Tag Archives: Sondra J. Vanella

Kenneth M. Halal v. Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H045-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-06-26
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Petitioner's request was dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the restriction of access to the Townsquare forum was a unilateral decision made by Townsquare, a separate legal entity. The cited statutes and Bylaws regarding due process for violations of Project Documents were found inapplicable because Townsquare and its Terms of Use are not governed by the HOA’s Project Documents.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1183806.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:24:18 (61.3 KB)

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1186944.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:24:21 (45.9 KB)

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1193702.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:24:24 (171.0 KB)

This summary details the proceedings, arguments, and final decision in the matter of *Kenneth M. Halal v. Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA)* (No. 24F-H045-REL) before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner, Kenneth M. Halal, filed a dispute petition alleging that the Respondent HOA failed to provide due process when he was removed from the Townsquare Forum (the HOA’s online website forum). The sole issue addressed was whether the Respondent violated Petitioner’s due process rights under A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 33-1804 and the HOA’s Bylaws Article 2.3 and 5.2.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted a limited-scope hearing on June 10, 2024. Petitioner Halal represented himself.

Petitioner's Argument: Halal argued that the HOA had previously set a precedent by moderating and controlling the Townsquare Forum, thereby assuming responsibility and requiring it to follow its own project documents, including due process procedures (such as those related to fines and violations under A.R.S. § 33-1803 and Bylaw 5.2), before sanctioning a member.

Respondent's Argument: The HOA argued that the Townsquare platform is a separate legal entity, not owned, operated, or managed by the HOA. Donald Morris, a witness for the HOA, testified that only Townsquare, the platform owner, possesses the authority to restrict user access, not the HOA or its community manager, Associa Arizona. The restriction occurred because Petitioner's postings violated Townsquare's independent Terms of Use (T.O.U.) with content that was defamatory, used profanity, and contained derogatory language. Furthermore, the T.O.U. is not a "Project Document" as defined in the governing CC&Rs, rendering the cited due process provisions (Bylaws 2.3 and 5.2) inapplicable. The Board’s discussion of the matter occurred in executive session because it related to personal information, which is permissible under A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Outcome and Legal Points

The ALJ issued a decision finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ made the following critical findings:

  1. Ownership and Control: Townsquare is a separate and distinct legal entity from the HOA, and the HOA has no control over Townsquare, its T.O.U., or its decisions.
  2. Restriction Decision: Townsquare made the unilateral decision to restrict Petitioner’s use of the forum based on its sole determination that Petitioner violated its T.O.U..
  3. Inapplicable Provisions: Townsquare’s T.O.U. is not a Project Document. Bylaws Article 2.3 (governing membership meeting notice) and Article 5.2 (governing violations of Project Documents and levying fines) were found inapplicable because the HOA had not levied a fine against Petitioner nor alleged a violation of HOA Project Documents.

The Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed.

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • HOA obligations
  • third-party vendors
  • liability

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #18

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • definitions
  • online platforms

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #18

Topic Tags

  • due process
  • hearings
  • fines

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #4

Topic Tags

  • definitions
  • governing documents

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #6

Topic Tags

  • open meetings
  • board voting
  • procedural requirements

Question

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

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #2

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #6

Topic Tags

  • social media
  • rules enforcement
  • jurisdiction

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • HOA obligations
  • third-party vendors
  • liability

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #18

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • definitions
  • online platforms

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #18

Topic Tags

  • due process
  • hearings
  • fines

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact #4

Topic Tags

  • definitions
  • governing documents

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #6

Topic Tags

  • open meetings
  • board voting
  • procedural requirements

Question

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

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #2

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law #6

Topic Tags

  • social media
  • rules enforcement
  • jurisdiction

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H023-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-05-16
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R Article II Section 1(c). The cited provision was inapplicable because the security gate installation did not involve transferring common area to a public agency or increasing the density of residences (the clause was read conjunctively).
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

Article II Section 1(c)

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

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

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1133251.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:36 (51.2 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1135497.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:40 (54.9 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1168799.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:43 (47.6 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1178674.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:48 (136.5 KB)

This summary addresses the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the matter of Robert P. Fink and Brittany L. Oleson (Petitioners) versus Casas Arroyo Association, Inc. (Respondent), Docket No. 24F-H023-REL, heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The hearing spanned two dates: January 18, 2024, and April 18, 2024.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The core dispute was whether the Respondent Association violated Article II Section 1(c) of the community's CC&Rs when it installed a security gate at the community entrance. The gate measure passed with 27 "yes" votes and 10 "no" votes, equating to 69% of the 39 eligible votes in the association. The Board, citing security concerns related to criminal activity including human trafficking and drug smuggling, moved forward with the installation, funding the $2,650 gate through general assessment funds without a special assessment.

Petitioner's Argument

Petitioners argued that the security gate constitutes an "improvement placed upon the common area". They asserted that Article II Section 1(c) unequivocally requires approval by "not less than three quarters (3/4) of the eligible votes of the Association" (30 votes out of 39) for such improvements. Petitioners contended the Board improperly utilized an arbitrary standard of two-thirds (2/3) of those who voted, and that the 2/3 standard found in Article IV Section 4 applies only to authorizing a *special assessment* for a capital improvement, not the installation itself.

Respondent's Argument

The Respondent argued that Article II Section 1(c) was inapplicable. They contended that the provision primarily governs the dedication or transfer of common area property to a public utility or agency, and also applies to improvements that "would increase the density of residences on the Properties". Since the gate neither transferred land nor increased density, the 3/4 voting requirement was unnecessary. Respondent further argued that Article IV Section 2 grants the board authority to use general assessment funds to promote the "health, safety, and welfare of the residents," justifying the gate installation for crime deterrence.

Outcome and Legal Rationale

The ALJ determined that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. The ALJ's interpretation centered on the structure and applicability of Article II Section 1(c).

  1. Inapplicable CC&R: The ALJ concluded that Article II Section 1(c) is written in the conjunctive. Therefore, the 3/4 vote is required only when improvements are placed upon the common area and those improvements increase the density of residences.
  2. Gate Does Not Increase Density: Since the security gate did not dedicate or transfer common area property to an outside entity, nor did it increase the density of residences, the ALJ ruled that the 3/4 voting requirement under Article II Section 1(c) was inapplicable to the instant matter.
  3. Authority Found in Article IV: The ALJ noted that Article IV Section 2 grants the Association authority to use general assessment funds to promote the "recreation, health, safety and welfare of the residents".

The ALJ issued a decision dismissing the Petition and ordering no action be required of the Respondent. The record formally closed on May 7, 2024, with the decision issuing on May 16, 2024.

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • procedural requirements
  • evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence
  • definitions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation Principles

Topic Tags

  • CC&R interpretation
  • legal standards
  • context

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Grammatical Interpretation of Contracts

Topic Tags

  • contract interpretation
  • grammar
  • legal standards

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

CC&R Article IV Section 2

Topic Tags

  • assessments
  • HOA powers
  • safety improvements

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

CC&R Article II Section 1(c)

Topic Tags

  • voting requirements
  • common area
  • improvements

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

CC&R Article II Section 1(c)

Topic Tags

  • density
  • improvements
  • voting requirements

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • procedural requirements
  • evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence
  • definitions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation Principles

Topic Tags

  • CC&R interpretation
  • legal standards
  • context

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Grammatical Interpretation of Contracts

Topic Tags

  • contract interpretation
  • grammar
  • legal standards

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

CC&R Article IV Section 2

Topic Tags

  • assessments
  • HOA powers
  • safety improvements

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

CC&R Article II Section 1(c)

Topic Tags

  • voting requirements
  • common area
  • improvements

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

CC&R Article II Section 1(c)

Topic Tags

  • density
  • improvements
  • voting requirements

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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

SAMEUL T. PAPARAZZO v. CORONADO RANCH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H011-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-22
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to show the Respondent violated the open meeting statute (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)). The Board provided open meetings where the management contract discussions and votes occurred, including allowing the Petitioner and other homeowners to comment.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Analytics Highlights

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

  • ARS 33-1804(A)

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

24F-H011-REL Decision – 1116173.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:15:21 (111.6 KB)

This summary pertains to the hearing in the matter of Samuel T. Paparazzo versus Coronado Ranch Community Association (Docket No. 24F-H011-REL), held on November 13, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner, Samuel T. Paparazzo, alleged that the Coronado Ranch Community Association (Respondent) violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) § 33-1804(A)—the planned community open meetings statute—by "entering into a contract with a new Community Association Management Company". Specifically, the Petitioner argued that the Board failed to allow for open discussion and member comment, and did not properly put forth a motion and vote, both when obtaining requests for proposals (RFPs) and when entering into the new contract with Haywood Realty & Investment, Inc. on August 10, 2023. The Petitioner testified that the approved meeting minutes did not reflect a motion and vote for either action.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that the burden of proof rested upon the Petitioner to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner, who attended all board meetings, asserted that there was no formal discussion, motion, or vote recorded for the key steps (RFPs and contract execution) required under ARS § 33-1804(A). He conceded that he was given an opportunity to speak at the crucial August 2023 meeting, but claimed that the only motion put forward and voted upon was to terminate the previous manager (RCP), not to hire Haywood.

Respondent's Argument: Ashley Turner, counsel for the Association, argued that the Association did not violate the statute. Kim Jackson, Board Treasurer, testified that management issues arose due to financial errors (including a $23,000 double payment). She testified that RFPs were obtained by individual board members, discussed, and made available to the community at the open November 2022 meeting and subsequent meetings.

Ms. Jackson credibly testified that the final decision occurred at the August 2023 open meeting after a "lengthy" discussion. At this meeting, both the termination of the old management company and the hiring of Haywood were discussed. The Petitioner was given 10 minutes to speak virtually. Ms. Jackson testified that a unanimous vote was taken to terminate the previous contract and hire Haywood, and that the termination notice detailing the new hiring was read aloud to attendees. She clarified that the lack of reference to the hiring motion in the August minutes was due to the secretary's inadvertent omission.

