landmark case of Michael J. Jones v. Westwind Homeowners Association, the Office of Administrative Hearings was asked to decide a pivotal question: Can a Board unilaterally rewrite rental regulations under the guise of "rule-making," or does such a move constitute an ultra vires act—an action taken beyond its legal authority?

2. The New Rules: Crime Prevention vs. Owner Autonomy

In May 2011, the Westwind Board of Directors adopted new "Rental Rules" and a "Crime Free Lease Addendum" (CFLA). The Board, represented by President Steven Wadding, argued these measures were essential to combat rising criminal activity in rental units and to protect the community from non-responsive, off-site owners.

Effective August 1, 2011, the Board mandated several restrictive measures:

  • A 12-Month Minimum Lease Requirement: Explicitly prohibiting shorter-term rentals.
  • Mandatory Board Approval: Any month-to-month or short-term leases were subject to case-by-case Board review and potential disapproval.
  • Third-Party Beneficiary Status: The CFLA established the HOA as a third-party beneficiary in private lease agreements, granting the Board the authority to pursue "forcible detainer" (eviction) actions directly against tenants.
3. The Homeowner’s Challenge: Three Primary Complaints

The Petitioner, Michael J. Jones, challenged these regulations, arguing that the Board’s "safety measures" were actually a bypass of the community’s constitutional protections.

Complaint 1: The 75% Amendment Threshold Jones argued that the Board violated Article 11.7 of the CC&Rs. By mandating a 12-month lease minimum, the Board was not merely "clarifying" rules; it was effectively amending the Declaration. Per the CC&Rs, any such amendment requires an affirmative vote of at least 75% of the total eligible votes in the association—a threshold the Board ignored.

Complaint 2: Due Process and the Statutory "Irreparable" Trap Jones alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B). The CFLA labeled a single violation of community documents as "material and irreparable," providing grounds for immediate lease termination. Jones successfully argued that this was an attempt to bypass the statutory requirement for "notice and an opportunity to be heard." By pre-defining minor issues—like trashcan placement or landscaping—as "irreparable" violations, the Board sought to strip tenants of their due process rights before a violation even occurred.

Complaint 3: Unlawful Discrimination Jones asserted the Board violated Article 6.5, which prohibits rules that discriminate among owners. He argued the rules unfairly targeted landlords while exempting owner-occupants. In its defense, the HOA provided a "Pet Analogy," arguing that rules for landlords are like rules for pet owners: they only apply to the class of people who choose to have them.

4. The Legal Verdict: Why the Board Overstepped

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) performed a rigorous analysis of the Governing Document Hierarchy. While Article 6.5 allows a Board to adopt rules "from time to time," those rules are strictly subordinate to the Declaration.

The ALJ found the Board’s 12-month rule was in direct conflict with Article 8.13, which protects an owner's right to lease their lot "from time to time." By imposing a minimum term and a disapproval mechanism, the Board obstructed a right already granted by the CC&Rs. The ALJ dismissed the HOA's claim that they were "clarifying" vague language, viewing the Board's actions instead as an unauthorized obstruction of property rights.

"The provisions of the Rental Rules and CFLA specifically addressed herein that were determined to conflict with the CC&Rs were not properly adopted, have no legal effect, and are unenforceable."

Ultimately, the ALJ found the Board had performed an "effective amendment" without the required 75% community vote. Because the rules were found invalid on these grounds, the ALJ ruled the discrimination claim (Complaint 3) was moot.

5. The Financial Fallout: Costs of the Dispute

The ruling, certified as final on January 2, 2013, by the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, imposed the following costs on the Westwind HOA:

  • Civil Penalties ($400): A fine of $200 for each of the two primary violations: (1) Violation of Article 11.7 (Improper Amendment) and (2) Violation of Article 6.5 (Inconsistency with the Declaration).
  • Filing Fee Reimbursement ($2,000): The HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner for his filing costs.

Note on Statutory Merits: Regarding the A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) complaint, the ALJ noted in Footnote 1 that while the CFLA's language was concerning, the court did not rule on the merits of the "irreparable violation" trap because the HOA had not yet actually imposed a monetary penalty under those specific provisions.

6. Essential Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

This case serves as a definitive roadmap for HOA governance and the limits of unilateral authority:

  • 1. Governing Document Hierarchy: CC&Rs are the "constitution" of the community. Board-created rules are "statutes" that cannot contradict, diminish, or "effectively amend" the rights granted in the Declaration.
  • 2. Amendment vs. Rule-Making: Significant policy shifts—especially those restricting leasing—must follow the formal amendment process. Attempting to bypass a 75% vote by labeling a change as a "rule" is a high-risk legal maneuver.
  • 3. The "Clarification" Fallacy: Boards cannot use the excuse of "interpreting vague language" to strip away rights. The ALJ interpreted the phrase "from time to time" as a shield for the owner’s leasing rights, not a gap for the Board to fill with restrictions.
  • 4. Financial Risk of Unilateral Overreach: When a Board acts ultra vires, the association faces civil penalties and the reimbursement of the homeowner's legal costs, creating a significant liability for the community's budget.
7. Conclusion: Balancing Community and Individual Rights

The Jones v. Westwind decision underscores that neighborhood safety and property values, while legitimate goals, are not "blank checks" for Board overreach. Transparency and strict adherence to the community’s governing documents are not optional—they are the legal requirements of the job. For homeowners and investors, this case stands as a critical reminder: your property rights are protected by the CC&Rs, and even the most well-intentioned Board cannot vote them away in a closed-door session.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael J. Jones (petitioner)
    Westwind Homeowners Association (Owner)
    Appeared on his own behalf; owner of a home in Westwind

Respondent Side

  • Chandler Travis (attorney)
    Westwind Homeowners Association
    Represented the Respondent
  • Steven Wadding (witness)
    Westwind Homeowners Association
    President of the Board; testified regarding the CFLA

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge who authored the decision
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Director to whom the decision was transmitted
  • Cliff J. Vanell (OAH director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision as final
  • Holly Textor (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision copy c/o Gene Palma

Pecos Ranch Community Association vs. Randy and Sharon Hoyum

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212010-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-11-20
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The HOA proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondents violated the CC&Rs and Design Standards by constructing an unapproved shed. The ALJ ordered the Respondents to reimburse the filing fee and to bring the property into compliance.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Pecos Ranch Community Association Counsel Lydia Peirce Linsmeier
Respondent Randy and Sharon Hoyum Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Section 3(a)

Outcome Summary

The HOA proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondents violated the CC&Rs and Design Standards by constructing an unapproved shed. The ALJ ordered the Respondents to reimburse the filing fee and to bring the property into compliance.

Why this result: The Homeowners constructed a structure without the required Architectural Committee approval. The Committee's refusal to grant retroactive approval was supported by the fact that the structure violated City building codes and HOA size/setback restrictions.

Key Issues & Findings

Unapproved construction of accessory structure (storage shed)

Respondents built a large storage shed without prior approval. The structure violated city setbacks and size restrictions, and the HOA denied retroactive approval.

Orders: Respondents ordered to reimburse $550.00 filing fee and either obtain approval or remove the structure within 90 days.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article IV, Section 3(a)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

12F-H1212010-BFS Decision – 314478.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:41:42 (118.6 KB)

12F-H1212010-BFS Decision – 319010.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:41:46 (57.4 KB)

12F-H1212010-BFS Decision – 314478.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:20 (118.6 KB)

12F-H1212010-BFS Decision – 319010.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:20 (57.4 KB)

Briefing Document: Pecos Ranch Community Association v. Randy and Sharon Hoyum

Executive Summary

This briefing document details the administrative adjudication between the Pecos Ranch Community Association (the Association) and homeowners Randy and Sharon Hoyum (the Respondents) regarding the unauthorized construction of an accessory structure. In Case No. 12F-H1212010-BFS, the Office of Administrative Hearings determined that the Respondents violated the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Design Standards by erecting a 10’ x 24’ structure without prior architectural approval.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Association, ordering the Respondents to reimburse the Association's filing fee and to bring the property into compliance within 90 days of the order. The decision was certified as a final administrative action on December 27, 2012.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Compliance with Governing Documents (CC&Rs)

The central legal issue revolves around Article IV, Section 3(a) of the CC&Rs, which mandates that no structure or improvement shall be "commenced, erected, maintained, improved, altered or made" without prior review and approval by the Design Review Committee.

  • The Violation: The Respondents constructed an accessory structure in their rear yard between November 2009 and April 2010 without obtaining this approval.
  • Discretionary Authority: The CC&Rs grant the Design Review Committee the "sole and absolute discretion" to retroactively approve work done without permission. In this case, the committee elected not to grant retroactive approval.
2. The Intersection of Municipal and HOA Regulation

The dispute highlighted a complex dependency between the City of Chandler’s building codes and the Association’s private regulations.

  • Municipal Violations: The City of Chandler issued a "Stop Work Order" and an "Order to Comply" because the structure was built without permits. Mr. Hoyum was eventually fined $320 in Municipal Court for a Uniform Building Code Violation.
  • The "Quandary": The Respondents faced a regulatory deadlock. The City of Chandler would not grant a variance for the structure without HOA approval, but the HOA refused approval because the structure did not meet City building codes regarding size and setbacks.
3. Aesthetic Standards and Definitions

The Association maintained that the structure was "aesthetically unappealing" and "out of place." Key physical concerns included:

  • Visibility: The structure was visible over the fence line, violating Design Standards.
  • Size: Board members researched storage sheds and found most to be approximately 7’6” high. The Association subsequently updated its Design Standards to define a "storage shed" as a structure not exceeding 120 square feet and not exceeding fence height by more than 18 inches. The Respondents' structure (240 square feet) far exceeded these revised standards.
4. Claims of Arbitrary Enforcement

Mr. Hoyum argued that the Board acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner, alleging he was being "picked on" because his area was considered the "poor" section of the community. He provided evidence of other property violations (tents, gazebos, overgrown trees) to support a claim of selective enforcement.

