Robert Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association

Posted on July 17, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020055-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-07-17
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Robert Tomisak	Counsel	—
Respondent	Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258; CC&Rs Article 11, Section 4.8; Bylaws, Article 10.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Condominium Association violated its governing documents or state statute regarding record inspection, specifically because the Association did not possess and was not required to create a Membership Register containing unit owners' email addresses.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the provisions of CC&Rs Section 11.4.8, Bylaws Section 10.3, or A.R.S. § 33-1158 (or § 33-1258) because the requested record (a Membership Register containing email addresses) did not exist, and the Association was not obligated to create it.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to provide access to the membership register (Owner Roster with emails)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated governing documents and statute by refusing access to the membership register containing email addresses. Respondent argued email addresses were protected 'personal records' under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). The ALJ found the Petitioner failed to prove a violation because the requested document (a Membership Register containing emails) did not exist, and Respondent had no obligation to create it.

Orders: The petition is dismissed and no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1258
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records inspection, membership roster, email addresses, HOA records, condominium association, A.R.S. 33-1258

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)
A.R.S. § 33-1158
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020055-REL Decision – 807817.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:16 (107.3 KB)

Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020055-REL

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the findings and decision in the case of Robert Tomisak versus the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Case No. 20F-H2020055-REL), heard in the Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, alleged that the Association violated its governing documents and Arizona state law by refusing his request for an owner roster that included member email addresses. The Association countered that email addresses constitute protected personal information and, more critically, that a membership register containing such information no longer exists.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition. The decision did not hinge on whether email addresses are “personal records” under the law. Instead, the ruling was based on the factual determination that the Association cannot be compelled to produce a document that it does not maintain. Since the Association had ceased including email addresses in its Membership Register in 2018, the judge concluded that the petitioner had no right to a non-existent record and had failed to meet the burden of proof required to show a violation.

I. Case Overview

Case Name

Robert Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association

Case Number

20F-H2020055-REL

Office of Administrative Hearings

Administrative Law Judge

Sondra J. Vanella

Petitioner

Robert Tomisak, Owner of Unit 1902 (Appeared on his own behalf)

Respondent

Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Represented by Property Manager Terri Troy)

Hearing Date

July 9, 2020

Decision Date

July 17, 2020

II. Petitioner’s Allegations

On April 15, 2020, Robert Tomisak filed a single-issue petition alleging that the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association had violated its own governing documents and Arizona state law. The core of the complaint was the Association’s refusal to fulfill his March 11, 2020, email request “to provide access to the membership register” containing owner email addresses.

Mr. Tomisak specifically cited violations of the following provisions:

• Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): Article 11, Section 4.8

• Bylaws: Article 10.3

• Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.): § 33-1258

III. Respondent’s Position and Defense

The Association, through its property management company AS&A Property Management, Inc., and represented by Property Manager Terri Troy, denied all allegations. The defense rested on two key arguments:

1. Privacy Exemption: The Association contended that members’ email addresses are “personal records” and therefore exempt from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4), which protects the “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”

2. Non-Existence of the Record: Ms. Troy testified that while the Association would readily provide the official Membership Register (containing names and addresses), this document no longer includes email addresses. This practice of excluding emails from the register began in 2018.

IV. Key Evidence and Testimony

The March 11, 2020 Email Exchange

The dispute originated with a direct email exchange between the petitioner and the property manager.

• Petitioner’s Request (7:33 a.m.): Mr. Tomisak sent an email with the subject line “Owner Roster” stating:

• Respondent’s Denial (8:23 a.m.): Ms. Troy responded with a direct refusal, citing the statutory exemption for personal information:

Hearing Testimony

During the July 9, 2020 hearing, both parties presented their arguments:

• Robert Tomisak (Petitioner): Acknowledged that he already had access to member mailing addresses but specifically required their email addresses. He argued that email addresses are not “personal information” and cited “the internet” and “California case law” as authority for this position.

• Terri Troy (Respondent): Reiterated the Association’s willingness to provide the existing Membership Register, which contains names, addresses, and unit numbers. She explained that email addresses had been removed from this register starting in 2018 and that her refusal was based on the belief that emails are protected “personal records” under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4).