Legal Points and Outcome

The core legal contention revolved around whether the Association adhered to the requirement that formal action be taken only after discussion and member comment during an open meeting. The ALJ found the testimony of Ms. Jackson regarding the open discussion, member comments (including the Petitioner’s 10 minutes), and the unanimous vote at the August 2023 meeting to be credible.

The ALJ concluded that the credible evidence established that the issues regarding termination, RFPs, and entering into the new contract were discussed and voted on after a motion and member comment.

The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARS § 33-1804(A). Consequently, the Petition was dismissed.

Select all sources

No emoji found

Loading

24F-H011-REL

2 sources

These sources document an administrative hearing regarding a dispute between Samuel T. Paparazzo and the Coronado Ranch Community Association over alleged open meeting violations. The petitioner contended that the board hired a new management company without proper public discussion, member input, or a formal vote as required by Arizona law. In response, the board treasurer testified that the transition was discussed across multiple open sessions and that the final decision was made during a meeting where the petitioner himself provided verbal testimony. Evidence showed that while the official meeting minutes were occasionally incomplete, the board had made significant efforts to inform homeowners through Facebook and email. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the association provided sufficient opportunity for member participation before executing the new contract.

What was the final outcome of the HOA dispute hearing?
How did the treasurer defend the board’s decision-making process?
Explain the member’s specific complaints about the new contract.

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 3:35 PM

2 sources

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Select all sources

No emoji found

Loading

24F-H011-REL

2 sources

These sources document an administrative hearing regarding a dispute between Samuel T. Paparazzo and the Coronado Ranch Community Association over alleged open meeting violations. The petitioner contended that the board hired a new management company without proper public discussion, member input, or a formal vote as required by Arizona law. In response, the board treasurer testified that the transition was discussed across multiple open sessions and that the final decision was made during a meeting where the petitioner himself provided verbal testimony. Evidence showed that while the official meeting minutes were occasionally incomplete, the board had made significant efforts to inform homeowners through Facebook and email. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the association provided sufficient opportunity for member participation before executing the new contract.

What was the final outcome of the HOA dispute hearing?
How did the treasurer defend the board’s decision-making process?
Explain the member’s specific complaints about the new contract.

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 3:35 PM

2 sources

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Samuel T. Paparazzo (petitioner)
    Also appeared as Samuel Gene Everzo; testified on his own behalf.

Respondent Side

  • Ashley Turner (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    Counsel for Coronado Ranch Community Association.
  • Kimberly Jackson (board member/treasurer)
    Coronado Ranch Community Association Board
    Appeared as a witness; sometimes referred to as Jim Jackson.
  • Sheree (board member)
    Coronado Ranch Community Association Board
    Director who obtained RFPs.
  • Michelle (board member)
    Coronado Ranch Community Association Board
    Director who obtained RFPs.
  • Cathy / Cassie (board member/secretary)
    Coronado Ranch Community Association Board
    Board member who read documents aloud; secretary who inadvertently left information off minutes.

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Also identified as Sandra Vanella.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission.
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission.
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission.
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission.

Other Participants

  • Erica Martinson (attorney)
    prison law
  • Tony Rosetti (lawist)
    Spelled R O SS KTI.
  • Miss Lee (potential witness)
    Did not testify.
  • Rob Bishop (community manager)
    Renaissance Community Partners
    Son of owner of previous management company; facilitated virtual mic for Petitioner.
  • Tamara Lens (community assistant)
    Renaissance Community Partners
    Sent official meeting notice email.
  • Linda Palmer (homeowner)
    Coronado Ranch Community Association member
    Commented at the meeting.

Clifford S Burnes V. Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H033-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-14
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation during the dissolution vote. The required 2/3 majority was achieved with 11 votes in favor, and the requirement for signed assent was met by the signatures provided on the ballot envelopes.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford S. Burnes Counsel —
Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Counsel John T. Crotty, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Articles of Incorporation, Section XV

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation during the dissolution vote. The required 2/3 majority was achieved with 11 votes in favor, and the requirement for signed assent was met by the signatures provided on the ballot envelopes.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of voting requirements for dissolution of the Homeowners Association

Petitioner alleged that the dissolution vote was invalid because the ballots were not signed, and Respondent failed to achieve the 2/3 authorized votes needed, noting only 9 ballots were cast for dissolution. Respondent argued that 11 votes were cast, meeting the 2/3 requirement (10 votes needed), and that signatures on the ballot envelopes satisfied the Article XV requirement for assent given in writing and signed by Owners.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Articles of Incorporation, Voting Rights, Dissolution, Burden of Proof, Planned Community
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

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

23F-H033-REL Decision – 1035350.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:02:34 (55.1 KB)

23F-H033-REL Decision – 1049512.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:02:39 (100.5 KB)

This summary details the administrative hearing held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella in the matter of *Clifford S. Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association* (HOA), Docket No. 23F-H033-REL, on March 30, 2023.

Key Facts and Issue

The Petitioner, Clifford S. Burnes, alleged that the Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association violated its governing documents. The single, central issue set for hearing was whether the HOA's vote on December 11, 2021, regarding the dissolution of the HOA, “did not satisfy the voting requirement of Section XV (15) of the Articles of Incorporation”.

Section XV of the Articles of Incorporation requires that the Association may be dissolved with "assent given in writing and signed by Owners representing not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the authorized votes". The parties stipulated that 10 or more votes constituted 2/3 of the authorized votes (out of 15 authorized votes). Petitioner bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

  1. Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner Burnes argued the vote failed on two main legal points:
  • Insufficient Votes: Petitioner contended that only nine (9) ballots were cast in favor of dissolution, which did not meet the 2/3 requirement. He further asserted that the board improperly declared the motion passed and changed the vote count from nine (announced at the meeting) to eleven (reported in the meeting minutes).
  • Unsigned Ballots: Petitioner argued that the dissolution vote failed because the ballots themselves were not signed, violating Article XV’s requirement for assent "signed by Owners". He also argued that owners of multiple lots should have been issued separate ballots for each vote.
  1. Respondent's Argument: The Respondent (HOA), represented by John T. Crotty, Esq., and through the testimony of HOA President Sarina Martinez, countered that the requirements were satisfied.
  • Vote Count Justified: Ms. Martinez testified that while nine ballots were received for dissolution, two of those ballots belonged to owners who owned two lots each, meaning those two ballots accounted for four votes. Citing the CCNRs (Article 2, Section 2.2 C1), Ms. Martinez confirmed that each owner is entitled to "one vote for each lot owned". This meant the total votes for dissolution were eleven (11), which exceeded the necessary 2/3 threshold (10 votes).
  • Signature Requirement Satisfied: Respondent argued that Article XV does not require the *ballot* itself to be signed. The ballots were distributed as a package with envelopes. Ms. Martinez confirmed that the required signatures, lot number(s), and date were obtained on the envelopes that contained the ballots, thereby satisfying the "assent given in writing and signed" provision.

Final Decision and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge issued a decision on April 14, 2023, ruling in favor of the Respondent.

The ALJ found that 11 votes were cast on 9 ballots, which represented at least 2/3 of the authorized votes. The ALJ concluded that Article XV "does not specify that the ballot itself must signed," and because the signatures were contained on the envelopes corresponding to the ballots, the requirement for "assent given in writing and signed by Owners" was satisfied.

Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed.

Questions

Question

If my HOA requires votes to be 'in writing and signed,' does the ballot itself need a signature?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the governing documents do not explicitly specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot may satisfy the requirement.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that if the Articles of Incorporation require assent 'in writing and signed' but do not specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot is sufficient compliance. In this case, envelopes with the homeowner's signature, lot number, and date were deemed to satisfy the requirement.

Alj Quote

Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation does not specify that the ballot itself must signed, and in this case, the signatures are contained on the envelopes that held the corresponding ballots, thereby satisfying the language of the charged provision.

Legal Basis

Articles of Incorporation, Article XV

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • signatures
  • governing documents

Question

If I own multiple lots, do I need to submit a separate physical ballot for each lot?

Short Answer

No, unless you can cite specific legal authority or governing documents that require separate physical ballots.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the argument that separate ballots are required for each vote possessed by homeowners who own multiple lots, specifically noting that the petitioner failed to provide any authority supporting that claim.

Alj Quote

Petitioner further testified that there should have been separate ballots for each vote for homeowners who own two lots. However, Petitioner did not cite to any authority establishing such.

Legal Basis

Lack of citation to authority

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • multiple lots
  • ballots

Question

How are votes counted if some homeowners own more than one property?

Short Answer

Votes are counted based on 'authorized votes' rather than just the number of physical ballots cast. One ballot may represent multiple votes.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ accepted the calculation where fewer physical ballots were cast than the total vote count because some ballots represented multiple votes (one for each lot owned). The decision validated that 9 ballots could validly represent 11 authorized votes.

Alj Quote

In this case, eleven (11) votes were cast on nine (9) ballots, which represents at least 2/3 of the owners authorized to vote.

Legal Basis

Articles of Incorporation, Article XV

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • vote counting
  • authorized votes

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner alleging the violation must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' It is not the HOA's job to disprove the allegation initially.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • administrative hearing

Question

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

Short Answer

It means the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ defines this standard as proof that convinces the decision-maker that the contention is 'more probably true than not,' or holds the greater weight of evidence.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • evidence
  • standard of proof

Case

Docket No
23F-H033-REL
Case Title
Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-14
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If my HOA requires votes to be 'in writing and signed,' does the ballot itself need a signature?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the governing documents do not explicitly specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot may satisfy the requirement.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that if the Articles of Incorporation require assent 'in writing and signed' but do not specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot is sufficient compliance. In this case, envelopes with the homeowner's signature, lot number, and date were deemed to satisfy the requirement.

Alj Quote

Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation does not specify that the ballot itself must signed, and in this case, the signatures are contained on the envelopes that held the corresponding ballots, thereby satisfying the language of the charged provision.

Legal Basis

Articles of Incorporation, Article XV

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • signatures
  • governing documents

Question

If I own multiple lots, do I need to submit a separate physical ballot for each lot?