  • Legal Determination: The ALJ ruled that the existence of other violations was not a valid defense, stating that the issue was strictly whether the Hoyums specifically violated the CC&Rs.

Key Quotes and Context

Quote Source/Context
"No building… or other structure… shall be commenced… unless and until the Design Review Committee has… reviewed and approved the nature of the proposed structure." CC&Rs, Section 3(a). This is the fundamental rule establishing the Association's authority over architectural changes.
"The Community is charged with the responsibility of preserving the aesthetic appearance of the Community to help protect the value of the homes." Notice of Disapproved Request (Dec 10, 2009). The Association's justification for rejecting the architectural submittal.
"The Hoyums find themselves in a quandary in that they cannot obtain a permit or variance from the City of Chandler without Architectural Review Committee approval, and they cannot obtain Architectural Review Committee approval without a permit or variance from the City." Findings of Fact, Para. 15. The ALJ's description of the procedural deadlock facing the homeowners.
"The Administrative Law Judge is not unsympathetic to the Hoyums’ situation, it must be concluded… that Pecos Ranch sustained its burden of proving… that the Hoyums violated the CC&Rs." Conclusions of Law, Para. 5. The ALJ's final determination, weighing the legal requirements against the homeowners' difficulties.

Actionable Insights and Final Order Requirements

The final agency action mandates specific steps for the Respondents and clarifies the rights of both parties:

  • Financial Restitution: The Respondents were ordered to reimburse the Association for the $550.00 filing fee within 60 days of the effective date of the Order.
  • Mandatory Compliance: Within 90 days of the Order, the Respondents must choose one of two paths:
  1. Obtain formal approval from the Design Review Committee (which, per the record, would require matching city codes).
  2. Alter, modify, move, or remove the structure to achieve full compliance with Pecos Ranch governing documents.
  • Right to Appeal: The parties were informed of their right to request a rehearing from the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety or seek review by the Superior Court, provided they act within statutory timeframes.
  • Effective Date: The Order became effective five days from the date of certification (December 27, 2012).

Legal Case Study Guide: Pecos Ranch Community Association v. Randy and Sharon Hoyum

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal dispute between the Pecos Ranch Community Association and homeowners Randy and Sharon Hoyum (Case No. 12F-H1212010-BFS). It examines the application of community governing documents, the authority of homeowners' associations, and the legal standards used in administrative hearings.

Core Case Overview

The central issue of this case involves the unauthorized construction of a large accessory structure (storage shed) by the Respondents, Randy and Sharon Hoyum, within the Pecos Ranch planned community. The Petitioner, Pecos Ranch Community Association, alleged that the structure violated the community's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Design Standards because it was built without prior approval from the Design Review Committee.

Key Parties
  • Petitioner: Pecos Ranch Community Association.
  • Respondents: Randy and Sharon Hoyum, residents of Lot 4029.
  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): Sondra J. Vanella.
  • Key Witnesses: Leisha Collins (Property Manager), Louis Silvestro (Board President), and Larry Buehler (Board Member/former Architectural Review Committee Chairman).

Fact Summary and Timeline

The dispute began in late 2009 when the Hoyums commenced construction on a 10’ x 24’ free-standing structure in their rear yard.

Date Event
November 2009 Construction of the accessory structure begins.
December 1, 2009 Association sends a "Friendly Reminder" to remove the unapproved shed, noting it is visible over the fence line.
December 4, 2009 Hoyums submit a retroactive Architectural Review Submittal Form.
December 4, 2009 City of Chandler issues an "Order to Comply" for building without permits or zoning approval.
December 10, 2009 Association issues a "Notice of Disapproved Request" citing height issues, lack of site plans, and failure to meet City Building Codes.
April 2010 Construction of the structure is completed.
December 16, 2010 Chandler Municipal Court enters a Judgment and Sentence against Mr. Hoyum for a Building Code Violation (fined $320.00).
May 25, 2011 Pecos Ranch Board formally updates Design Standards to define storage sheds and limit their height and size.
May 10, 2012 Pecos Ranch files a Petition with the Department of Fire, Building & Life Safety.
November 5, 2012 Administrative hearing held.

Legal Principles and Governing Documents

1. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

Article IV, Section 3(a) of the CC&Rs serves as the primary governing rule. It states that no building or structure may be "commenced, erected, maintained, improved, altered or made" until the Design Review Committee has reviewed and approved the plans. The committee retains "sole and absolute discretion" to grant retroactive approval but is not required to do so.

2. Design Standards

The Association’s standards initially prohibited sheds visible from neighboring property. During the dispute, the Board clarified these standards:

  • Size Limit: Maximum roof area of 120 square feet.
  • Height Limit: Maximum of 18 inches above the rear yard solid fence height.
  • Aesthetics: Must be a "neutral earth tone" or match the home and be screened with vegetation.
3. Burden of Proof

In this administrative proceeding, the Association bore the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence. This means the evidence must show that the violation is "more probable than not."

4. The "Quandary" Defense

The Respondents argued they were stuck in a circular bureaucratic loop: the City of Chandler would not grant a permit or variance without HOA approval, and the HOA would not grant approval because the structure lacked a city permit and violated size/setback requirements.

Practice Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

  1. What was the specific size of the structure built by the Hoyums?
  2. Why did the City of Chandler issue a "Stop Work Order" to the Hoyums?
  3. According to the updated May 2011 Design Standards, what is the maximum square footage allowed for a storage shed?
  4. What was the Association’s reasoning for rejecting the Hoyums' offer to plant trees to screen the shed?
  5. How much was the filing fee that the Hoyums were ordered to reimburse to the Association?
  6. Does the Design Review Committee have the authority to approve work that has already been completed?
  7. Why did the ALJ dismiss the Hoyums' evidence regarding other homes in the community having unapproved structures?

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. Discretionary Authority vs. Arbitrary Enforcement: The Respondents argued that the Board acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner, alleging they were being "picked on" while other violations existed in the community. Analyze the ALJ's conclusion that other homeowners' violations are not a valid defense for a specific respondent's violation.
  2. The Interplay of Municipal and Private Regulation: Discuss the "quandary" faced by the Hoyums regarding the City of Chandler permits and HOA approval. How should a homeowner navigate conflicting requirements between local government zoning and private CC&Rs?
  3. Retroactive Approval and Homeowner Risk: Examine the risks homeowners take when commencing construction before receiving written approval. Based on the Pecos Ranch CC&Rs, evaluate the extent of the Design Review Committee's power regarding "sole and absolute discretion" in retroactive cases.

Glossary of Important Terms

  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A judge who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving administrative agencies.
  • CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions): The governing documents that dictate the rules and limitations for property use within a planned community.
  • Design Review Committee (DRC): A specific body within an HOA (sometimes called the Architectural Review Committee) responsible for approving or denying changes to a property's exterior.
  • Final Agency Action: The final decision of an administrative body; in this case, the ALJ's decision was certified as final when the Department of Fire, Building & Life Safety took no action to modify it.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The legal standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, requiring that a fact is more likely to be true than not.
  • Setback: The minimum distance a structure must be placed from a property line or other boundary, as defined by city code or HOA standards.
  • Variance: An official deviation from or exception to zoning or building codes, typically granted by a city or governing body.

The Cost of Building Without Permission: A Lesson from the Pecos Ranch Shed Dispute

It started with a shed and ended in a courtroom. For Randy and Sharon Hoyum, a 240-square-foot addition became a thousand-dollar lesson in HOA protocol and municipal red tape. This "Shed Saga," which unfolded at 1441 South Cholla Place in the Pecos Ranch community, serves as a cautionary tale for any homeowner who believes it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

The conflict began in November 2009 when the Hoyums commenced construction on a 10’ x 24’ free-standing accessory structure in their rear yard. In a common-interest community, such a project is rarely just a weekend DIY task—it is a legal undertaking governed by a contract.

The Core Conflict: CC&Rs vs. Homeowner Ambition

The primary engine of this dispute was the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). During the eventual administrative hearing, Property Manager Leisha Collins and Board members emphasized that these rules exist to maintain aesthetic commonality and protect property values.

The HOA's authority is rooted in Section 3(a)(ii) of the CC&Rs, which states verbatim:

"…no building, fence, exterior wall, residence, or other structure or grading shall be commenced, erected, maintained, improved, altered or made on any Lot, Parcel or other area at any time, unless and until the Design Review Committee has, in each such case, reviewed and approved the nature of the proposed structure, work, improvement, alteration, or landscaping and the plans and specifications therefore."

Furthermore, the community's Design Standards at the time were clear regarding storage sheds: "In no event shall storage sheds be located so as to be visible from neighboring property." Because the Hoyums' structure stood tall enough to be seen over the fence line, it was in immediate violation of the community’s visual standards.

Timeline of a Disapproved Request

The interaction between the homeowners and the Pecos Ranch Community Association moved quickly, yet the Hoyums continued construction even as the paper trail of warnings grew.

  • November 30, 2009: Construction of the structure commences.
  • December 1, 2009: The HOA issues a "Friendly Reminder" letter, noting the structure is visible over the fence line and was not approved.
  • December 4, 2009: The Hoyums submit a retroactive Architectural Review Submittal Form.
  • December 10, 2009: The HOA issues a formal Notice of Disapproved Request, citing height issues, failure to meet city codes, and the lack of a site plan.
  • April 2010: Despite the disapproval and municipal intervention, the structure is officially completed.