The Administrative Law Judge noted that neither party cited “any relevant or persuasive legal authority” to formally define “personal records” as used in the statute.

V. Legal Framework and Governing Documents

The case centered on the interpretation of three key provisions granting members access to Association records.

Document

Section

Key Provision

11.4.8

“The Association shall make available to Owners… current copies of the Declaration, Articles, Bylaws, rules of the Association and the books, records, and financial statements of the Association.”

Bylaws

“The membership register… shall be made available for inspection and copying by Members of the Association… for a purpose reasonably related to their interests as Members…”

A.R.S.

§ 33-1258(A)

“all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”

A.R.S.

§ 33-1258(B)(4)

“Books and records… may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Personal, health or financial records of an individual member of the association…”

VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Order

Burden of Proof

The judge established that the petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, bore the burden of proof to demonstrate by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association had committed the alleged violations. A preponderance of evidence is defined as that which is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Central Conclusion

The judge’s ruling was not based on the privacy argument regarding whether email addresses are “personal records.” Instead, the decision was grounded in a more fundamental point of fact regarding the existence of the requested document. The judge’s decisive conclusion of law stated:

While Petitioner has the right to enforce the requirements of the above provisions, Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.

Final Ruling

Based on this central finding, the judge held that Mr. Tomisak failed to meet his burden of proof and did not establish that the Association had violated its CC&Rs, its Bylaws, or A.R.S. § 33-1158.

IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that the petition is dismissed. The order is binding unless a rehearing is requested within 30 days of its service.

Study Guide – 20F-H2020055-REL

Study Guide: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision in case number 20F-H2020055-REL, involving Petitioner Robert Tomisak and Respondent Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to test and deepen understanding of the case.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the information provided in the case document.

1. Who were the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and what was their established relationship?

2. What specific document and data did the petitioner request from the respondent in his email dated March 11, 2020?

3. On what legal grounds did the respondent deny the petitioner’s request? Cite the specific statutory provision they referenced.

4. Identify the three governing documents or statutes that the petitioner alleged the respondent had violated.

5. What information was the respondent, through its property manager Terri Troy, willing to provide to the petitioner?

6. What was the central reason cited by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Conclusions of Law” for dismissing the petition?

7. Define the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and identify which party had the burden of meeting this standard.

8. What authority did the petitioner cite during the hearing to support his argument that email addresses do not constitute “personal information”?

9. According to Property Manager Terri Troy’s testimony, when and why did the content of the Membership Register change?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on July 17, 2020?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Robert Tomisak, who owns condominium unit 1902 in the Arrowhead Lakes development. The respondent was the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, of which the petitioner is a member.

2. The petitioner requested an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” He specifically wanted a membership list that included the email addresses of the other condominium owners.

3. The respondent denied the request based on A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). They argued that this provision allows an association to withhold the “personal records of an individual member,” and they considered email addresses to fall under this category.

4. The petitioner alleged the respondent violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Article 11, Section 4.8; its Bylaws, Article 10.3; and Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258.

5. The respondent was willing to provide the Membership Register, which included the names, unit numbers, and mailing addresses of the members. However, this register did not contain email addresses.

6. The judge dismissed the petition because the petitioner did not have the right to a record that does not exist—namely, a Membership Register containing email addresses. The judge concluded there was no requirement in the governing provisions for the respondent to create such a document.

7. A “preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof requiring the trier of fact to be convinced that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner, Robert Tomisak, bore the burden of establishing his claim by this standard.

8. During the hearing, the petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority for the proposition that email addresses were not considered personal information.

9. Terri Troy testified that the Membership Register previously contained email addresses but that this practice was stopped beginning in 2018. The change was made based on the association’s belief that email addresses were the “personal records” of the owners.

10. The final order stated that no action was required of the respondent and that the petition was dismissed.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-style response. Use the case document to formulate a detailed and well-supported argument.