Short Answer

No, unless you can cite specific legal authority or governing documents that require separate physical ballots.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the argument that separate ballots are required for each vote possessed by homeowners who own multiple lots, specifically noting that the petitioner failed to provide any authority supporting that claim.

Alj Quote

Petitioner further testified that there should have been separate ballots for each vote for homeowners who own two lots. However, Petitioner did not cite to any authority establishing such.

Legal Basis

Lack of citation to authority

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • multiple lots
  • ballots

Question

How are votes counted if some homeowners own more than one property?

Short Answer

Votes are counted based on 'authorized votes' rather than just the number of physical ballots cast. One ballot may represent multiple votes.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ accepted the calculation where fewer physical ballots were cast than the total vote count because some ballots represented multiple votes (one for each lot owned). The decision validated that 9 ballots could validly represent 11 authorized votes.

Alj Quote

In this case, eleven (11) votes were cast on nine (9) ballots, which represents at least 2/3 of the owners authorized to vote.

Legal Basis

Articles of Incorporation, Article XV

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • vote counting
  • authorized votes

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner alleging the violation must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' It is not the HOA's job to disprove the allegation initially.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • administrative hearing

Question

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

Short Answer

It means the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ defines this standard as proof that convinces the decision-maker that the contention is 'more probably true than not,' or holds the greater weight of evidence.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • evidence
  • standard of proof

Case

Docket No
23F-H033-REL
Case Title
Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-14
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Clifford S. Burnes (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes

Respondent Side

  • John T. Crotty (HOA attorney)
    LAW OFFICES OF COLLIN T. WELCH
  • Esmeralda Sarina Ayala-Martinez (HOA President, witness)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
    Also referred to as Sarina Martinez or Serena Martinez

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Tammy I (ALJ)
    Mentioned as presiding over related case

Other Participants

  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE

Carl-Mitchell Smoot v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222063-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-13
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's position that the HOA's denial of artificial turf violated CC&Rs Section 8.8. The ALJ found that because maintenance was shared and the HOA's CC&Rs cannot contradict the superior McCormick Ranch rules (which allow artificial turf), the denial was improper and the HOA failed to meet the exemption requirements under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Smoot Carl-Mitchell Counsel Stewart F. Gross, Esq.
Respondent Los Reyes Homeowners Association Inc. Counsel Michael S. McLeran, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1819; CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8

Outcome Summary

The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's position that the HOA's denial of artificial turf violated CC&Rs Section 8.8. The ALJ found that because maintenance was shared and the HOA's CC&Rs cannot contradict the superior McCormick Ranch rules (which allow artificial turf), the denial was improper and the HOA failed to meet the exemption requirements under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).

Key Issues & Findings

Architectural disapproval of landscaping plans to install artificial turf

Petitioner alleged Respondent's disapproval of his landscaping plans to install artificial turf violated the CC&Rs and was unreasonable under Arizona law. The ALJ concluded the disapproval violated CC&Rs Section 8.8 because the maintenance responsibility was shared, not exclusive to the HOA, and the HOA's CC&Rs must not contradict McCormick Ranch's Rules, which permit artificial turf.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is affirmed. Respondent must reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee. Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&Rs Section 8.8 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1819
  • CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8
  • CC&Rs Article 9.4
  • CC&Rs Article 6.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: artificial turf, landscaping, CC&Rs, shared maintenance, architectural control, McCormick Ranch
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1819
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8
  • CC&Rs Article 9.4
  • CC&Rs Article 6.2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1005074.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T22:04:27 (54.0 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1005155.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T22:04:30 (6.9 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1023283.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T22:04:36 (54.3 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1029871.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T22:04:42 (52.1 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1049042.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T22:04:45 (175.7 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 992691.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T22:04:50 (48.6 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 992789.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T22:04:54 (5.9 KB)

The hearing concerned the matter of Carl-Mitchell Smoot (Petitioner) versus Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. (Respondent), conducted before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The proceedings took place over two dates: January 25, 2023, and a further hearing on March 29, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The main issue was whether the Respondent HOA’s architectural disapproval of Petitioner’s plans to install artificial turf in his front yard violated Los Reyes CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8, and was unreasonable under Arizona law. Los Reyes is a sub-association of the McCormick Ranch Property Owners Association ("McCormick Ranch"). Petitioner sought the redesign for water conservation and aesthetic improvement.

Key Arguments

  1. Respondent's Position: The HOA justified the denial primarily based on A.R.S. § 33-1819(B), which allows an association to prohibit artificial turf if it is installed in an area the association is "required to maintain or irrigate". Respondent cited its CC&Rs Section 6.2, which states the HOA "shall maintain the landscaping in the front yards of the Lots". Respondent also argued that its CC&Rs referenced the "growth of turf" (Section 8.8), anticipating only natural grass, and that artificial turf would disrupt the harmony and uniformity of the community, where all front yards consist of natural grass. Additionally, early denials cited the plans as being "conceptual" and lacking vital information.
  1. Petitioner's Position: Petitioner argued that the Los Reyes CC&Rs are silent regarding the prohibition of artificial turf. Petitioner emphasized that the Los Reyes CC&Rs Article 9.4 incorporates the superior McCormick Ranch Restrictions and Architectural Control Criteria, stipulating that Los Reyes’ rules "shall not contradict them". McCormick Ranch criteria explicitly permit artificial turf subject to quality standards and limits (e.g., typically not more than 30% of the front yard area), a condition Petitioner claimed his plan met. Petitioner further argued that the A.R.S. § 33-1819(B) exemption did not apply because maintenance responsibility is shared: while the HOA handles mowing and trimming (Section 6.2), the owner pays for and controls the irrigation water (Section 8.8).

Outcome and Legal Points

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella issued a decision on April 13, 2023, affirming Petitioner’s petition.

The ALJ concluded that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the disapproval violated the CC&Rs. Key legal findings included:

  • The maintenance of the front yards is shared between the homeowners (who pay for and control irrigation) and the Respondent HOA.
  • Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf and do not prohibit it.
  • Los Reyes cannot contradict the McCormick Ranch Rules and Regulations, which permit artificial turf, as mandated by Los Reyes CC&Rs Article 9.4.
  • The ALJ found that the installation of artificial turf, under the circumstances, would not be contrary to the "overall goal of harmony of external design".

The Order required Respondent to comply with the CC&Rs Section 8.8 going forward and to reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Questions

Question

Can my HOA prohibit artificial turf if the CC&Rs don't specifically ban it?

Short Answer

Likely not. If the CC&Rs are silent regarding artificial turf and do not explicitly prohibit it, the HOA may not be able to enforce a ban, especially if a master association permits it.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because the HOA's CC&Rs were silent regarding artificial turf and did not explicitly prohibit it, they could not ban it. This was further reinforced because the master association's rules, which the sub-association could not contradict, explicitly permitted artificial turf.

Alj Quote

Although Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf, they do not prohibit artificial turf and they shall not contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Construction; A.R.S. § 33-1819

Topic Tags

  • artificial turf
  • CC&Rs interpretation
  • architectural requests

Question

Can a sub-association ban artificial turf if the master association allows it?

Short Answer

No, generally a sub-association cannot contradict the master association's rules if its own governing documents prohibit such contradictions.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs incorporated the master association's rules and stated they could not contradict them. Since the master association allowed artificial turf, the sub-association could not prohibit it.

Alj Quote

McCormick Ranch allows artificial turf, and Respondent cannot contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations according to Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 9.4.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 9.4; Governing Documents Hierarchy

Topic Tags

  • master association
  • sub-association
  • conflicting rules

Question

Does the HOA mowing my front lawn give them the exclusive right to ban artificial turf under state law?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, if the maintenance is shared. If the homeowner is responsible for irrigation and replacing plants, the HOA does not have exclusive maintenance rights to prohibit turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued that because they mowed the lawn, they could prohibit artificial turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B). However, the judge found that because the homeowner paid for water and was responsible for keeping plants healthy (shared maintenance), the HOA could not use the maintenance statute to completely ban turf.

Alj Quote

In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner pays for and can control the irrigation of his property. It is also undisputed that the maintenance of the front yards of the homes within Respondent is shared between the individual homeowners and Respondent.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1819(B); CC&Rs Section 8.8

Topic Tags

  • maintenance responsibility
  • artificial turf
  • state statute

Question

Can an HOA deny an architectural request claiming it disrupts the 'harmony' of the neighborhood?

Short Answer

They can claim it, but a judge may overrule them if the evidence shows the improvement (like artificial turf) wouldn't actually violate the goal of harmony.

Detailed Answer

The HOA denied the request based on the 'overall goal of harmony,' arguing that artificial turf would look different from the natural grass in the neighborhood. The judge reviewed the evidence and concluded that installing artificial turf would not actually be contrary to the goal of harmony.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge further concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing, that the installation of artificial turf would not be contrary to the “overall goal of harmony of external design” as asserted by Respondent.

Legal Basis

Subjective Standards; Harmony Provisions

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • harmony
  • aesthetics

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA decision?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly states that in these administrative hearings, the Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated its governing documents.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to bring the case.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • penalties

Question

Can the HOA deny my plans for being 'conceptual' if I provided specific details?

Short Answer

No. If the plans include specific information like plant types, numbers, and dimensions, the HOA cannot validly deny them as merely 'conceptual'.

Detailed Answer

The HOA denied the application claiming plans were 'conceptual.' The judge noted the plans contained specific types and numbers of plants, dimensions, and detailed renderings, and ultimately ruled the disapproval was a violation.

Alj Quote

Those plans contain the types and number of plants proposed, and the dimensions and shape of the area of artificial turf, and detailed renderings.

Legal Basis

Reasonableness of Approval Process

Topic Tags

  • architectural plans
  • application denial
  • reasonableness

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222063-REL
Case Title
Smoot Carl-Mitchell v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-04-13
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA prohibit artificial turf if the CC&Rs don't specifically ban it?

Short Answer

Likely not. If the CC&Rs are silent regarding artificial turf and do not explicitly prohibit it, the HOA may not be able to enforce a ban, especially if a master association permits it.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because the HOA's CC&Rs were silent regarding artificial turf and did not explicitly prohibit it, they could not ban it. This was further reinforced because the master association's rules, which the sub-association could not contradict, explicitly permitted artificial turf.