The Board’s disapproval wasn't arbitrary. Architectural Review Committee Chairman Larry Buehler testified that the committee conducted thorough research, learning that most pre-built sheds have a ridge level of 7’6”. Given that most community walls are 6’ high, the Board felt the Hoyums' structure was "out of place" and overpowering.

The Municipal Complication: City of Chandler Involvement

The homeowners found themselves in "double trouble" as they ignored not just the HOA, but the City of Chandler. On December 4, 2009, the city issued an Order to Comply for building without zoning approval, permits, or inspections.

This municipal defiance led to a December 16, 2010 judgment in Chandler Municipal Court, where Mr. Hoyum was found guilty of a Uniform Building Code Violation and ordered to pay a $320 fine.

The "Catch-22" and the Homeowner’s Defense

The Hoyums eventually found themselves in a classic community-living "Catch-22." The City of Chandler refused to grant a variance without HOA approval, yet the HOA refused to grant approval because the structure lacked city permits and failed to meet setback requirements.

Frustrated, Mr. Hoyum took a defensive stance common in these disputes: he claimed "selective enforcement." He submitted dozens of photographs (Exhibits C through AA) of other community violations—ranging from solar panels and gazebos to frog statues—arguing he was being "picked on" because his home was in a "poor" area. He characterized the Board as an "exclusive group of longtime retired friends miffed because a homeowner would build something without their approval."

As a specialist in this field, I see this defense often. However, homeowners must realize that "everyone else is doing it" is rarely a legal shield. Courts focus on the specific violation at hand, not the perceived shortcomings of the neighbors.

The Legal Verdict: Why the HOA Won

Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella ruled that the Pecos Ranch Community Association proved by a "preponderance of the evidence" that the CC&Rs were violated.

The judge clarified that the Association’s refusal to grant retroactive approval was a valid exercise of its "sole and absolute discretion." Because the structure was built without prior approval, lacked city permits, and ignored size and setback restrictions, the HOA was well within its rights to demand compliance. The "selective enforcement" argument was dismissed as irrelevant to whether the Hoyums had breached their specific contractual obligations to the community.

Compelling Conclusion & Key Takeaways

The Recommended Order was a definitive blow to the "build first" strategy. This case demonstrates that the Board's power to maintain aesthetic standards is a potent legal tool when backed by clear CC&R language.

Key Takeaways for Homeowners:

  • Prior Approval is Non-Negotiable: Never break ground without written consent. The Committee has the "sole and absolute discretion" to grant or deny retroactive approval, and they are under no obligation to bail out a homeowner who bypassed the rules.
  • Check Municipal Codes First: HOA approval and city permits are two separate hurdles. You must clear both; one does not grandfather you into the other.
  • Financial Consequences: The Hoyums were ordered to reimburse the $550 filing fee within 60 days. Furthermore, they were given 90 days to either bring the structure into compliance or remove it entirely.
  • Design Standards Can Change: In a direct response to this specific dispute, the Board updated its standards in May 2011. They codified a strict definition for storage sheds: a maximum of 120 square feet and a height not exceeding the fence by more than 18 inches. Your dispute today could become the neighborhood's permanent rule tomorrow.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Lydia Peirce Linsmeier (attorney)
    Brown/Olcott, PLLC
    Represented Petitioner Pecos Ranch Community Association
  • Louis Silvestro (board member)
    Pecos Ranch Community Association Board
    Board President; testified at hearing
  • Larry Buehler (board member)
    Pecos Ranch Community Association Board
    Board member and former Chairman of Architectural Review Committee; testified at hearing
  • Leisha Collins (property manager)
    Pecos Ranch Community Association
    Testified at hearing regarding governing documents and Lot File

Respondent Side

  • Randy Hoyum (respondent)
    Homeowner
    Appeared on own behalf
  • Sharon Hoyum (respondent)
    Homeowner
    Appeared on own behalf

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Director receiving transmitted decision
  • Cliff J. Vanell (OAH Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Holly Textor (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision copy c/o for Gene Palma

Johnson, Martin W. vs. Ciento Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212007-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-08-14
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated its governing documents. The ALJ determined the water damage dispute was effectively between the Petitioner and the upstairs unit owner, and the HOA was not obligated to intervene or reimburse under the circumstances.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Martin W. Johnson Counsel —
Respondent The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association Counsel Lydia Peirce Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

Article XII, Section 5 of CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated its governing documents. The ALJ determined the water damage dispute was effectively between the Petitioner and the upstairs unit owner, and the HOA was not obligated to intervene or reimburse under the circumstances.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the tribunal found the issue to be a dispute between owners rather than an HOA violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to enforce repair reimbursement for water damage

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to enforce CC&Rs requiring it to repair damages caused by an owner's negligence (upstairs unit) and charge that owner, following multiple water leaks.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Article XII, Section 5 of CC&Rs
  • Rules and Regulations Article II, Section 8

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

12F-H1212007-BFS Decision – 304220.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:41:02 (116.0 KB)

12F-H1212007-BFS Decision – 308686.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:41:08 (56.9 KB)

12F-H1212007-BFS Decision – 304220.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:43 (116.0 KB)

12F-H1212007-BFS Decision – 308686.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:43 (56.9 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Martin W. Johnson vs. The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative legal dispute between Dr. Martin W. Johnson (Petitioner) and The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association (Respondent). The case (No. 12F-H1212007-BFS) centered on whether the Ciento Board of Directors violated its governing documents by refusing to intervene and seek reparations for repeated water damage to Dr. Johnson’s unit caused by an upstairs neighbor.

Despite evidence of five separate water intrusion incidents between 2009 and 2012, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella ruled in favor of the Homeowners’ Association (HOA). The decision, certified as final on October 1, 2012, concluded that the dispute was a private matter between individual homeowners and that the HOA had no jurisdictional or contractual obligation to resolve claims for damages between owners under the existing Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. The Scope of Association Responsibility

The central conflict involved the interpretation of the HOA's authority versus its obligations. Dr. Johnson argued that the Board had a "covenant obligation" to repair damage and charge the offending owner. However, the Respondent maintained that it is not a "police agency" and cannot compel one owner to reimburse another. The ALJ upheld the Respondent’s view, noting that while the HOA is authorized to repair common elements or units damaged by negligent acts, it is not obligated to resolve disputes between owners.

2. Individual Maintenance Obligations

The ruling emphasized the responsibility of individual unit owners to maintain their internal systems. According to the Ciento Rules and Regulations (Article II, Section 8), residents are required to keep plumbing, toilets, and bathtubs in good operating condition to prevent overflows. Because the leaks originated from internal fixtures (toilets, p-traps, and bathtubs) within a private unit, the maintenance failure was attributed to the owner of that unit, not the Association.

3. Insurance Priority and Subrogation

The case highlighted the interaction between HOA insurance and individual unit owner insurance. Under Arizona State Statute 33-1253, an association’s policy is primary if there is overlapping coverage. However, in this instance, because Dr. Johnson’s private insurance had already paid for the primary restoration (over $22,000), the HOA was not "placed in the position" of having to perform the repairs itself, which would have been the prerequisite for them to bill the offending owner for reimbursement.

Chronology of Damage Incidents (Unit 117E)

The following table outlines the repeated water damage sustained by the Petitioner's unit, emanating from unit 217E (owned by Board Treasurer Kenneth Hamby, Jr. and occupied by a tenant).

Date Cause of Damage Extent of Damage / Action Taken
Sept 23, 2009 Broken/backed-up toilet in 217E Extensive flooding. Dr. Johnson paid $500 deductible; insurance paid $22,762.74 for restoration.
May 2010 Defective p-trap in 217E kitchen Damage to Dr. Johnson's kitchen cabinets, counter, and floor.
Sept 7, 2011 Clogged toilet in 217E Substantial damage to Dr. Johnson's bathroom.
Nov 15, 2011 Leak from 217E Further damage to the kitchen of unit 117E.
Jan 19, 2012 Bathtub overflow in 217E Damage to ceilings, baseboards, and rugs in unit 117E.

Important Quotes with Context

Regarding HOA Liability Limits

"The Association shall have no responsibility for resolving any disputes between or among owners, including, without limitation, claims for damage to the property of one Owner caused by the acts of another."

— Article XII, Section 5, of the CC&Rs

Context: This specific provision was the primary legal basis for the ALJ's decision. It serves as a "hold harmless" clause that prevents the HOA from being forced to act as an arbiter or collection agent in civil disputes between neighbors.

Regarding the Requirement for Actionable Evidence

"Language like 'my unit,' 'they will not do this' and 'damaged by water four times' has not provided actionable evidence to justify a response from Ciento HOA."

— Ciento HOA Answer to Petition

Context: The HOA argued that the Petitioner failed to provide specific professional repair bills or documentation that reasonably assigned the damage to building facilities (Association responsibility) rather than another unit's private facilities.

Regarding the Owner's Defense

"Petitioner 'failed to show cause or actual evidence of any direct involvement or negligence on our part that would have resulted in damage to your property. We therefore consider this matter closed.'"

— Kenneth Hamby, Jr., Unit 217E Owner and Board Treasurer

Context: This quote, from a letter to Dr. Johnson, illustrates the refusal of the upstairs owner to accept personal liability, which prompted the Petitioner to seek enforcement through the HOA Board.