1. Analyze the central legal conflict in this case. Discuss the petitioner’s interpretation of a member’s right to access records under the CC&Rs, Bylaws, and A.R.S. § 33-1258 versus the respondent’s interpretation, focusing on the exemption for “personal records.”

2. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the petitioner and the respondent during the July 9, 2020 hearing. Explain why the judge ultimately found that the petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.

3. The judge’s decision rested heavily on the finding that the respondent was not obligated to create a document that did not exist. Discuss the significance of this finding. How might the case outcome have differed if the Membership Register still actively contained member email addresses at the time of the request?

4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this administrative hearing. Explain why this burden fell upon the petitioner and how the failure to meet this evidentiary standard was a determinative factor in the dismissal of the petition.

5. Examine the roles and interaction of the governing documents (CC&Rs, Bylaws) and state law (A.R.S. § 33-1258) in this dispute. Which provisions offered the petitioner the right to inspect records, and which specific clause provided the strongest defense for the respondent?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella.

A.R.S. § 33-1258

The Arizona Revised Statute that mandates associations make financial and other records “reasonably available” to members, while also providing exceptions for withholding certain information, such as “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”

Association

The Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, a condominium unit owners’ association responsible for managing the Arrowhead Lakes development.

Bylaws

The rules governing the internal operations of the association. Section 10.3 is referenced, which grants members the right to inspect the “membership register” and other books and records.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the primary governing legal documents for the condominium development. Section 11.4.8 is referenced, which requires the association to make its books and records available to owners.

Membership Register

A formal list of the members of the association. The respondent’s register included names and addresses with unit numbers but, as of 2018, no longer included email addresses.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner and member of the association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is met when the evidence presented is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other,” making a contention more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association.

Blog Post – 20F-H2020055-REL

He Sued His Condo Association for an Email List. The Judge’s Reason for Saying No Will Surprise You.

If you live in a condominium or a community governed by a homeowners’ association, you’ve likely wondered what official records you’re entitled to see. From financial statements to meeting minutes, these documents are the backbone of a transparent community. But what happens when the information you want isn’t in a format the association readily provides?

This was the central conflict for Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner in Glendale, Arizona. At 7:33 a.m. on March 11, 2020, he sent an email to his association requesting an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” Less than an hour later, at 8:23 a.m., the property manager refused. Believing he was legally entitled to the list, Mr. Tomisak sued. When the case went before an administrative law judge, the final decision hinged on a simple but powerful distinction that most people would never see coming. This case reveals some surprising truths about our rights to information and how they are applied in the real world.

1. Takeaway #1: Your right is to inspectexistingrecords, not to have new ones created for you.

The core of the judge’s decision came down to a simple, factual matter. While Mr. Tomisak had a legal right to inspect association records, the specific document he requested—a Membership Register that included email addresses—did not actually exist.

According to testimony from property manager Terri Troy, the association was perfectly willing to provide the official Membership Register, which contained owner names and mailing addresses. However, she clarified that the association had stopped including email addresses in that specific record back in 2018. The judge found this fact to be decisive. While the petitioner had the right to access existing records, the association had no legal duty to create a new one for him. The judge’s “Conclusions of Law” put it in unambiguous terms:

Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.

This is a counter-intuitive but crucial distinction. Many people assume that if an organization possesses individual pieces of data (like names in one file and emails in another), they are obligated to compile that data into the format you request. This ruling clarifies that the legal obligation is to provide access to records as they are currently maintained, not to perform data-compilation tasks on demand. For association boards, this is a critical clarification of their duties; for homeowners, it’s a lesson in the power of a precise request.

2. Takeaway #2: The legal definition of “personal records” can be surprisingly ambiguous.

The central argument between the two parties revolved around privacy. Mr. Tomisak requested the email list citing an Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1258) that grants members access to association records. In response, Ms. Troy denied the request by citing a specific exemption in that same law—A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)—which allows an association to withhold “personal… records of an individual member.” Ms. Troy believed email addresses fell under this category; Mr. Tomisak argued they did not.