Alj Quote

Although Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf, they do not prohibit artificial turf and they shall not contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Construction; A.R.S. § 33-1819

Topic Tags

  • artificial turf
  • CC&Rs interpretation
  • architectural requests

Question

Can a sub-association ban artificial turf if the master association allows it?

Short Answer

No, generally a sub-association cannot contradict the master association's rules if its own governing documents prohibit such contradictions.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs incorporated the master association's rules and stated they could not contradict them. Since the master association allowed artificial turf, the sub-association could not prohibit it.

Alj Quote

McCormick Ranch allows artificial turf, and Respondent cannot contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations according to Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 9.4.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 9.4; Governing Documents Hierarchy

Topic Tags

  • master association
  • sub-association
  • conflicting rules

Question

Does the HOA mowing my front lawn give them the exclusive right to ban artificial turf under state law?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, if the maintenance is shared. If the homeowner is responsible for irrigation and replacing plants, the HOA does not have exclusive maintenance rights to prohibit turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued that because they mowed the lawn, they could prohibit artificial turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B). However, the judge found that because the homeowner paid for water and was responsible for keeping plants healthy (shared maintenance), the HOA could not use the maintenance statute to completely ban turf.

Alj Quote

In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner pays for and can control the irrigation of his property. It is also undisputed that the maintenance of the front yards of the homes within Respondent is shared between the individual homeowners and Respondent.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1819(B); CC&Rs Section 8.8

Topic Tags

  • maintenance responsibility
  • artificial turf
  • state statute

Question

Can an HOA deny an architectural request claiming it disrupts the 'harmony' of the neighborhood?

Short Answer

They can claim it, but a judge may overrule them if the evidence shows the improvement (like artificial turf) wouldn't actually violate the goal of harmony.

Detailed Answer

The HOA denied the request based on the 'overall goal of harmony,' arguing that artificial turf would look different from the natural grass in the neighborhood. The judge reviewed the evidence and concluded that installing artificial turf would not actually be contrary to the goal of harmony.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge further concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing, that the installation of artificial turf would not be contrary to the “overall goal of harmony of external design” as asserted by Respondent.

Legal Basis

Subjective Standards; Harmony Provisions

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • harmony
  • aesthetics

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA decision?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly states that in these administrative hearings, the Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated its governing documents.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to bring the case.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • penalties

Question

Can the HOA deny my plans for being 'conceptual' if I provided specific details?

Short Answer

No. If the plans include specific information like plant types, numbers, and dimensions, the HOA cannot validly deny them as merely 'conceptual'.

Detailed Answer

The HOA denied the application claiming plans were 'conceptual.' The judge noted the plans contained specific types and numbers of plants, dimensions, and detailed renderings, and ultimately ruled the disapproval was a violation.

Alj Quote

Those plans contain the types and number of plants proposed, and the dimensions and shape of the area of artificial turf, and detailed renderings.

Legal Basis

Reasonableness of Approval Process

Topic Tags

  • architectural plans
  • application denial
  • reasonableness

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222063-REL
Case Title
Smoot Carl-Mitchell v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-04-13
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Carl-Mitchell Smoot (petitioner)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. (Member)
    Former HOA President/Treasurer
  • Stewart F. Gross (petitioner attorney)
    Law Offices of Stewart F. Gross, PLLC

Respondent Side

  • Michael S. McLeran (HOA attorney)
    Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
  • Denise Mueller (board member/witness)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
    HOA Vice President; ALC Member
  • Dawn Feigert (property manager/witness)
    Trestle Management Group
    Senior Manager at HOA management company
  • Timothy Fischer (board member/witness)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
    HOA Treasurer; ALC Member
  • Kirk Nelson (board member/witness)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
    HOA President; ALC Member
  • Jan Greenfield (board member)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Former ARC Chair

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
    Presided over hearings and issued final decision
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission records prior to final decision
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in final decision transmission
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Presided over initial continuances
  • c. serrano (OAH Staff)
    OAH
    Document processor

Other Participants

  • Valerie (McCormick Ranch Staff)
    McCormick Ranch Property Owners Association
    Contact regarding compliance

Elizabeth, Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H026-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-04
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent, Citation Gardens Cooperative #1, does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, and therefore, the statute prohibiting the denial of solar panels (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Elizabeth Flint Counsel —
Respondent Citation Gardens Cooperative #1 Counsel Andrew Vizcarra

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1816(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent, Citation Gardens Cooperative #1, does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, and therefore, the statute prohibiting the denial of solar panels (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1816, as the ALJ determined a cooperative's purposes and functions are separate and distinct from those of a planned community, excluding it from the planned community definition.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request to install solar panels

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1816(A) by prohibiting the installation of a solar energy device, arguing the Cooperative qualifies as a planned community. Respondent argued it was a Cooperative Corporation, not a planned community, and the statute did not apply.

Orders: No action is required of Respondent in this matter, and the petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1816
  • A.R.S. § 33-1802
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Solar Energy Device, Planned Community Definition, Cooperative Housing, Statutory Applicability, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1816
  • A.R.S. § 33-1802
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H026-REL Decision – 1030738.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:13 (53.2 KB)

23F-H026-REL Decision – 1046844.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:22 (104.2 KB)

This summary outlines the proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the matter of *Elizabeth Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1*, Docket No. 23F-H026-REL.

Key Facts and Hearing Proceedings

The hearing was held on March 21, 2023, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Petitioner Elizabeth Flint appeared on her own behalf, but Respondent Citation Gardens Cooperative #1 did not appear. Respondent's representative, Andrew Vizcarra, informed the Petitioner via email prior to the hearing that he would miss the meeting due to his son's illness, did not wish to reschedule, and asked that the documents Respondent had submitted "stand in his place". The hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence, with the Petitioner bearing the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Main Issue and Legal Arguments

The single-issue petition alleged that Citation Gardens Cooperative #1 violated A.R.S. § 33-1816(A) by denying the Petitioner’s request to install solar panels on her townhouse without providing reasons. A.R.S. § 33-1816(A) mandates that a planned community association "shall not prohibit the installation or use of a solar energy device," notwithstanding any contrary provision in the community documents.

Respondent's Position (as submitted): The statute (A.R.S. § 33-1816(A)) did not apply because the Cooperative argued it is governed solely by the Arizona Non-Profit Corporation Act, is not a "planned community," and the Petitioner is a "Member," not a "homeowner".

Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner maintained that the Cooperative meets the statutory definition of a planned community (A.R.S. § 33-1802). She argued that a planned community and a nonprofit corporation are not mutually exclusive classifications, noting that the statutory definition for a planned community specifically references a "nonprofit corporation". Furthermore, she asserted that she is both a member and an owner/shareholder (owning 1/44th of the corporation). Since the Respondent did not fall into any of the statutory exclusions for a planned community (timeshare, condominium, or real estate development not managed by an association), the Cooperative must comply with the solar panel statute.

Outcome and Legal Decision

The ALJ issued the Administrative Law Judge Decision on April 4, 2023.

The central legal point was whether the Cooperative qualified as a planned community under A.R.S. § 33-1802. The ALJ acknowledged that the definition of a planned community requires the existence of a nonprofit corporation to own and operate the real estate. However, the ALJ concluded that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community because their "purposes and functions are separate and distinct," despite the statutory definition not expressly excluding cooperatives.

As the Respondent was not found to be a planned community, the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1816.

The final order was that the petition is dismissed, and no action is required of the Respondent.

Questions

Question

Does the Arizona law protecting a homeowner's right to install solar panels apply to housing cooperatives?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ ruled that housing cooperatives do not fit the legal definition of a 'planned community,' so the solar protection statute (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply to them.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a member of a cooperative sought to install solar panels, citing A.R.S. § 33-1816, which prevents planned communities from prohibiting solar devices. The judge determined that while the definition of a planned community does not explicitly list cooperatives as an exclusion, the nature and purpose of a cooperative are distinct enough that they do not fall under the planned community statutes. Therefore, the cooperative was not legally required to permit the installation.

Alj Quote

Although the definition of a planned community does not expressly exclude a cooperative, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community, as their purposes and functions are separate and distinct.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1802; A.R.S. § 33-1816

Topic Tags

  • solar panels
  • cooperatives
  • planned community definition

Question

What happens if the HOA or respondent fails to attend the administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The hearing proceeds without them.

Detailed Answer

If the respondent (the HOA or Cooperative) has been properly notified of the hearing time and date but fails to appear or request a continuance, the Administrative Law Judge will conduct the hearing in their absence. The petitioner will still present their case, but the respondent loses the opportunity to defend themselves in person.

Alj Quote

Consequently, given that Respondent was properly noticed of the hearing, the hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence.

Legal Basis

Procedural Due Process

Topic Tags

  • hearing procedure
  • attendance
  • default

Question

Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

The petitioner (typically the homeowner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The person bringing the complaint must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not up to the HOA to disprove the claims initially; the homeowner must affirmatively establish that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Question

Is a housing cooperative considered a 'planned community' under Arizona law?

Short Answer

No, a cooperative is legally distinct from a planned community.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that a planned community generally involves real estate owned/operated by a nonprofit where owners are mandatory members. A cooperative, however, is formed to acquire, own, and operate a housing project where members hold shares. The judge ruled that these are separate legal concepts with different purposes, meaning statutes specific to 'planned communities' do not automatically apply to cooperatives.

Alj Quote

Respondent is a nonprofit corporation that was formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning and operating a cooperative housing project… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1802

Topic Tags

  • definitions
  • cooperatives
  • planned community

Question

What is the standard of evidence required to win a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

To win, the evidence must show that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It means the evidence must incline a fair mind to one side even slightly more than the other.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Common Law / A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standards

Case

Docket No
23F-H026-REL
Case Title
Elizabeth Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1
Decision Date
2023-04-04
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Does the Arizona law protecting a homeowner's right to install solar panels apply to housing cooperatives?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ ruled that housing cooperatives do not fit the legal definition of a 'planned community,' so the solar protection statute (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply to them.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a member of a cooperative sought to install solar panels, citing A.R.S. § 33-1816, which prevents planned communities from prohibiting solar devices. The judge determined that while the definition of a planned community does not explicitly list cooperatives as an exclusion, the nature and purpose of a cooperative are distinct enough that they do not fall under the planned community statutes. Therefore, the cooperative was not legally required to permit the installation.