Final Legal Conclusion

The Administrative Law Judge determined that Dr. Johnson failed to prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" that the HOA violated its bylaws or CC&Rs. The tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the individual owner (Mr. Hamby) and that the Petitioner’s recourse lay in a court of competent jurisdiction against the neighbor, rather than an administrative claim against the Association.

Actionable Insights

  • Private vs. Association Repair: Under the Ciento CC&Rs, the HOA is authorized to repair damage caused by an owner’s negligence and then bill that owner. However, if a victimized owner utilizes their own insurance to complete repairs, the Association is not required to step in to facilitate reimbursement of deductibles or secondary costs.
  • Documentation Standards: To trigger an HOA response in cases of cross-unit damage, owners must provide a clear description of repairs supported by dollar amounts from professional bills or insurance claims, and documentation proving the damage is the responsibility of another unit or the HOA’s shared facilities.
  • Limitations of HOA Oversight: Homeowners should be aware that HOAs may not have the legal authority to "vet" tenants or force landlords to do so, nor can they act as a "police agency" in disputes that the governing documents categorize as owner-to-owner conflicts.
  • Statutory Primary Insurance: In Arizona, per A.R.S. § 33-1253, an association’s insurance policy is generally primary over a unit owner’s policy for the same property. Impacted owners should ensure their insurers are aware of this when asserting subrogation rights against an HOA.

Case Study Guide: Johnson v. The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Dr. Martin W. Johnson and The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association. It covers the legal arguments, findings of fact, and the final administrative decision regarding homeowner association (HOA) liability and owner-to-owner disputes.

Key Concepts and Legal Framework

1. Burden of Proof: Preponderance of the Evidence

In administrative hearings of this nature, the Petitioner (Dr. Johnson) bears the burden of proof. He must demonstrate by a "preponderance of the evidence" that the Respondent (Ciento HOA) violated its own bylaws or Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). This legal standard requires that the evidence shown makes the fact sought to be proved more probable than not.

2. Governing Documents

The community is governed by a hierarchy of documents that define the rights and responsibilities of the Board and the homeowners:

  • Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws: General governing rules for the association.
  • Amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs): Specifically Article XII, Section 5, which addresses the Association’s authority to repair damage caused by owners or tenants and recoup costs.
  • Rules and Regulations: Specifically Article II, Section 8, which mandates that residents maintain plumbing, toilets, and bathtubs to prevent overflows that damage other units.
3. Arizona State Statute 33-1253

This statute addresses insurance coverage in condominium communities. It stipulates that if an HOA carries an insurance policy and a unit owner also has insurance covering the same property at the time of loss, the HOA’s policy provides the primary coverage.

4. HOA Liability vs. Owner Liability

A central theme of the case is the distinction between an HOA's obligation to enforce rules and its lack of responsibility for resolving private disputes between individual owners. The CC&Rs explicitly state that the Association has no responsibility for resolving claims for damage to one owner's property caused by another owner.

Chronology of Material Events

Date Event
Sept 23, 2009 Extensive flooding in unit 117E caused by a backed-up toilet and broken handle in unit 217E.
Feb 2010 Restoration of unit 117E completed; insurance paid $22,762.74; Dr. Johnson paid a $500 deductible.
May 2010 Leak from a defective p-trap in unit 217E damaged Dr. Johnson’s kitchen.
July 26, 2010 Dr. Johnson provided a Statement of Loss to Board Treasurer Kenneth Hamby.
Sept 3, 2010 Mr. Hamby denied responsibility, citing a lack of evidence of negligence.
Sept 7, 2011 Clogged toilet in unit 217E caused substantial bathroom damage in unit 117E.
Nov 15, 2011 Kitchen damage in 117E caused by another leak from 217E.
Jan 19, 2012 Bathtub overflow in 217E damaged Dr. Johnson's ceiling, baseboards, and rugs.
Feb 6, 2012 Dr. Johnson filed a Petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
Aug 14, 2012 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision recommending dismissal.
Oct 1, 2012 The ALJ decision was certified as the final administrative decision.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. Who were the primary parties in this administrative hearing?
  • Answer: The Petitioner was Dr. Martin W. Johnson (owner of unit 117E) and the Respondent was The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association.
  1. What was the primary reason Dr. Johnson filed the petition against the HOA?
  • Answer: He alleged the HOA Board failed to enforce covenant obligations to repair water damage to his unit and charge the owner of the unit (217E) responsible for the leaks.
  1. How much did Dr. Johnson’s insurance company pay for the repairs following the September 2009 incident?
  • Answer: $22,762.74.
  1. According to the HOA’s Rules and Regulations, who is responsible for maintaining the plumbing and bathtubs within a unit?
  • Answer: Each individual resident is responsible for maintaining their own plumbing to ensure it does not overflow and cause detriment to other residents.
  1. What was the specific role of Kenneth Hamby, Jr. in this case?
  • Answer: He was the Treasurer of the HOA Board and the owner of unit 217E (the source of the water damage).
  1. Why did the HOA claim it did not take action on Dr. Johnson’s earlier complaints?
  • Answer: The HOA claimed Dr. Johnson failed to provide actionable evidence, such as professional repair bills, quotes, or documentation reasonably assigning the damage to another unit.
  1. What was the ALJ’s final conclusion regarding the HOA's violation of its governing documents?
  • Answer: The ALJ concluded that Dr. Johnson failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated its bylaws or CC&Rs.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Limits of HOA Authority: Analyze the tension between the HOA’s authority to repair damages (as outlined in Article XII, Section 5 of the CC&Rs) and the provision that the Association has no responsibility for resolving disputes between owners. Where is the line drawn between community maintenance and private civil matters?
  1. Insurance Primacy and Statutory Interpretation: Discuss the implications of Arizona State Statute 33-1253 in this case. If the HOA insurance is meant to be "primary," why did Dr. Johnson’s personal insurance carrier end up paying the bulk of the claim, and how did this affect the ALJ's final decision?
  1. Evidentiary Requirements in HOA Disputes: Dr. Johnson testified extensively about the timeline of leaks, yet the HOA Board and the ALJ found the evidence insufficient to hold the Association liable. Evaluate the types of documentation the HOA requested (descriptions of repairs, dollar amounts, concurrent insurance claims) and discuss whether these requirements are reasonable or serve as a barrier to homeowner relief.

Glossary of Important Terms

  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A professional presiding officer who hears evidence and issues decisions in administrative law proceedings.
  • Amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs): A legal document that outlines the rules and restrictions for a common interest development.
  • Common Element: Portions of the condominium property that are not part of an individual unit and are generally maintained by the HOA.
  • Deductible: The amount an insured individual must pay out-of-pocket before an insurance provider pays a claim.
  • Petitioner: The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition; in this case, Dr. Martin W. Johnson.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning the claim is more likely to be true than not.
  • Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association.
  • Substantial Conformance: A requirement that repairs return a property to a state very similar to its original condition.
  • Workmanlike Manner: A standard of quality in construction and repairs implying the work is performed with the skill and knowledge common to the trade.

The HOA Leak Dilemma: Lessons from the Ciento Condominium Dispute

1. Introduction: When Your Ceiling Becomes a Waterfall

For condominium owners, the stability of a home is often at the mercy of the plumbing in the unit above. When a ceiling becomes a literal waterfall, the immediate focus is on mitigation, but the secondary battle is frequently a legal and administrative quagmire regarding liability. This was the reality for Dr. Martin Johnson, a former resident at The Ciento Condominiums, whose struggle highlights the complex intersection of property law, insurance priority, and association governance.

The central conflict involved a multi-year ordeal where Dr. Johnson’s unit was repeatedly damaged by water originating from the unit above. The dispute was complicated by a significant perceived conflict of interest: the owner of the offending unit, Kenneth Hamby, Jr., served as the Treasurer of the HOA Board. Dr. Johnson sought to hold the Association accountable for failing to enforce its own rules, raising the pivotal question: Is an HOA legally obligated to mediate and repair damage between private units, especially when a Board member is involved?

2. A Chronology of Damage: The Five Leaks

The friction between unit 117E (Johnson) and unit 217E (Hamby’s tenant) was documented through five distinct incidents of water intrusion:

  • September 2009: A catastrophic flooding event caused by a broken and clogged toilet in the upstairs unit. A professional plumber found the toilet "backed up full of toilet paper and debris," with a broken handle and flapper that allowed water to flow indefinitely. Dr. Johnson’s unit sustained $22,762.74 in damages, requiring a five-month restoration process.
  • May 2010: A kitchen leak caused by a defective p-trap in unit 217E damaged Dr. Johnson’s kitchen cabinets, counters, and flooring.
  • September 2011: A second clogged toilet incident in the upstairs unit resulted in substantial damage to the bathroom below.
  • November 2011: Another leak originating from the upstairs kitchen caused further damage to unit 117E.
  • January 2012: A bathtub overflow in the upstairs unit damaged Dr. Johnson’s ceilings, baseboards, and rugs.
3. The HOA’s Defense: Evidence and Agency

The Ciento Condominiums HOA did not merely offer a blanket dismissal of Dr. Johnson’s claims; rather, they framed the issue as a failure of "actionable evidence." While the HOA admitted in a 2012 letter that they do occasionally bill owners for damages caused to other units, they maintained that this specific case was a private "owner-to-owner" dispute.

The Association argued they are not a "police agency" and lack the authority to vet or control the tenants of individual owners. Crucially, the HOA asserted that Dr. Johnson failed to satisfy their internal reimbursement framework, which required:

  1. Professional repair quotes or paid bills concurrent with an official insurance claim.
  2. Clear documentation proving the damage was reasonably assigned to another unit or building facility.