Crucially, Mr. Tomisak acknowledged during the hearing that he already had access to the mailing addresses for all units. His demand was not about the fundamental ability to communicate with his neighbors, but about the specific method. This reframes the dispute away from pure access-to-information and toward convenience and the definition of privacy.

However, when it came time to define “personal records,” both sides faltered. The petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority—a common mistake litigants make, as vague or non-binding sources hold little weight with a judge focused on specific state statutes. The judge noted that “Neither party cited to any relevant or persuasive legal authority to establish the definition of ‘personal records’ as referenced in the relevant statute.” This failure by both parties essentially forced the judge’s hand, allowing her to bypass the murky privacy debate and settle the case on the much clearer, indisputable fact that the requested record did not exist.

3. Takeaway #3: Even with clear rules, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.

On paper, the rules seemed to be in the petitioner’s favor. Section 11.4.8 of the community’s CC&Rs, Section 10.3 of its Bylaws, and the state statute A.R.S. § 33-1258 all grant members the right to inspect association records. So why did he lose?

The answer lies in the legal concept of the “burden of proof.” According to the hearing decision, the petitioner “bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.”

“Preponderance of the evidence” simply means evidence that is more convincing and more likely true than not. In this case, because the petitioner could not prove that the specific document he wanted—a Membership Register containing emails—actually existed, he failed to meet this burden. He could not convince the judge that the association had violated its duties because the duty he claimed they violated (providing a non-existent record) was not one they actually had. This serves as a practical lesson for any homeowner: having a right on paper is not enough; you must be able to prove that the specific right was violated with convincing evidence.

Conclusion: A Lesson in Specificity

The case of Tomisak vs. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association is a masterclass in how legal rights and obligations are often more specific and literal than we assume. The final decision wasn’t based on broad principles of privacy versus access, but on the simple, verifiable fact that a non-existent document cannot be produced.

The judge’s final order was to dismiss the petition, requiring no action from the condo association. This case forces every resident and board member to ask a crucial question: Are you fighting over a principle, or are you making a specific request for a real, existing document? In the eyes of the law, only one of those will win you the day.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Robert Tomisak (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf; also testified

Respondent Side

Terri Troy (property manager)
Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association / AS&A Property Management, Inc.
Appeared and testified on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Jones, Michael J. vs. Westwind Homeowners Association

Posted on November 26, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1213001-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-11-26
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	yes
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

Decision Documents

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)

**Case Summary: *Michael J. Jones v. Westwind Homeowners Association***
**Case No. 12F-H1213001-BFS**
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Final Action:** January 2, 2013

**Procedural Overview**
This administrative hearing addressed a dispute between Petitioner Michael J. Jones, a homeowner, and Respondent Westwind Homeowners Association regarding the validity of rental rules adopted by the Association’s Board of Directors. The hearing was held on November 6, 2012, before Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella. The decision was certified as final on January 2, 2013, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to modify it.

**Key Facts**
Effective August 2011, the Westwind Board adopted "Rental Rules" and a "Crime Free Lease Addendum" (CFLA). These new rules required owners to utilize specific lease addenda and mandated that all leases have a minimum term of 12 months, subjecting shorter terms to case-by-case review. The CFLA also stipulated that a single violation of community documents by a tenant would be deemed "irreparable" and grounds for immediate termination of the lease.

Jones, who leased his home to tenants, filed a petition alleging these rules violated the community's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

**Main Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Jones argued the Board unilaterally amended the CC&Rs without obtaining the required affirmative vote of 75% of the membership, a violation of Article 11.7. He pointed to Article 8.13 of the CC&Rs, which permits leasing "from time to time," arguing the new rules restricted this right. Jones also contended the CFLA imposed unreasonable penalties and lacked due process by treating minor violations (e.g., landscaping) as grounds for eviction.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association argued the Board possessed the authority to interpret vague terms in the governing documents and that the rules were necessary to deter criminal activity and protect property values. They asserted the CFLA established the Association as a third-party beneficiary to address non-responsive owners.