Alj Quote

Although the definition of a planned community does not expressly exclude a cooperative, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community, as their purposes and functions are separate and distinct.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1802; A.R.S. § 33-1816

Topic Tags

  • solar panels
  • cooperatives
  • planned community definition

Question

What happens if the HOA or respondent fails to attend the administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The hearing proceeds without them.

Detailed Answer

If the respondent (the HOA or Cooperative) has been properly notified of the hearing time and date but fails to appear or request a continuance, the Administrative Law Judge will conduct the hearing in their absence. The petitioner will still present their case, but the respondent loses the opportunity to defend themselves in person.

Alj Quote

Consequently, given that Respondent was properly noticed of the hearing, the hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence.

Legal Basis

Procedural Due Process

Topic Tags

  • hearing procedure
  • attendance
  • default

Question

Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

The petitioner (typically the homeowner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The person bringing the complaint must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not up to the HOA to disprove the claims initially; the homeowner must affirmatively establish that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Question

Is a housing cooperative considered a 'planned community' under Arizona law?

Short Answer

No, a cooperative is legally distinct from a planned community.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that a planned community generally involves real estate owned/operated by a nonprofit where owners are mandatory members. A cooperative, however, is formed to acquire, own, and operate a housing project where members hold shares. The judge ruled that these are separate legal concepts with different purposes, meaning statutes specific to 'planned communities' do not automatically apply to cooperatives.

Alj Quote

Respondent is a nonprofit corporation that was formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning and operating a cooperative housing project… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1802

Topic Tags

  • definitions
  • cooperatives
  • planned community

Question

What is the standard of evidence required to win a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

To win, the evidence must show that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It means the evidence must incline a fair mind to one side even slightly more than the other.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Common Law / A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standards

Case

Docket No
23F-H026-REL
Case Title
Elizabeth Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1
Decision Date
2023-04-04
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Elizabeth Flint (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf and testified.

Respondent Side

  • Andrew Vizcarra (respondent representative)
    Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management Services, L.L.C.
    Did not appear at the hearing; also referenced verbally as 'Andrew Biscara'.

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings

Other Participants

  • James Knupp (Acting Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on the service list for the Order Setting Hearing dated Feb 2, 2023.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on the service list for the Decision dated April 4, 2023.
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of case documents via email address.
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of case documents via email address.
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of case documents via email address.
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of case documents via email address.

Kimberly Martinez v. Pineglen Owner’s Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-03-09
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on Petition Issues 1 and 3, establishing violations of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) and A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Respondent was deemed the prevailing party on Issue 2. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $1,000.00 of the filing fee and directed to comply with the violated statutes going forward. No Civil Penalty was imposed.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kimberly Martinez Counsel —
Respondent Pineglen Owner's Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)
Bylaws, Article IV, Sections 1 and 2
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on Petition Issues 1 and 3, establishing violations of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) and A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Respondent was deemed the prevailing party on Issue 2. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $1,000.00 of the filing fee and directed to comply with the violated statutes going forward. No Civil Penalty was imposed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the violation related to the appointed board positions (Issue 2) by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

The ballot for the annual election of Board members did not have the proper resident identifiers, lot number or physical address; and the process for write-in candidates was not provided or outlined.

The ballots utilized by Respondent did not contain the address of the person voting, violating the requirement that completed ballots shall contain the name, address, and signature of the person voting.

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)
  • Bylaws, Article III, Section 3

At the Annual Meeting the Board President announced 2 new Board positions, but did not follow the electoral process for filling the 2 positions, instead appointed 2 residents to the new positions.

Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its Bylaws regarding the appointment of two board positions (RV Lot Manager and Architectural Review Manager), as the Board was within its limits to increase membership and fill vacancies until the next election.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Bylaws, Article IV, Section 1
  • Bylaws, Article IV, Section 2

The Board Secretary refused to comply to Petitioner's request, per ARS 33-1805(A), of supplying copies of HOA records, either electronically or by purchase of hard copies.

Petitioner requested copies in writing and offered to pay, but Respondent refused to provide copies, contrary to the statutory obligation that the association must provide copies of requested records upon request for purchase within ten business days.

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • Bylaws, Article VII, Section 3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Ballot Requirements, HOA Records Request, Board Appointments, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • Bylaws, Article IV, Section 1
  • Bylaws, Article IV, Section 2
  • Bylaws, Article III, Section 3
  • Bylaws, Article VII, Section 3

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

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1027053.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:34 (50.0 KB)

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1028006.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:38 (57.9 KB)

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1029880.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:43 (60.6 KB)

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1040305.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:50 (160.5 KB)

This concise summary details the proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the matter of *Kimberly Martinez v. Pineglen Owner's Association*, case number 23F-H027-REL, heard before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Key Facts and Issues

The Petitioner, Kimberly Martinez, a homeowner in the Pineglen planned community, filed a Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department) alleging three specific violations by the Respondent, Pineglen Owner's Association (HOA). The hearing was held on February 17, 2023, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella.

The three issues were:

  1. Ballot Identifiers (A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)): The annual election ballot lacked proper resident identifiers (address or lot number) for the person voting.
  2. Board Appointments (Bylaws Article IV, Section 1/2): The Board appointed two new voting members (RV Lot Manager and Architectural Review Manager) without following the proper electoral process.
  3. Records Request (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)): The Board refused to provide copies of HOA records upon Petitioner’s written request and offer to purchase, instead insisting only on in-person viewing.

Key Arguments and Legal Points

Pre-Hearing Matters: The ALJ Denied the Respondent’s Motion to Continue the hearing.

Issue 1 (Ballots):

  • Petitioner's Argument: The ballot did not meet the statutory requirement of containing the name and address of the person voting, as mandated by A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6).
  • Respondent's Argument: The HOA utilized a door-to-door canvassing method and manually wrote the lot number on the ballot *after* it was received to ensure the voter was a member and to prevent duplication. They argued this process achieved compliance while protecting member privacy.

Issue 2 (Appointments):

  • Petitioner's Argument: Board members must be elected at the annual meeting, and the appointment of two new voting positions violated the electoral process outlined in the Bylaws.
  • Respondent's Argument: Citing Bylaws Article IV, Section 1, the HOA maintained they had the right to increase board membership (within the 3-to-7 member limit) and fill vacancies, with appointees serving until the next election. The positions were formalized from previously ambiguous roles to aid the Board, which is comprised of "elderly volunteers" who struggle to find recruits.

Issue 3 (Records Request):

  • Petitioner's Argument: A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) mandates that associations provide copies of records within ten business days upon written request for purchase, allowing a charge of up to fifteen cents per page. Petitioner specifically stated she fully expected an invoice to be delivered with the copies.
  • Respondent's Argument: The Board offered multiple opportunities for Petitioner to review the documents in person, believing they were making them "reasonably available" in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and their own bylaws. The Respondent admitted they initially failed to interpret the Petitioner's email as a request for *purchase* of copies.

Outcome and Final Decision

The ALJ issued a Decision on March 9, 2023, finding the Petitioner established violations on two of the three complaints by a preponderance of the evidence.

  • Complaint 1 (Ballots): Violation Found. Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6), as the ballots did not contain the address of the person voting.
  • Complaint 2 (Appointments): No Violation Found. The Board acted within its authority under Bylaws Article IV, Section 1, to increase membership and fill vacancies until the next election.
  • Complaint 3 (Records Request): Violation Found. Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by refusing to provide copies of the requested records for purchase, contrary to its statutory obligation.

Final Orders:

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on Issues 1 and 3. The ALJ Ordered Res

Questions

Question

Must HOA election ballots include the voter's address?

Short Answer

Yes, unless the community documents explicitly permit secret ballots.

Detailed Answer

According to Arizona law, completed ballots must contain the name, address, and signature of the voter. The only exception is if community documents allow for secret ballots, in which case this information must be on the envelope.

Alj Quote

The ballots utilized by Respondent did not contain the address of the person voting. Therefore, Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6).

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)

Topic Tags

  • Elections
  • Ballots
  • Voting

Question

Can an HOA refuse to provide copies of records and force me to view them in person instead?

Short Answer

No. If a member requests to purchase copies, the HOA must provide them.

Detailed Answer

While an HOA can make records available for viewing, if a homeowner explicitly requests to purchase copies, the HOA is statutorily obligated to provide those copies within ten business days. Simply offering a viewing does not satisfy a request for copies.

Alj Quote

Respondent refused to provide copies of the requested documents and would only allow Petitioner to view the documents, contrary to its statutory obligation. … Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Transparency
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can the HOA Board appoint people to fill vacancies or new positions without holding an election?

Short Answer

Yes, if the bylaws permit the Board to fill vacancies until the next election.

Detailed Answer

If the community bylaws allow the Board to increase its membership within certain limits and fill vacancies, the Board can appoint members to these positions. These appointees generally serve until the next scheduled election.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Respondent appropriately appointed these positions and that the positions will appear on the ballot of the next election.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Article IV, Section 1

Topic Tags

  • Board Vacancies
  • Appointments
  • Bylaws

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the petition is responsible for providing sufficient evidence to prove that the HOA violated statutes or community documents. The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

How much can an HOA charge for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA may charge a fee of no more than 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute limits the fee an association can charge for making copies of records requested by a member to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Fees
  • HOA Obligations

Question

If I win my case, will the HOA have to pay a civil penalty?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; civil penalties are discretionary.

Detailed Answer

Even if the HOA is found to have violated the law, the Administrative Law Judge is not required to impose a civil penalty. In this case, despite finding violations regarding ballots and records, the judge decided no penalty was appropriate.