Without this "actionable evidence," the Board—including Treasurer Hamby—maintained they had no duty to intervene or compel reimbursement between individual owners.

4. The Fine Print: Interpreting the CC&Rs

The adjudication of this dispute rested on the interplay between the community's governing documents and Arizona law.

Article XII, Section 5 (CC&Rs): This provision grants the HOA the authority to repair damage caused by a negligent owner/tenant and then charge that owner for the costs. However, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that this is a discretionary power triggered only if the Association performs the work. Furthermore, the section explicitly states the HOA has "no responsibility for resolving any disputes between or among owners," including property damage claims.

Article II, Section 8 (Rules & Regulations): This article places a strict fiduciary responsibility on the resident to maintain their own plumbing, toilets, and tubs in good operating condition to prevent overflows that damage neighboring units.

Arizona State Statute 33-1253: This statute was a major point of contention. Dr. Johnson’s insurance provider argued that under state law, the HOA’s insurance policy is "primary" over an individual unit owner’s policy when both cover the same property. This created a significant legal friction point regarding which entity should have footed the bill for the $22,762.74 restoration.

5. The Verdict: The Insurance Catch-22

Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella dismissed Dr. Johnson’s petition, finding that he failed to prove a violation of the bylaws or CC&Rs. By the time of the hearing, Dr. Johnson had already sold the unit, turning the matter into a quest for reimbursement after divestment.

The Judge’s ruling highlighted a "good faith trap" for homeowners. Because Dr. Johnson’s own insurance company had already completed the repairs to his unit, the HOA was never "placed in the position" of having to perform the work themselves. Since the HOA did not perform the repairs, they had no costs to recoup from Mr. Hamby under Article XII, Section 5. Essentially, by acting quickly to mitigate damage through his private insurer, Dr. Johnson inadvertently extinguished the HOA’s obligation—and authority—to intervene in the repair process.

6. Summary of Key Takeaways for Condo Owners

The Ciento dispute provides several critical lessons for owners navigating water damage and HOA politics:

  1. Understand the Insurance Paradox: While Arizona law may label the HOA policy as "primary," using your own insurance to expedite repairs can legally relieve the HOA of its duty to perform repairs and recoup costs from a negligent neighbor. Acting too quickly may close the window for HOA intervention.
  2. The High Bar for "Actionable Evidence": Formal complaints must be backed by professional quotes and forensic documentation linking the damage to a specific external source. Vague descriptions or personal testimony are often insufficient to trigger HOA enforcement.
  3. Fiduciary Limits in Private Disputes: Even when a Board member is the owner of the source unit, CC&Rs often contain "hold harmless" clauses that shield the Association from having to mediate private property disputes.
  4. The Proper Forum for Relief: As the ALJ noted, when an HOA is not required to act under its CC&Rs, the appropriate path for relief is often a court of competent jurisdiction (civil court) rather than an administrative hearing. Victims of repeated negligence may need to sue the neighboring owner directly to recover deductibles and uncompensated damages.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Martin W. Johnson (Petitioner)
    Former Owner (Unit 117E)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Lydia Peirce Linsmeier (Attorney)
    Brown/Olcott, PLLC
    Representing The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association
  • Kenneth Hamby, Jr. (Board Member)
    The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association
    Treasurer of the Board; Owner of unit 217E
  • Debra Katzenberger (Property Manager)
    Associated Property Management (APM)

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision

Butler, Clifford and Jean vs. Happy Trails Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212004-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-07-05
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The ALJ dismissed the petition, concluding that the Petitioners failed to prove the HOA violated the CC&Rs. The governing documents require a Residence Vehicle to be present for occupancy, and the Arizona Room cannot serve as the main residence.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford and Jean Butler Counsel —
Respondent Happy Trails Community Association Counsel Maria Kupillas

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 1.31; Section 11.1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, concluding that the Petitioners failed to prove the HOA violated the CC&Rs. The governing documents require a Residence Vehicle to be present for occupancy, and the Arizona Room cannot serve as the main residence.

Why this result: The Petitioners failed to prove a violation because the plain language of the CC&Rs supports the HOA's requirement that a Residence Vehicle be present on the lot for residency.

Key Issues & Findings

Enforcement of Residence Vehicle Policy

Petitioners alleged that the HOA enforced a policy preventing residents from living in an Arizona Room without a Residence Vehicle on the lot, arguing this policy was unreasonable and contrary to the CC&Rs.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed. No action is required of Happy Trails.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 1.31
  • CC&Rs Section 11.1

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

12F-H1212004-BFS Decision – 300400.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:40:09 (93.4 KB)

12F-H1212004-BFS Decision – 304741.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:40:20 (61.4 KB)

12F-H1212004-BFS Decision – 300400.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:25 (93.4 KB)

12F-H1212004-BFS Decision – 304741.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:25 (61.4 KB)

Administrative Decision Briefing: Butler v. Happy Trails Community Association

Executive Summary

The case of Clifford and Jean Butler vs. Happy Trails Community Association (No. 12F-H1212004-BFS) centers on a dispute regarding residency requirements within a planned adult community. The Petitioners, Clifford and Jean Butler, challenged an association policy requiring the presence of a "Residence Vehicle" (RV) on their lot as a prerequisite for occupying an "Arizona Room."

Following a hearing on June 18, 2012, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella ruled in favor of the Happy Trails Community Association. The ALJ concluded that the Association's enforcement of the policy was consistent with the community's Amended and Restated Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The decision was certified as final on August 20, 2012, by the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Interpretation of Governing Documents

The core of the legal dispute rested on the specific definitions and residential use restrictions outlined in the Happy Trails CC&Rs dated February 14, 2005.

CC&R Section Definition/Provision Legal Impact
Section 1.31 Defines "Arizona Room" as a separate structure used in part for residential purposes that does not serve as the main residence. Established that an Arizona Room is legally secondary to the primary dwelling unit.
Section 11.1 States individuals may only reside in a Residence Vehicle; no other portion of the lot may be occupied as a residence. Established the Residence Vehicle as the only permissible primary dwelling.
Section 11.1 (cont.) Residents may "also occupy" an Arizona Room as long as they reside in a Residence Vehicle. Created a requirement for contemporaneous occupancy; the RV must be present for the Arizona Room to be used.
2. Community Composition and Historical Enforcement

The evidence presented established Happy Trails as an over-55 planned community with approximately 2,000 lots.

  • Infrastructure: Approximately 500 lots contain Arizona Rooms, while fewer than 1,000 lots are designed to accommodate a Residence Vehicle. Some lots are reserved for permanent manufactured homes.
  • Historical Usage: Mr. Butler testified that the Association had historically condoned the occupancy of Arizona Rooms since 1997. He argued that many residents live in these rooms full-time, often despite conflicting language in the original 1985 CC&Rs.
  • Current Enforcement: The Association maintains a strict enforcement stance to avoid setting precedents. The Board of Directors has consistently voted against granting variances or waivers regarding the RV requirement.
3. Economic and Practical Hardship

The Petitioners highlighted several practical and financial burdens imposed by the strict adherence to the CC&Rs:

  • Maintenance Costs: Residents who do not use their RVs must still pay for licensure, insurance, and maintenance.
  • Depreciation: RVs lose value over time, representing a significant financial loss for residents who only keep them to satisfy Association requirements.
  • Compliance Costs: Mr. Butler cited instances of residents purchasing 24-foot travel trailers at costs exceeding $10,000 solely to avoid Association fines and remain in their Arizona Rooms.
  • Market Realities: The Butlers expressed difficulty selling their lot, which prevented them from moving out of the community and necessitated their continued occupancy of the Arizona Room.
4. Administrative Legal Framework

The burden of proof in this matter rested with the Petitioners to demonstrate by a "preponderance of the evidence" that the Association violated the CC&Rs.

  • Finding: The ALJ determined that the Association’s "Courtesy Notice" and subsequent enforcement actions were in strict accordance with the written governing documents.
  • Certification: Because the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify the ALJ’s decision by August 9, 2012, the decision became the final administrative action.

Important Quotes with Context

"The Association is enforcing a policy that is not in accord with the CC&Rs… If I move my recreational vehicle off my lot for any reason… I have three choices. 1. Move out of my Arizona Room… 2. To purchase another recreational vehicle… 3. The Association will levy fines of up to $2,500."

  • Context: From the Butlers' initial petition filed on February 29, 2012, outlining the perceived unreasonableness and cost of the Association's enforcement.

"Arizona Room… does not serve as the main residence on the Lot."

  • Context: Definition found in Section 1.31 of the CC&Rs, which served as the primary legal basis for the ALJ's decision against the Butlers.

"Individuals who reside on Lots on which Arizona Rooms are allowed may also occupy an Arizona Room on the Lot so long as the entire Lot is occupied by no more than two individuals."

  • Context: Section 11.1 of the CC&Rs, interpreted by the court to mean that an Arizona Room can only be occupied if the resident is also occupying a Residence Vehicle on the same lot.

"While the requirement of the presence of a Residence Vehicle on the lot may not necessarily be economical or practical for many residents at this time, if residents are dissatisfied with this requirement, procedures exist to amend the CCR’s."

  • Context: The ALJ’s concluding remarks, acknowledging the hardship on residents but emphasizing that the court must follow the written law of the Association.

Actionable Insights

Amendment Requirements

The ruling clarifies that the only path for residents to change the residency requirements is through a formal amendment of the CC&Rs.

  • Threshold: An amendment requires 1,001 votes.
  • Challenges: Historical data suggests reaching this threshold is difficult, as the Association has never recorded more than 800 votes for any proposal. A proposed amendment was scheduled for a December 2012 vote, though community leaders expressed skepticism regarding its passage.
Association Enforcement Strategy

The Association’s refusal to grant variances is a deliberate strategy to maintain uniform enforcement. The Board of Directors believes that granting a single waiver would obligate them to grant waivers to all residents, potentially undermining the community's established structure.