**Legal Findings and Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that Westwind violated its governing documents.

1. **Violation of CC&Rs (Amendment Procedure):** The Judge determined the Rental Rules and CFLA effectively amended the CC&Rs by restricting the right to lease "from time to time". Because the Board did not obtain the required 75% member vote, the adoption of these restrictions violated Article 11.7 of the CC&Rs.
2. **Inconsistency with Declaration:** Citing Article 6.5 of the CC&Rs, the Judge noted that Association Rules "will not be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with this Declaration". The Judge held that the 12-month minimum term and the authority to disapprove or terminate leases were inconsistent with the broad leasing rights granted in the CC&Rs.
3. **Unenforceability:** The specific provisions of the Rental Rules and CFLA found to conflict with the CC&Rs were declared to have no legal effect and to be unenforceable.

**Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge ordered Westwind to:
* Cease enforcing the conflicting provisions of the Rental Rules and CFLA against members;
* Reimburse the Petitioner $2,000.00 for the filing fee; and
* Pay a civil penalty of $400.00 to the Department ($200 per violation).

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 November 20, 2012 by [email protected]

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	yes
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)

Decision Documents

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)

**Case Summary: Pecos Ranch Community Association v. Hoyum**
**Case No. 12F-H1212010-BFS**

**Proceedings**
On November 5, 2012, an administrative hearing was held before the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Pecos Ranch Community Association (Petitioner) and homeowners Randy and Sharon Hoyum (Respondents). The issue concerned an unauthorized structure erected on the Respondents' property.

**Key Facts**
* **Unauthorized Construction:** In November 2009, the Respondents began constructing a 10’ x 24’ free-standing accessory structure in their rear yard without obtaining prior approval from the Association’s Design Review Committee (DRC), as required by the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
* **Denial of Approval:** The Respondents submitted a retroactive approval request in December 2009. The Association denied this request because the structure exceeded height and size limitations, lacked necessary City of Chandler building permits, and violated setback requirements.
* **City Violations:** The City of Chandler issued a Stop Work Order and subsequently fined Mr. Hoyum for building without permits. The Respondents were unable to obtain a city variance without Association approval, creating a regulatory deadlock.

**Main Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** The Association argued that the structure violated the CC&Rs requiring prior approval and the Design Standards regarding visibility from neighboring properties. They maintained the denial was justified due to the structure's failure to meet city codes and community aesthetic standards.
* **Respondents’ Defenses:** The Respondents claimed they were unaware permission was required. They argued the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously, citing photographs of other homes in the community with alleged violations (e.g., sheds, gazebos) that were permitted or ignored.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Petitioner met its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. **Violation of CC&Rs:** The evidence established that the Respondents constructed the shed without the mandated DRC approval. The CC&Rs grant the DRC "sole and absolute discretion" regarding retroactive approval.
2. **Valid Exercise of Discretion:** The Board’s refusal to grant retroactive approval was supported by objective factors, specifically the lack of municipal permits and non-compliance with city zoning regarding size and setbacks.
3. **Rejection of "Arbitrary" Defense:** The ALJ ruled that the existence of other alleged violations in the community did not constitute a valid legal defense for the Respondents' specific failure to comply with the CC&Rs.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ recommended granting the Petition.
* **Remedies:** The Respondents were ordered to reimburse the Association $550.00 in filing fees.
* **Compliance Order:** The Respondents were given 90 days to either obtain DRC approval or alter, move, or remove the structure to comply with governing documents.

**Final Status**
The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not reject or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the ALJ's decision was certified as the final administrative decision on December 27, 2012.

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 August 14, 2012 by [email protected]

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	no
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

Decision Documents

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)

**Case Summary: Martin W. Johnson v. The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association**
**Case No.** 12F-H1212007-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Decision:** August 14, 2012 (Certified Final October 1, 2012)

**Overview and Key Facts**
Petitioner Martin W. Johnson, owner of condominium unit 117E, filed a petition alleging that The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association ("HOA") failed to enforce its governing documents regarding water damage caused by a neighboring unit.