Alj Quote

No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Discretionary

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement
  • Civil Penalty

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if the ALJ rules in my favor?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner prevails on the issues presented in the petition, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the filing fee back to the Petitioner.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner the filing fee of $1,000.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Filing Fees
  • Reimbursement

Case

Docket No
23F-H027-REL
Case Title
Kimberly Martinez v. Pineglen Owner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-09
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Must HOA election ballots include the voter's address?

Short Answer

Yes, unless the community documents explicitly permit secret ballots.

Detailed Answer

According to Arizona law, completed ballots must contain the name, address, and signature of the voter. The only exception is if community documents allow for secret ballots, in which case this information must be on the envelope.

Alj Quote

The ballots utilized by Respondent did not contain the address of the person voting. Therefore, Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6).

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)

Topic Tags

  • Elections
  • Ballots
  • Voting

Question

Can an HOA refuse to provide copies of records and force me to view them in person instead?

Short Answer

No. If a member requests to purchase copies, the HOA must provide them.

Detailed Answer

While an HOA can make records available for viewing, if a homeowner explicitly requests to purchase copies, the HOA is statutorily obligated to provide those copies within ten business days. Simply offering a viewing does not satisfy a request for copies.

Alj Quote

Respondent refused to provide copies of the requested documents and would only allow Petitioner to view the documents, contrary to its statutory obligation. … Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Transparency
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can the HOA Board appoint people to fill vacancies or new positions without holding an election?

Short Answer

Yes, if the bylaws permit the Board to fill vacancies until the next election.

Detailed Answer

If the community bylaws allow the Board to increase its membership within certain limits and fill vacancies, the Board can appoint members to these positions. These appointees generally serve until the next scheduled election.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Respondent appropriately appointed these positions and that the positions will appear on the ballot of the next election.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Article IV, Section 1

Topic Tags

  • Board Vacancies
  • Appointments
  • Bylaws

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the petition is responsible for providing sufficient evidence to prove that the HOA violated statutes or community documents. The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

How much can an HOA charge for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA may charge a fee of no more than 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute limits the fee an association can charge for making copies of records requested by a member to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Fees
  • HOA Obligations

Question

If I win my case, will the HOA have to pay a civil penalty?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; civil penalties are discretionary.

Detailed Answer

Even if the HOA is found to have violated the law, the Administrative Law Judge is not required to impose a civil penalty. In this case, despite finding violations regarding ballots and records, the judge decided no penalty was appropriate.

Alj Quote

No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Discretionary

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement
  • Civil Penalty

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if the ALJ rules in my favor?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner prevails on the issues presented in the petition, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the filing fee back to the Petitioner.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner the filing fee of $1,000.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Filing Fees
  • Reimbursement

Case

Docket No
23F-H027-REL
Case Title
Kimberly Martinez v. Pineglen Owner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-09
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kimberly Martinez (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf
  • Christine McCabe (assistant/observer)
    Friend assisting Petitioner due to hearing deficit

Respondent Side

  • Susan Goeldner (HOA secretary/board member/representative)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Testified and acted as primary representative for Respondent
  • Warren Doty (HOA VP/board member/representative/witness)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Testified on Complaint Number 1
  • Tim Mahoney (HOA treasurer/board member/witness)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Observed proceedings; testified briefly on Complaint Number 3
  • Mark McElvain (former HOA president/observer)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Observed proceedings
  • Fred Bates (former board member/observer)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Observed proceedings
  • Addie Bassoon (HOA president)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Did not attend hearing due to personal issues; referenced in testimony/documents

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Recipient of initial correspondence/minute entries
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Recipient of final decision copies
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)

Shawna Townsend v. North Canyon Ranch Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H018-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-02-07
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association violated its governing documents regarding the storage of a truck camper.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Shawna Townsend Counsel —
Respondent North Canyon Ranch Owners Association Counsel Haidyn DiLorenzo

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 4.3 Storage, Section 4.17 Motor Vehicles, Community Guidelines 2007

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association violated its governing documents regarding the storage of a truck camper.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner's 'truck camper' falls within the scope of prohibited items, specifically as 'other similar equipment' under the CC&Rs and rules, making her argument one of semantics.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the HOA violated its governing documents by issuing a fine for parking a mounted truck camper, based on the Petitioner's claimed 'legal loophole'.

Petitioner claimed a 'legal loophole' existed because the governing documents prohibited 'unmounted pickup camper units' or 'detached campers,' but not her currently mounted/attached truck camper. The ALJ found the truck camper was unequivocally prohibited as 'other similar equipment' under the CC&Rs and Rules, dismissing the petition.

Orders: Petition dismissed. No action is required of Respondent in this matter.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs § 4.3
  • CC&Rs § 4.17
  • Community Guidelines 2007
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-2102(18)(e)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, truck camper, recreational vehicle, storage violation, legal loophole, fines, administrative hearing, Arizona
Additional Citations:

  • CC&Rs § 4.3
  • CC&Rs § 4.17
  • Community Guidelines 2007
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-2102(18)(e)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H018-REL Decision – 1031834.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-27T09:47:34 (167.3 KB)

This summary details the administrative hearing held on January 19, 2023, in the matter of Shawna Townsend v. North Canyon Ranch Owners Association (Docket No. 23F-H018-REL). The Petitioner, Shauna Townsend, appeared self-represented, alleging the Respondent HOA violated community documents by fining her for storing a truck camper.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The dispute centered on the Petitioner storing her truck camper in her driveway, visible from neighboring properties. The Petitioner sought relief from fines imposed by the Respondent, arguing she had found a "legal loophole" in the association's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Community Guidelines.

The Respondent (HOA) maintained that the storage of the camper violated multiple governing documents, including:

  1. CC&R Section 4.3 (Storage): Prohibiting exterior storage of items like "unmounted pickup camper units" in the front yard.
  2. Architectural and Community Guidelines (2007): Prohibiting equipment such as "camper shell, detached camper, boat, boat trailer, hang glider, or other similar equipment or vehicle" from being parked or stored on lots if visible.
  3. Rules Regarding Recreational Type Vehicles (2000): Explicitly defining "Recreational Type Vehicles" to include "campers" and prohibiting their storage in driveways or front yards (allowing only brief loading/unloading, generally less than 24 consecutive hours).

Key Arguments and Legal Points

Petitioner's Argument (The "Loophole"): The Petitioner asserted that because her truck camper was mounted/attached to her truck, it did not fall under the specific prohibitions against "unmounted pickup camper units" (CC&Rs) or "detached campers" (Guidelines). She also argued that her truck camper was not technically an RV, trailer, or camper shell. She noted inconsistencies in the violation notices, which variously referred to the violation as an "RV," "trailer," or "camper shell".

Respondent's Argument: The Respondent contended that the documents, when read together, unambiguously prohibit the storage of the truck camper because it is captured by the broad language of "camper," "truck camper," or "other similar equipment". The Association provided evidence of multiple violation notices, appeals, and appeal denials (dated November 2021 through September 2022) demonstrating that the Petitioner was provided notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to fines being assessed, thereby validating the fines.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that the Petitioner's argument was primarily one of semantics. The ALJ further referenced Arizona state statute A.R.S. § 33-2102(18), which defines a "Recreational vehicle" to include a "portable truck camper". Crucially, the Petitioner acknowledged during testimony that her truck camper is, in fact, a recreational vehicle.

Outcome

The burden of proof rested upon the Petitioner to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the governing documents.

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to meet this burden. The ALJ held that the Petitioner's truck camper clearly falls within the categories of prohibited equipment, particularly under the umbrella language of "other similar equipment" specified in the community documents.

The petition was dismissed, and no action was required of the Respondent. The decision became binding upon the parties pending any request for a rehearing.

Select all sources

No emoji found

Loading

23F-H018-REL

2 sources

This legal transcript and subsequent judicial decision detail a dispute between homeowner Shawna Townsend and the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association regarding a fine for storing a truck camper in public view. Townsend argued that her equipment fell into a legal loophole because the association’s rules specifically prohibited “unmounted” or “detached” campers, while hers remained attached to her vehicle. In contrast, the Homeowners Association maintained that the camper violated multiple regulations prohibiting the storage of recreational type vehicles and similar equipment in driveways. During the administrative hearing, testimony was provided regarding the enforcement consistency of the community’s governing documents and the specific definitions of recreational vehicles under Arizona law. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, determining that the truck camper was clearly prohibited as “similar equipment” regardless of its attachment status. The petition was dismissed, confirming that the association acted within its authority when issuing the violation notices and fines.

What are the core legal arguments regarding the truck camper loophole?
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the association’s enforcement?
How do North Canyon Ranch guidelines define recreational vehicles and storage?

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 2:12 PM

2 sources

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Select all sources

No emoji found

Loading

23F-H018-REL

2 sources

This legal transcript and subsequent judicial decision detail a dispute between homeowner Shawna Townsend and the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association regarding a fine for storing a truck camper in public view. Townsend argued that her equipment fell into a legal loophole because the association’s rules specifically prohibited “unmounted” or “detached” campers, while hers remained attached to her vehicle. In contrast, the Homeowners Association maintained that the camper violated multiple regulations prohibiting the storage of recreational type vehicles and similar equipment in driveways. During the administrative hearing, testimony was provided regarding the enforcement consistency of the community’s governing documents and the specific definitions of recreational vehicles under Arizona law. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, determining that the truck camper was clearly prohibited as “similar equipment” regardless of its attachment status. The petition was dismissed, confirming that the association acted within its authority when issuing the violation notices and fines.

What are the core legal arguments regarding the truck camper loophole?
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the association’s enforcement?
How do North Canyon Ranch guidelines define recreational vehicles and storage?