Compliance Standards

For residents to avoid fines (which can reach $2,500) or legal action, they must:

  • Maintain a Residence Vehicle (motor home or trailer) of at least 24 feet in length on the property.
  • Provide evidence of repair if the Residence Vehicle is temporarily removed from the lot, as the Association only allows full-time Arizona Room occupancy during such documented intervals.

Study Guide: Clifford and Jean Butler v. Happy Trails Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case Clifford and Jean Butler v. Happy Trails Community Association (No. 12F-H1212004-BFS). It examines the legal dispute regarding the interpretation of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR’s) in a planned community and the subsequent ruling by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Key Concepts and Case Overview

1. The Core Conflict

The dispute centered on whether residents of the Happy Trails Community Association could legally reside in an "Arizona Room" without a "Residence Vehicle" (such as a motor home or trailer) present on the lot. The Petitioners, Clifford and Jean Butler, argued that the Association's enforcement of this requirement was unreasonable, costly, and not supported by the governing documents.

2. Governing Documents: The CCR’s

The primary authority in this case was the Amended and Restated Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Happy Trails Resort, dated February 14, 2005. Two specific sections were pivotal to the legal analysis:

  • Section 1.31: Defines an "Arizona Room" as a separate structure used in part for residential purposes that "does not serve as the main residence on the Lot."
  • Section 11.1: Specifies that individuals may only reside in a "Residence Vehicle" and that no other portion of the lot may be occupied as a residence, except that those with Arizona Rooms may occupy them as long as the lot is occupied by no more than two individuals.
3. Burden of Proof

In administrative proceedings of this nature, the Petitioners (the Butlers) bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent (Happy Trails) violated the governing CCR’s. Under Arizona law (A.A.C. R2-19-119), the Petitioners had to demonstrate that their claim was more probable than not.

4. Variance and Amendment Procedures

The case highlighted the rigid nature of HOA governance:

  • Variances: The Board of Directors testified that they do not grant variances or waivers to avoid setting a precedent that would require granting them for all residents.
  • Amendments: Changing the CCR’s requires a formal vote. In this community, 1,001 votes were required to pass an amendment, a threshold that witness testimony suggested was historically difficult to reach.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. What was the specific allegation made by Clifford and Jean Butler against Happy Trails Community Association? Answer: They alleged that the Association was enforcing a policy contrary to the CCR’s by not allowing residents to reside in an Arizona Room without a Residence Vehicle present on the lot.

2. How do the CCR’s define an "Arizona Room" under Section 1.31? Answer: It is defined as a separate structure on a lot used for residential purposes that does not serve as the main residence.

3. According to Section 11.1 of the CCR’s, what is the only allowed "main residence" on a lot? Answer: A Residence Vehicle.

4. What was the financial impact cited by Mr. Butler regarding the Association’s policy? Answer: He argued that maintaining an unused Residence Vehicle is expensive due to depreciation, licensure requirements, and insurance costs. Additionally, some residents purchased $10,000 trailers they never intended to use just to comply with the policy.

5. Why did the Board of Directors refuse to grant a variance to the Butlers? Answer: The Board determined that granting a variance to one resident would obligate them to grant variances to all residents who applied.

6. What was the final ruling of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)? Answer: The ALJ concluded that the Butlers failed to prove that Happy Trails violated the CCR’s and recommended the Petition be dismissed.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. Strict Construction of CCR’s vs. Homeowner Hardship: Analyze the tension between the "economic and practical" concerns raised by the Butlers and the legal necessity for the ALJ to adhere to the written text of the CCR’s. Should administrative judges have the latitude to waive HOA rules based on the "age and health concerns" of residents, or is strict adherence vital for community stability?
  1. The Role of the Amendment Process: The ALJ suggested that if residents are dissatisfied with the CCR’s, they should utilize the amendment process. Discuss the challenges of this democratic approach in a large community (2,000 lots) requiring a high vote threshold (1,001 votes). Does a high threshold for change unfairly protect the status quo at the expense of evolving resident needs?
  1. The Definition of "Residence": Evaluate the legal distinction between a "main residence" and an "Arizona Room" as established in the Happy Trails CCR’s. How does this distinction impact the property rights of the owners, and how did it ultimately dictate the outcome of the Butlers' petition?

Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) A judge who triages and adjudicates disputes within a specific government agency or administrative office.
Arizona Room In the context of Happy Trails, a separate residential structure on a lot that is secondary to the main Residence Vehicle.
CCR’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and limitations of a planned community or HOA.
Courtesy Notice A formal communication from an HOA notifying a resident of a rule violation before fines or legal actions are taken.
Preponderance of the Evidence The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning the evidence is "more likely than not" to be true or more convincing than the opposing evidence.
Residence Vehicle A motor home or trailer (specifically 24 feet or longer in this case) designated by the CCR’s as the primary dwelling unit on a lot.
Variance An official waiver or exception granted by a governing body to allow a property owner to deviate from the established rules or CCR’s.
Final Agency Action The final decision made by an administrative body which, once certified, can be appealed to the Superior Court.

The RV or the Room? Lessons from the Happy Trails HOA Dispute

1. Introduction: The Clash of Rules and Lifestyle

In the expansive Happy Trails Community Association—a planned over-55 community in Arizona spanning 2,000 lots across 10 subdivisions—a fundamental dispute recently highlighted the rigid hierarchy of governing documents over personal lifestyle preferences. The conflict centered on the definition of "permitted use" versus "incidental use" regarding a staple of desert architecture: the "Arizona Room."

The core dilemma in Case No. 12F-H1212004-BFS, Butler vs. Happy Trails, was whether a resident could legally occupy an Arizona Room as a primary residence in the absence of a "Residence Vehicle" (RV) on the lot. As a Senior HOA Legal Analyst, I find this case a quintessential example of how homeowners often mistake historical leniency for a permanent waiver of rights. This post examines the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) ruling and the sobering reality of living under Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

2. The Core Conflict: A Case of Definitions

The dispute was triggered when Clifford and Jean Butler, residents for 12 years, sold their RV and attempted to reside full-time in their Arizona Room while listing their lot for sale. On May 8, 2012, the HOA issued a "Courtesy Notice" identifying a violation of the governing documents and directing the Butlers to place a motor home or trailer (24 feet or longer) on the property immediately.

The Butlers filed a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, anchoring their challenge on three primary arguments:

  • Physical and Financial Burden: They asserted that maintaining an unused RV is a significant hardship, requiring insurance, licensing, and a capital investment that often exceeds $10,000 for a compliant vehicle.
  • Historical Condonation: The Butlers argued the HOA had condoned full-time residence in Arizona Rooms since 1997, even though the 1985 CC&Rs—which were in effect when they purchased in 1999—did not even permit the construction of such rooms.
  • Lack of Specific Fining Authority: They contended the CC&Rs contained no explicit language authorizing the Association to levy fines (which they believed could reach $2,500) for the mere absence of a recreational vehicle.
3. Decoding the CC&Rs: The Legal Reality

The ALJ's analysis focused strictly on the 2005 Amended and Restated CC&Rs. The case turned on whether an Arizona Room is legally capable of serving as a primary residence under the community’s specific definitions.

Section 1.31: Defines "Arizona Room" as "a separate structure located on the Lot used, in part, for residential purposes, but that does not serve as the main residence on the Lot." Section 11.1 (Residential Use): "Each lot may be used only for residential purposes and none other. Except as otherwise set forth in this section, individuals may only reside in a Residence Vehicle and no other portion of the Lot may be occupied as a residence. Individuals who reside on Lots on which Arizona Rooms are allowed may also occupy an Arizona Room on the Lot…"

The ALJ interpreted these sections with clinical literalism. Because Section 1.31 explicitly states the room "does not serve as the main residence," it is legally incapable of being a standalone dwelling. Under Section 11.1, the right to occupy the room is tethered to the "Residence Vehicle." Without the RV, the occupancy of the Arizona Room is no longer "contemporaneous" with a permitted primary use; it becomes an unauthorized use of a secondary structure.

4. The Practical Burden vs. Legal Enforcement

Testimony from the Butlers and witness Sal Ognibene highlighted the economic and health-related difficulties of the "RV requirement," noting that the population's advancing age makes maintaining depreciating vehicles impractical. However, the HOA leadership—including Community Manager Beth McWilliams and Board President Jim Weihman—testified that the Board refuses to grant variances to avoid the legal "domino effect." If a waiver is granted for one resident, the Association risks losing its ability to enforce the standard against others, potentially eroding the community's character as an RV resort.