The dispute arose from five separate water intrusion incidents between September 2009 and January 2012. The leaks originated from unit 217E, located directly above the Petitioner’s unit. Unit 217E was owned by Kenneth Hamby (the Board Treasurer) and occupied by a tenant. The causes of damage included clogged toilets, defective drains, and overflowing bathtubs attributed to the upstairs tenant’s negligence.

Following the initial and most severe incident in 2009, the Petitioner’s insurance company paid $22,762.74 for restoration. The Petitioner sought reimbursement and intervention from the HOA, arguing the Board had an obligation to oversee tenants and enforce bylaws regarding damage caused by other units.

**Main Legal Issues**
1. **Enforcement of CC&Rs:** Whether the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by refusing to repair the damages and charge the owner of unit 217E.
2. **Jurisdiction and Liability:** Whether the dispute was a matter of HOA enforcement or a private "owner-to-owner" dispute.

**Key Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Dr. Johnson argued that Article XII, Section 5 of the CC&Rs authorized the HOA to repair damage caused by negligence and charge the responsible owner. He claimed the Board refused to exercise this authority or provide oversight of the upstairs tenant.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The HOA contended that this was fundamentally an owner-to-owner dispute. They argued the HOA is not a police agency, cannot vet landlords' tenants, and cannot compel one owner to reimburse another for expenses.

**Tribunal Findings and Legal Analysis**
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella ruled in favor of the HOA, dismissing the petition based on the following legal points:

* **Bur

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 July 2, 2012 by [email protected]

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	no
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

Decision Documents

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)

**Case Summary: Clifford and Jean Butler v. Happy Trails Community Association**
**Case No.** 12F-H1212004-BFS

**Overview and Proceedings**
On June 18, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella presided over a hearing regarding a dispute between Petitioners Clifford and Jean Butler and Respondent Happy Trails Community Association. The Butlers sought to challenge the Association's enforcement of residency requirements within the Happy Trails planned community.

**Key Facts**
The Butlers, full-time residents of Happy Trails for approximately 12 years, resided on a lot containing a "Residence Vehicle" (RV) and a separate structure known as an "Arizona Room". After selling their RV, the Butlers attempted to reside solely in their Arizona Room. The Association issued a "Courtesy Notice" stating that living in an Arizona Room without an RV on the property violated the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Design Guidelines.

**Main Issues and Arguments**
The central issue was whether the Association’s policy requiring the presence of an RV to reside on a lot violated the CC&Rs.

* **Petitioners’ Argument:** The Butlers argued the policy was unreasonable, costly, and unsupported by the CC&Rs. They testified that maintaining an unused RV was financially burdensome due to depreciation, insurance, and licensing costs. They further argued that the Association had historically condoned residents living in Arizona Rooms full-time without RVs.
* **Respondent’s Argument:** The Association contended that the CC&Rs explicitly require owners to occupy a Residence Vehicle as their main residence. They asserted that while owners may occupy an Arizona Room, they must do so contemporaneously with the required RV. The Association’s Board noted they do not grant variances to this rule to avoid setting a precedent.

**Legal Findings and Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Association, concluding that the Butlers failed to prove a violation of the governing documents.

The decision relied heavily on the specific language of the CC&Rs:
1. **Definition of Arizona Room:** The CC&Rs define an Arizona Room as a structure used for residential purposes "but that does not serve as the main residence on the Lot".
2. **Residency Requirement:** The documents state that individuals "may only reside in a Residence Vehicle" and that no other portion of the lot may be occupied as a residence.
3. **Contemporaneous Use:** The Judge determined that while an Arizona Room may be occupied, it cannot replace the RV as the main residence; therefore, an RV must be present on the lot.

**Outcome**
The ALJ recommended that the Petition be dismissed, finding that Happy Trails’ enforcement actions comported with the provisions of the governing CC&Rs.

**Final Status**
On August 20, 2012, the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the ALJ’s decision as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, as the Department took no action to reject or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe.

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 April 30, 2012 by [email protected]

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	no
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 2026-01-25T15:25:27 (80.1 KB)

11F-H1112009-BFS Decision – 294580.pdf

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

Briefing Doc – 11F-H1112009-BFS

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.

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