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 2:12 PM

2 sources

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Shawna Townsend (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf; also referred to as Shauna Townsen or Miss Townsen
  • Michael Townsen (co-owner)
    Co-owner and recipient of violation notices with Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Haidyn DiLorenzo (HOA attorney)
    Represented Respondent North Canyon Ranch Owners Association
  • Justin DeLuca (HOA attorney)
    Represented Respondent North Canyon Ranch Owners Association
  • Josey Perkins (community manager/witness)
    North Canyon Ranch Owners Association
    Community Manager for the association, testified as a witness (also referred to as Joy Perkins)
  • Riner (board member)
    North Canyon Ranch Owners Association Board of Directors
    Made motion to deny petitioner's appeal
  • Robera Holler (board member)
    North Canyon Ranch Owners Association Board of Directors
    Seconded motion to deny petitioner's appeal
  • Petra Paul (Executive VP of Management Services)
    Management Services
    Vice President of management services, communicated with Petitioner about the appeal
  • Beth Mulcahy (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
    Listed as contact for transmission of the decision

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge (also referred to as Sandra Vanella)
  • James Knupp (Acting Commissioner, ADRE)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the decision

Pamela McKinney v. Valle Vista Property Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-01-31
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent HOA's Articles of Incorporation had been previously amended to be perpetual (1994, 1999) and that the CLRs automatically renew for an additional 25 years without requiring a homeowner vote, provided no modifications or changes are made.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Pamela McKinney Counsel —
Respondent Valle Vista Property Owners Association Counsel Alan Meda

Alleged Violations

Articles of Incorporation Article 8, Covenants, Limitations & Restrictions Article 19 Sec. A, Covenants, Limitations & Restrictions Article 19 Sec. B

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent HOA's Articles of Incorporation had been previously amended to be perpetual (1994, 1999) and that the CLRs automatically renew for an additional 25 years without requiring a homeowner vote, provided no modifications or changes are made.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that Respondent violated the Articles of Incorporation or the CLRs, as the evidence showed the corporation's existence was perpetual and the CLRs' automatic renewal was permissible without a vote.

Key Issues & Findings

Expiration of HOA Charter and unlawful extension of CLRs by Board resolution without member vote

Petitioner alleged the HOA's charter and CLRs expired after 50 years (2022) and that the Board unlawfully extended the CLRs for 25 years via a resolution (Resolution/Memorandum of September 27, 2022) without the required vote of the co-owners. The ALJ found that the Articles of Incorporation were perpetually extended by amendments in 1994 and 1999, and the CLRs automatically renewed without a vote because no modifications were made.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Articles of Incorporation (1972)
  • Articles of Amendment (1994)
  • Articles of Amendment (1999)
  • CLRs Unit One (1972)
  • Resolution 092722 (Sept 27, 2022)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Charter Expiration, CLRs Renewal, Perpetual Existence, Amendment Vote, HOA Board Authority, Arizona Real Estate Statute
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

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

23F-H019-REL Decision – 1030077.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:59:33 (140.1 KB)

This summary addresses the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision of the legal case, drawing on the provided sources.

***

Concise Summary of Administrative Hearing: Pamela McKinney v. Valle Vista Property Owners Association

Key Facts and Proceedings

The administrative hearing was held on January 17, 2023 (Docket No. 23F-H 019- REL) before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella. Petitioner Pamela McKinney appeared on her own behalf, alleging that the Valle Vista Property Owners Association (Respondent) violated community documents. The burden of proof rested upon the Petitioner to establish the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

The dispute centered on the Respondent's use of a Resolution/Memorandum of September 27, 2022 to extend the Declarations of Covenants, Limitations, and Restrictions (CLRs) for another 25 years without an approval vote from the Council of co-owners. The Petitioner, an owner in Unit One, contended that the Articles of Incorporation (the association charter) had expired after 50 years (in May 2022 for Unit One) and that the extension of the CLRs required a vote.

Main Issues and Legal Arguments

The core issue determined by the ALJ was whether the Respondent violated Article 8 of the Articles of Incorporation (AOI) and Article 19 of the CLRs by attempting to extend the CLRs via resolution without a member vote.

Petitioner's Key Arguments:

  1. AOI Expiration: Petitioner argued that the original AOI, dated 1972, specified a 25-year existence with the power of one renewal, meaning the charter expired after 50 years (in 2022). If the AOI expired, the association must form a new corporation.
  2. CLRs Require Vote for Extension: Petitioner asserted that while the CLRs provide for an automatic 25-year renewal, this renewal constitutes a change in duration, and thus requires the approval of 66 2/3% or more of the owners of record, as stated in the CLRs (Section 19(a) and (b)).
  3. Unlawful Amendments: McKinney testified she was unaware of any amendments extending the AOI and argued that even if they were recorded, they might be unlawful if done without the requisite member vote (which required 75% approval for amendments).

Respondent's Key Arguments:

  1. Perpetual Existence: Respondent successfully demonstrated that the Articles of Incorporation (AOI) had been officially amended twice—on November 18, 1994, and January 15, 1999—specifically to declare the duration of the corporation shall be perpetual.
  2. Automatic Renewal of CLRs: Respondent contended that the CLRs for all units automatically renew every 25 years without a vote. A vote is only required if the association attempts to make modifications or changes to the CLRs.
  3. Resolution Purpose: Respondent explained that the September 27, 2022 Resolution was simply recorded to reflect the automatic renewal of the CLRs and contained no amendments or modifications. Failure to renew would cause the loss of valuable common assets (valued at approximately $2.5 million).

Final Decision and Outcome

The ALJ issued the decision on January 31, 2023. The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

The legal conclusions were:

  1. The Respondent successfully established that the Articles of Incorporation had been amended in 1994 and 1999 to extend the duration perpetually.
  2. The automatic renewal of the CLRs does not constitute a modification/change that required a vote of the homeowners under the governing documents.

Therefore, the Respondent did not violate Article 8 of the AOI or Article 19 of the CLRs when it passed the resolution extending the CLRs.

The final order stated that the Petitioner's Petition was dismissed.

Questions

Question

If the CC&Rs (or CLRs) include an automatic renewal clause, does the HOA board require a homeowner vote to extend them?

Short Answer

No. If the documents allow for automatic renewal and no other changes are made, a vote is not required because renewal is not considered a modification.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that if the governing documents provide for automatic renewal for specific periods (e.g., 25 years), the simple act of renewing does not constitute a 'change' or 'modification' that would trigger a voting requirement. A vote is generally only required if the text of the documents is actually being altered.

Alj Quote

Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any changes or modifications were made to the CLRs, and the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the automatic renewal of the CLRs does not constitute a modification/change that required a vote of the homeowners.

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 4

Topic Tags

  • CC&R Renewal
  • Voting Rights
  • Governing Documents

Question

Who bears the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the person filing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not initially have to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the HOA committed the violation.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 2; A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Procedure
  • Burden of Proof

Question

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

Short Answer

It means the claim is 'more probably true than not.'

Detailed Answer

The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal court). Instead, it is based on the greater weight of the evidence, which must be sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side rather than the other.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 3

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

Can an HOA amend its Articles of Incorporation to exist perpetually if they originally had an expiration date?

Short Answer

Yes, an HOA can amend its Articles to extend its duration to be perpetual.

Detailed Answer

The decision upheld the validity of previous amendments where the HOA changed its corporate duration from a fixed term (e.g., 25 years) to 'perpetual.'

Alj Quote

Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation, Section VIII, on November 18, 1994, and again on January 15, 1999, which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact 10-12; Conclusion of Law 4

Topic Tags

  • Corporate Charter
  • Amendments
  • Articles of Incorporation

Question

Where can an Arizona homeowner file a dispute regarding violations of community documents?

Short Answer

A petition can be filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).

Detailed Answer

Arizona law allows homeowners or associations to file a petition with the Department regarding violations of the documents or statutes regulating planned communities. These are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Alj Quote

Arizona statute permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents or violations of statutes that regulate planned communities.

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 1; A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • Dispute Resolution
  • ADRE
  • Jurisdiction

Question

Does a lack of knowledge about old amendments invalidate them?

Short Answer

No. Even if a current homeowner was unaware of amendments filed decades ago, they are still binding if properly recorded.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the petitioner was unaware of amendments from 1994 and 1999 until the hearing, but the ALJ still relied on those documents to determine that the corporation had not expired.

Alj Quote

Petitioner was not aware of the 1994 and 1999 amendments to the Articles of Incorporation until hearing… The credible and probative evidence of record established that Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation… which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact 13; Conclusion of Law 4

Topic Tags

  • Record Keeping
  • Constructive Notice
  • Amendments

Case

Docket No
23F-H019-REL
Case Title
Pamela McKinney v. Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-01-31
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If the CC&Rs (or CLRs) include an automatic renewal clause, does the HOA board require a homeowner vote to extend them?

Short Answer

No. If the documents allow for automatic renewal and no other changes are made, a vote is not required because renewal is not considered a modification.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that if the governing documents provide for automatic renewal for specific periods (e.g., 25 years), the simple act of renewing does not constitute a 'change' or 'modification' that would trigger a voting requirement. A vote is generally only required if the text of the documents is actually being altered.

Alj Quote

Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any changes or modifications were made to the CLRs, and the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the automatic renewal of the CLRs does not constitute a modification/change that required a vote of the homeowners.

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 4

Topic Tags

  • CC&R Renewal
  • Voting Rights
  • Governing Documents

Question

Who bears the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the person filing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not initially have to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the HOA committed the violation.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 2; A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Procedure
  • Burden of Proof

Question

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

Short Answer

It means the claim is 'more probably true than not.'

Detailed Answer

The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal court). Instead, it is based on the greater weight of the evidence, which must be sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side rather than the other.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 3

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

Can an HOA amend its Articles of Incorporation to exist perpetually if they originally had an expiration date?

Short Answer

Yes, an HOA can amend its Articles to extend its duration to be perpetual.

Detailed Answer

The decision upheld the validity of previous amendments where the HOA changed its corporate duration from a fixed term (e.g., 25 years) to 'perpetual.'

Alj Quote

Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation, Section VIII, on November 18, 1994, and again on January 15, 1999, which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact 10-12; Conclusion of Law 4

Topic Tags

  • Corporate Charter
  • Amendments
  • Articles of Incorporation

Question

Where can an Arizona homeowner file a dispute regarding violations of community documents?

Short Answer

A petition can be filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).

Detailed Answer

Arizona law allows homeowners or associations to file a petition with the Department regarding violations of the documents or statutes regulating planned communities. These are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Alj Quote

Arizona statute permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents or violations of statutes that regulate planned communities.