Homeowner’s Perspective HOA’s Legal Position
High Value Assets: Arizona Rooms are high-quality structures valued between $200,000 and $300,000, suitable for full-time living. Defined Use: Regardless of value, the CC&Rs define the Arizona Room as incidental to a Residence Vehicle.
Economic Hardship: Requiring a $10,000+ "placeholder" RV that is never used is an unreasonable financial burden. Contractual Adherence: The CC&Rs are a binding contract; the law is indifferent to financial hardship when the text is clear.
Historical Leniency: The Board has condoned this living arrangement for over a decade. Anti-Precedent: Historical leniency does not create a permanent waiver; boards must enforce the text to maintain community standards.
5. The Ruling: Why the Butlers Lost

On July 5, 2012, ALJ Sondra J. Vanella recommended the dismissal of the petition, a decision certified as final on August 20, 2012. The ruling rested on several key conclusions of law:

  1. Burden of Proof: Under A.A.C. R2-19-119, the petitioners bear the burden of proving by a "preponderance of the evidence" that the HOA violated its governing documents. The Butlers failed to show any such violation.
  2. Explicit Prohibition: The ALJ found the CC&Rs were unambiguous: an Arizona Room "does not serve as the main residence."
  3. Contemporaneous Occupancy Required: The legal right to occupy the secondary structure is dependent upon the presence of the primary structure (the RV).
  4. Policy vs. Text: While the Butlers viewed the RV requirement as a "policy," the ALJ found it was a direct application of the recorded CC&Rs.
6. The Path Forward: How to Change the Rules

The ALJ noted that while the RV requirement might not be "economical or practical," litigation is not the appropriate venue for redressing "unreasonable" rules that are clearly written into the CC&Rs. The only remedy is the formal amendment process.

However, Happy Trails represents a cautionary tale in "voter apathy" and procedural hurdles:

  • High Threshold: An amendment requires 1,001 affirmative votes.
  • Historical Failure: Testimony revealed the community has never gathered more than 800 votes for any proposal.
  • Failed Referendum: Sal Ognibene testified that a previous attempt at a referendum was abandoned due to these hurdles, leading the residents to litigation as a "last resort"—a strategy that rarely succeeds when the governing documents are clear.
7. Conclusion & Key Takeaways

The dismissal of the Butlers' petition underscores a hard truth in community management: the hierarchy of governing documents is nearly absolute. Personal circumstances, financial logic, and even years of "condoned" behavior cannot override the plain language of a recorded CC&R.

Takeaways for Homeowners:

  • Document Supremacy: CC&Rs are the "law of the land." Historical leniency by a Board rarely creates a legal waiver; a subsequent Board or an ALJ will almost always prioritize the written text.
  • Definition Matters: Understand how your property is legally defined. An Arizona Room may look, feel, and be valued like a house, but if the CC&Rs define it as a "secondary structure," it cannot legally function as a primary residence.
  • Amendment is the Key: Legal challenges are a losing battle when the CC&R text is clear. The only permanent remedy for rules that no longer serve the community is a formal amendment, which requires organized voting and overcoming community apathy.

In an HOA, your lifestyle is governed by the contract you signed at closing. Before making significant financial or lifestyle changes—like selling a primary "Residence Vehicle"—you must verify that those changes comport with the strict definitions of your governing documents.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Clifford Butler (petitioner)
    Happy Trails Community Association (resident)
    Appeared on own behalf
  • Jean Butler (petitioner)
    Happy Trails Community Association (resident)
    Appeared on own behalf
  • Sal Ognibene (witness)
    Happy Trails Community Association (resident)
    Called by Mr. Butler

Respondent Side

  • Maria Kupillas (attorney)
    Farley, Seletos & Choate
    Represented Happy Trails Community Association
  • Beth McWilliams (community manager)
    Happy Trails Community Association
    Testified regarding amendments and violations
  • Jim Weihman (board president)
    Happy Trails Community Association
    Testified regarding variances and waivers

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Director
  • Cliff J. Vanell (OAH director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Beth Soliere (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of transmitted decision

Leach, Gregory E. vs. Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112009-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-04-30
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The ALJ dismissed the Petition entirely. The claims were found to be barred by the one-year statute of limitations because the request for records/audits occurred in 2009 and the petition was filed in 2011. Alternatively, on the merits, the Petitioner failed to prove violations of A.R.S. § 33-1810 or A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Gregory E. Leach Counsel —
Respondent Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1810
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the Petition entirely. The claims were found to be barred by the one-year statute of limitations because the request for records/audits occurred in 2009 and the petition was filed in 2011. Alternatively, on the merits, the Petitioner failed to prove violations of A.R.S. § 33-1810 or A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Why this result: The Petition was time-barred by the statute of limitations. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the requirements of the CC&Rs for audits and the availability of records.

Key Issues & Findings

Financial Audit Requirement

Petitioner alleged the Board refused to provide CPA audited statements. The ALJ ruled the claim was time-barred. On the merits, Petitioner failed to prove the CC&Rs required a CPA audit, which is a prerequisite for a violation of the statute when the documents do not require it.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • A.R.S. § 12-541(5)

Association Records

Petitioner alleged records were inadequate or unavailable. Evidence showed Petitioner and another homeowner reviewed records at the HOA attorney's office in 2010.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

11F-H1112009-BFS Decision – 291388.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:38:51 (80.1 KB)

11F-H1112009-BFS Decision – 294580.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:38:55 (57.9 KB)

11F-H1112009-BFS Decision – 291388.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:27 (80.1 KB)

11F-H1112009-BFS Decision – 294580.pdf

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

Case Summary: Leach v. Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA Case No. 11F-H1112009-BFS Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings Date of Decision: April 30, 2012 (Certified Final June 6, 2012)

Overview and Proceedings The Petitioner, Gregory E. Leach, a homeowner in the Coronado Pointe Townhomes planned community, filed a petition against the Respondent, Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA12. The hearing was conducted on April 11, 2012, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella2. The Petitioner appeared on his own behalf, while the Respondent was represented by Board members Dimitrios and Vikki Boukalis2.

Key Facts and Arguments The Petitioner alleged that the HOA Board had refused to provide “CPA Audited Annual Financial Statements” from June 2000 to the present, asserting that the Board was defrauding homeowners and violating governing statutes34. He argued that existing documents were inadequate and requested an accountant review the records5.

The Respondent argued that the Petitioner’s claims were barred by a one-year statute of limitations6. Additionally, the Respondent provided evidence that the Petitioner had been granted access to review the Association’s financial records at the HOA attorney’s office on May 21, 201045.

Main Legal Issues and Analysis The ALJ addressed three primary legal issues:

1. Statute of Limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541(5)): The ALJ concluded the petition was time-barred. The statute creates a one-year limitation for liabilities created by statute. The Petitioner requested the financial statements in December 2009 but did not file the petition until November 25, 2011, nearly two years later78.

2. Audit Requirement (A.R.S. § 33-1810): The ALJ found that while the Petitioner demanded a CPA audit, the statute only requires a general “financial audit” unless the community’s specific documents (CC&Rs) mandate a CPA. The Petitioner failed to prove that the Coronado CC&Rs required a certified public accountant to perform the audit89.

3. Access to Records (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)): The statute requires associations to make records “reasonably available” for examination. The ALJ found that because the Petitioner had reviewed the financial records on May 21, 2010, the Respondent had complied with the statute910.

Outcome and Final Decision The ALJ ordered that the petition be dismissed, ruling that no action was required of the Respondent10. The decision was based on the expiration of the statute of limitations and the Petitioner’s failure to establish violations of the relevant statutes by a preponderance of the evidence7….

The decision became the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on June 6, 2012, after the Department took no action to reject or modify the ALJ’s ruling within the statutory timeframe12.

Study Guide: Gregory E. Leach v. Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing and subsequent decision regarding the dispute between Gregory E. Leach and the Coronado Pointe Townhomes Homeowners Association (HOA). It covers the factual background, legal issues, and the final administrative outcome.

1. Case Overview and Key Entities

Parties Involved
  • Petitioner: Gregory E. Leach, a resident and homeowner at Coronado Pointe Townhomes who purchased his unit in 2004.
  • Respondent: Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA ("Coronado"), a planned community consisting of 26 townhomes.
  • The Board of Directors: At the time of the dispute, the Board was composed entirely of the Boukalis family:
  • Dimitrios Boukalis: President and developer of the community.
  • Fueronia Boukalis: Secretary (wife of Dimitrios).
  • Vikki Boukalis: Treasurer (daughter of Dimitrios and Fueronia).
  • Note: The Boukalis family owned 14 of the 26 townhomes in the community.
Administrative Oversight
  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): Sondra J. Vanella.
  • Office of Administrative Hearings: The venue for the hearing held on April 11, 2012.
  • Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety: The agency responsible for final action on the ALJ's decision.

2. The Core Dispute

In November 2011, Gregory E. Leach filed a petition alleging that the Board of Directors had failed to provide CPA-audited annual financial statements to the members of the association since June 2000.

Petitioner's Arguments
  • The Board knowingly defrauded homeowners.
  • The Board failed to comply with the association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and state statutes.
  • Homeowners required financial statements to verify "who has paid what" regarding association funds.
  • The documents provided during a prior records review were "inadequate."
Respondent's Defense
  • Statute of Limitations: The HOA asserted that the one-year statute of limitations for statutory violations barred the claim.
  • Access to Records: The HOA provided evidence that Mr. Leach was granted access to financial records at the association attorney’s office on May 21, 2010.
  • Statutory Compliance: The HOA maintained they had complied with the requirements for making records available.

3. Legal Framework and Analysis

The Administrative Law Judge evaluated the case based on several Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and administrative rules:

Burden of Proof

Under A.A.C. R2-19-119, the Petitioner (Mr. Leach) bore the burden of proving the violations by a preponderance of the evidence (showing the facts sought to be proved are more probable than not).

Statute of Limitations
  • A.R.S. § 12-541(5): Establishes a one-year statute of limitations for liabilities created by statute.
  • Application: Mr. Leach made his request for financial statements on December 11, 2009, but did not file his petition until November 25, 2011 (nearly two years later). The ALJ ruled the petition was time-barred.
Statutory Applicability
  • Condominium vs. Planned Community: Mr. Leach initially cited A.R.S. §§ 33-1243 and 33-1258. However, the parties stipulated that Coronado is a planned community, making those specific condominium statutes inapplicable.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810 (Audits): Requires an annual financial audit unless the community's documents require a CPA audit. The ALJ found that Mr. Leach failed to prove the CC&Rs required a CPA-specific audit.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) (Records Access): Requires financial records to be "reasonably available" for examination. Evidence showed Mr. Leach had reviewed records at the attorney’s office in May 2010, satisfying this requirement.

4. Final Decision and Certification

On April 30, 2012, ALJ Sondra J. Vanella recommended that the petition be dismissed.

  • Final Agency Action: Because the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify the ALJ's decision by June 5, 2012, the decision was certified as final on June 6, 2012, by Cliff J. Vanell, Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
  • Effective Date: The order became effective five days after certification (June 11, 2012).

5. Short-Answer Practice Questions

Q1: Why did the ALJ determine that A.R.S. §§ 33-1243 and 33-1258 were inapplicable to this case? Answer: These statutes apply specifically to condominiums. Since both parties agreed that Coronado Pointe Townhomes is a "planned community," these statutes did not apply.

Q2: What was the specific timeframe that barred Mr. Leach’s petition? Answer: Under A.R.S. § 12-541(5), there is a one-year statute of limitations. Mr. Leach requested records in December 2009 but did not file his petition until November 2011, exceeding the one-year limit.

Q3: Describe the composition of the Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA Board at the time of the hearing. Answer: The Board was controlled by the Boukalis family: Dimitrios (President), his wife Fueronia (Secretary), and their daughter Vikki (Treasurer). They owned 14 of the 26 units in the community.

Q4: What evidence did the Respondent provide to prove they had complied with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)? Answer: They submitted a letter from their attorney and testimony from Vikki Boukalis confirming that Mr. Leach and another homeowner had visited the attorney’s office on May 21, 2010, to review financial records and sign confidentiality agreements.

6. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. Statutory Interpretation in HOA Governance: Discuss the significance of the distinction between a "planned community" and a "condominium" in the context of Arizona law. How did this distinction impact the legal requirements for Coronado Pointe Townhomes regarding financial reporting?
  2. The Role of the Statute of Limitations: Evaluate the ALJ’s decision to dismiss the petition based on A.R.S. § 12-541(5). Why is a statute of limitations necessary in administrative law, and how did it function as a primary defense for the HOA in this instance?
  3. Transparency vs. Compliance: Mr. Leach argued that the records provided to him were "inadequate." Analyze the difference between a Board making records "reasonably available" (as required by A.R.S. § 33-1805) and providing records that satisfy a homeowner’s specific expectations for transparency.

7. Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
A.R.S. Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Arguendo A Latin term meaning "for the sake of argument." Used by the judge to address a point even if the primary ruling (like the statute of limitations) already decided the case.
CC&Rs Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and operations of a common-interest community.
CPA Audit An audit performed by a Certified Public Accountant. The Petitioner argued this was required, but the ALJ found no evidence in the CC&Rs to support that specific requirement.
Petition The formal written request or complaint filed by Mr. Leach to initiate the administrative hearing process.
Planned Community A real estate development where owners are subject to the rules of an HOA, distinct from a condominium in its legal classification and applicable statutes.
Preponderance of the Evidence The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning that the evidence shows a fact is "more probable than not."
Statute of Limitations A law that sets the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated.

HOA Transparency and the Law: Lessons from Leach v. Coronado Pointe Townhomes

1. Introduction: A Homeowner’s Quest for Accountability

The relationship between a homeowner and their Homeowners Association (HOA) board is built on a foundation of trust and transparency. However, when a board is perceived as an insular entity, that trust can quickly erode, leading to protracted legal battles. In Phoenix, Arizona, a decade-long dispute at the Coronado Pointe Townhomes provides a cautionary tale for both residents and governance boards regarding the limits of statutory obligations and the necessity of timely action.

The case of Gregory E. Leach v. Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA highlights a homeowner’s persistent quest to obtain audited financial statements from a board with a highly concentrated power structure. Mr. Leach, a resident of Scottsdale, Arizona, found himself at odds with a board composed entirely of the Boukalis family. As the community developer, Dimitrios Boukalis (President) and his family—including his wife Fueronia (Secretary) and daughter Vikki (Treasurer)—owned 14 of the 26 units. This 54% ownership stake created a unique governance environment that eventually led to a formal petition for administrative relief.

2. The Conflict at Coronado Pointe: Claims of Fraud and Secrecy

In November 2011, Mr. Leach filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, alleging that the Board had systematically withheld financial transparency. His grievances were not merely about paperwork; they were rooted in deep-seated suspicions regarding the financial integrity of the association.

Mr. Leach’s primary allegations included:

  • Refusal of Audited Statements: The Board allegedly failed to provide CPA-audited annual financial statements dating back to June 2000.
  • Allegations of Fraud: Mr. Leach claimed the Board knowingly defrauded homeowners and violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) as well as state statutes.
  • A "Who Has Paid What" Inquiry: The synthesized goal of Leach’s request was to determine which unit owners were current on their assessments. By seeking a forensic look at the bank statements, Leach intended to facilitate a civil lawsuit to force the association—and by extension, the developer-controlled board—to reimburse the community for any unpaid dues or misappropriated funds.

3. The Legal Framework: Statutes and Timelines

To resolve the dispute, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) relied on Arizona’s legal standards for statutory liability and the specific timelines required for filing a claim. A critical component of the Board’s defense was that Mr. Leach had simply waited too long to seek a legal remedy.

Legal Note: A.R.S. § 12-541(5) Arizona law imposes a strict one-year statute of limitations for any "liability created by statute." In this context, the HOA’s obligation to provide records or conduct audits is a statutory duty. If a homeowner believes the HOA has failed in this duty, the clock starts ticking the moment the request is denied or ignored.

The ALJ determined the petition was "time-barred." The evidence showed that Mr. Leach had made formal requests for the records as early as December 11 and December 29, 2009. However, he did not file his petition until November 25, 2011—nearly two years later. Because the filing fell well outside the one-year window mandated by A.R.S. § 12-541(5), his claims regarding those specific record requests were legally extinguished.

4. The Reality of Record Access: Evidence vs. Allegations

The case also examined whether the Board had actually denied Leach access to records. While the Petitioner characterized the Board’s responses as "unprofessional" and the records as "inadequate," the Board provided evidence of cooperation.

The HOA testified that on May 21, 2010, Mr. Leach and another homeowner were granted a meeting at the HOA attorney’s office to review financial records. The Board produced a letter and signed confidentiality agreements proving that this review had occurred. This evidence shifted the narrative from one of total secrecy to one of a disagreement over the quality and format of the audit.

Evidence Summary
Issue Finding
Record Access Evidence confirmed Leach reviewed records at the attorney’s office on May 21, 2010, and signed a confidentiality agreement.
Audit Requirements A.R.S. § 33-1810 defaults to a standard annual audit; Leach failed to prove the CC&Rs specifically required a CPA-certified audit.
Applicability of Statutes A.R.S. §§ 33-1243 and 33-1258 were ruled inapplicable because they govern Condominiums; Coronado is a Planned Community governed by Title 33, Chapter 16.

5. The Final Decision: Dismissal and Its Implications

On April 30, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella recommended the dismissal of the petition. The ruling emphasized that Mr. Leach failed to meet the burden of proof required to show a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) (access to records) or A.R.S. § 33-1810 (annual audits).

The decision was certified as the final administrative order on June 6, 2012. The judge ordered that no further action was required of the Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA Board. The dismissal effectively signaled that while the homeowner’s suspicions were high, the legal requirements for transparency—as defined by the statutes for planned communities—had been technically met by the Board.

6. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and HOA Boards

The Leach v. Coronado Pointe decision provides essential lessons for navigating the complexities of community governance:

  1. Know Your Statute of Limitations: You cannot sit on your rights. If an HOA denies a statutory request, you must file a petition within one year or lose the ability to enforce that specific request in court.
  2. The "CPA" Distinction Matters: Under A.R.S. § 33-1810, an HOA is required to provide an annual financial audit. However, unless your community's CC&Rs explicitly state the audit must be performed by a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), the board is not obligated to meet that higher (and more expensive) standard.
  3. Understand Your Community Type: Legal rights vary significantly between Condominiums and Planned Communities. This case failed in part because the petitioner cited condominium statutes that did not apply to his planned community townhome.
  4. Reasonable Access is the Standard: Providing records at a professional location, such as an attorney's office, and requiring a confidentiality agreement is generally considered making records "reasonably available" under the law.

7. Conclusion: Navigating Community Governance

The dismissal of Mr. Leach’s petition underscores that in the eyes of the law, procedural compliance often outweighs a homeowner's suspicions of mismanagement. Even in communities where power is concentrated in a single developer family, boards can protect themselves by offering documented, reasonable access to records and adhering to the specific audit requirements of their CC&Rs.

For homeowners, this case is a reminder that accountability requires more than just allegations; it requires a precise understanding of which laws apply to your community and the discipline to act within strict legal timelines. The balance of power in an HOA is maintained not just by the governing documents, but by the vigilance and legal accuracy of the residents who live there.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Gregory E. Leach (Petitioner)
    Coronado Pointe Townhomes
    Appeared on own behalf; Homeowner

Respondent Side

  • Dimitrios Boukalis (Board President)
    Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent; Developer
  • Vikki Boukalis (Board Treasurer)
    Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent; Daughter of Dimitrios Boukalis
  • Fueronia Boukalis (Board Secretary)
    Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA
    Wife of Dimitrios Boukalis

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Michael Kollias (Homeowner)
    Coronado Pointe Townhomes
    Accompanied Petitioner to review financial records
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • Beth Soliere (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision transmission