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 1; A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • Dispute Resolution
  • ADRE
  • Jurisdiction

Question

Does a lack of knowledge about old amendments invalidate them?

Short Answer

No. Even if a current homeowner was unaware of amendments filed decades ago, they are still binding if properly recorded.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the petitioner was unaware of amendments from 1994 and 1999 until the hearing, but the ALJ still relied on those documents to determine that the corporation had not expired.

Alj Quote

Petitioner was not aware of the 1994 and 1999 amendments to the Articles of Incorporation until hearing… The credible and probative evidence of record established that Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation… which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact 13; Conclusion of Law 4

Topic Tags

  • Record Keeping
  • Constructive Notice
  • Amendments

Case

Docket No
23F-H019-REL
Case Title
Pamela McKinney v. Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-01-31
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Pamela McKinney (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Alan A. Meda (HOA attorney)
    Burch & Cracchiolo
    Represented Respondent Valle Vista Property Owners Association
  • Sharon Grossi (board member)
    Valle Vista Property Owners Association
    President of the Board; testified as a witness for Respondent
  • Rebecca Bankov (property manager)
    Valle Vista Property Owners Association
    Also referred to as Rebecca fan
  • Amy Wood (board member)
    Valle Vista Property Owners Association
    Secretary on the board
  • Thomas Noble (board member)
    Valle Vista Property Owners Association
    Former President of the Board (mentioned in communication)
  • Stan Andrews (board member)
    Valle Vista Property Owners Association
    Mentioned by Petitioner as a board member
  • Ray Rose (board member)
    Valle Vista Property Owners Association
    Recently resigned from the board

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Jean Newman (CPA)
    Independent auditor who prepared financial report

Other Participants

  • Dennis Hope (Fire Chief)
    Northern Arizona Fire District
    External party cited in board communications regarding water shutoff threats

Elieen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H002-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-11-17
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge upheld the Petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures by refusing to count otherwise valid couriered ballots and subsequent in-person attempts to vote at the July 5, 2022 Special Election. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $500 filing fee refund, and the HOA was assessed a $500 civil penalty.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Eileen Ahearn Counsel —
Respondent High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Counsel Jason Smith, Esq.

Alleged Violations

HLR CCR 6.2.1 and HLR Association Rules: Nominating and Election Committee Mission and Procedures (approved 19 July 2021)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge upheld the Petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures by refusing to count otherwise valid couriered ballots and subsequent in-person attempts to vote at the July 5, 2022 Special Election. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $500 filing fee refund, and the HOA was assessed a $500 civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of the right to vote in Removal/Recall Special Election

Petitioners alleged they were denied the right to vote in the July 5, 2022 Removal/Recall Special Election after their initial ballots (couriered prior to the meeting) were rejected for lacking a postmark, and their subsequent attempts to cast new ballots in person were rejected for reasons including 'double voting' or being 'too late.' The ALJ found the HOA violated its established election procedures.

Orders: The Petition was upheld, and Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioners their $500.00 filing fee and pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • HLR CCR 6.2.1
  • Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Election Violation, Voting Rights, CCNR, Recall Election, Filing Fee Refund, Civil Penalty
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • HLR CCR 6.2.1
  • Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

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

23F-H002-REL Decision – 1009442.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:55:32 (60.1 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 1013289.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:55:35 (127.8 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 996298.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:55:39 (54.8 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 996319.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:55:43 (7.5 KB)

The hearing was conducted before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) concerning a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Petition filed by Eileen Ahearn and Robert Barfield (Petitioners) against the High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association (Respondent). The hearing took place on November 8, 2022.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The Petitioners alleged a violation of community documents, specifically HLR CCR 6.2.1 and HLR Association Rules: Nominating and Election Committee Mission and Procedures, stemming from the denial of their right to vote at the July 5, 2022, Removal/Recall Special Election. Petitioners were only allowed to present a single issue, having paid the corresponding $500.00 filing fee.

The factual dispute centered on 19 ballots without post marks that were not considered in the election. Petitioners and several other homeowners had completed their ballots prior to the meeting and delivered them to the ballot box custodian, Claire Peachey, who placed them in the secure box. Petitioners testified this was accepted practice and the use of couriers for ballots was approved in the past.

When Petitioners learned these ballots would not be counted due to the lack of a post mark, they attempted to fill out new ballots in person at the meeting. These new ballots were rejected for various reasons, including "double voting" and being "too late" because the voting was declared "closed". Evidence showed that all homeowners whose ballots were rejected had signed the recall petition that prompted the election.

Key Arguments

  • Petitioners’ Argument: The board members running the election—who were subject to the recall—arbitrarily denied votes using unwritten or newly interpreted rules (e.g., requiring a US postmark). They argued the denial violated their right to vote (one vote per lot) and failed to follow the procedure documents.
  • Respondent’s Argument: Respondent argued that the cited CCNR 6.2.1 was irrelevant as it only established voting rights (one vote per lot), not voting processes. They maintained that the Petitioners failed to submit their ballots properly, either by mail (with postmark) or in person before the close of voting. Respondent also objected that Petitioners relied on documents (like draft procedures) that were not cited in the initial petition.

Final Decision and Legal Points

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Sondra J. Vanella, issued the Decision on November 17, 2022.

The ALJ found that Petitioners established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures.

The ALJ concluded that the Elections Committee Chair (who was subject to the recall) refused to count ballots that could not be considered ineligible under the listed criteria (such as illegibility or lack of good standing). Furthermore, the Respondent failed to abide by its own procedure stating that “Every effort will be made to count as many votes as possible assuring a fair, open and honest election”.

Outcome

The Petition was upheld. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party.

The ALJ ordered the following relief:

  1. Respondent must pay Petitioners their $500.00 filing fee.
  2. Respondent must pay a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to count a ballot simply because it was delivered by a courier or neighbor rather than mailed?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA's procedures do not explicitly forbid couriers and it has been past practice, they cannot reject ballots solely for lacking a postmark.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated its procedures by rejecting ballots placed in the ballot box prior to the election (via courier) simply because they lacked postmarks. The judge noted that the custodian of the box did not believe it was a problem and there was no reason for homeowners to believe they couldn't do so.

Alj Quote

Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to count Petitioners’ and other homeowners’ ballots that had been placed in the ballot box prior to the election… There was also no reason for Petitioners or the other homeowners to believe that they could not place their ballots in the ballot box prior to the election and have those ballots counted.

Legal Basis

Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • ballots
  • couriers
  • voting rights

Question

What are valid reasons for an HOA to consider a ballot ineligible or spoiled?

Short Answer

Valid reasons typically include incorrect vote counts, unconfirmed ownership, illegibility, unsigned envelopes, or lack of good standing.

Detailed Answer

The decision outlines specific criteria for invalidating ballots found in the HOA's procedures. Arbitrary reasons not listed in the governing documents (like lack of a postmark when not required) are not valid grounds for rejection.

Alj Quote

Reasons a ballot may not be valid include incorrect number of votes, lot ownership cannot be confirmed, ballot is illegible, ballot envelope is not signed, or a member is not in good standing.

Legal Basis

Association Election Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • ballot validity
  • rules

Question

Is the HOA obligated to try to count votes rather than looking for reasons to disqualify them?

Short Answer

Yes. If the election procedures state that every effort will be made to count votes to ensure fairness, the HOA must adhere to that standard.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited the HOA's own mission statement which promised to make every effort to count votes. Rejecting ballots for minor procedural issues (like lacking a postmark) when the voters are present and eligible violates this obligation.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures state that 'every effort will be made to count as many votes as possible assuring a fair, open and honest election.' This was not the case at the July 5, 2022 Special Election.

Legal Basis

Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • fairness
  • HOA obligations

Question

If my mailed ballot is rejected, can the HOA prevent me from voting in person at the meeting?

Short Answer

No. If you are present at the meeting and your absentee ballot is rejected, the HOA should allow you to cast a replacement ballot.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found a violation when the HOA refused to accept in-person ballots from homeowners whose courier ballots were rejected. The decision noted that these ballots were not ineligible for any valid reason (like lack of standing).

Alj Quote

Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to accept in-person ballots at the meeting, notwithstanding that those ballots could not be considered ineligible ballots.

Legal Basis

Voting Rights / Election Procedures

Topic Tags

  • in-person voting
  • ballot rejection
  • elections

Question

Can the HOA enforce a voting deadline strictly against some owners but not others?

Short Answer

No. It is a violation to tell some owners they are 'too late' while allowing others to vote after the deadline.

Detailed Answer

The decision noted that while the Petitioners were told voting was closed at 6:00 PM and they were 'too late,' another homeowner was allowed to place a ballot in the box at 6:15 PM.

Alj Quote

Homeowner Jeffrey Knox personally handed in his ballot at the meeting by placing it in the ballot box at approximately 6:15 p.m., notwithstanding that voting supposedly closed at 6:00 p.m.

Legal Basis

Fair Election Practices

Topic Tags

  • discrimination
  • deadlines
  • fairness

Question

What penalties can an HOA face if they are found to have violated election rules?

Short Answer

The HOA may be ordered to refund the homeowner's filing fee and pay a civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay $500 to the petitioners (reimbursement) and a $500 civil penalty to the state.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that… Respondent shall pay to the Department a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • reimbursement

Question

What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The decision defines the evidentiary standard required for the petitioners to win their case.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation(s) by a preponderance of the evidence… 'A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • hearing process

Case

Docket No
23F-H002-REL
Case Title
Eileen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2022-11-17
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to count a ballot simply because it was delivered by a courier or neighbor rather than mailed?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA's procedures do not explicitly forbid couriers and it has been past practice, they cannot reject ballots solely for lacking a postmark.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated its procedures by rejecting ballots placed in the ballot box prior to the election (via courier) simply because they lacked postmarks. The judge noted that the custodian of the box did not believe it was a problem and there was no reason for homeowners to believe they couldn't do so.

Alj Quote

Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to count Petitioners’ and other homeowners’ ballots that had been placed in the ballot box prior to the election… There was also no reason for Petitioners or the other homeowners to believe that they could not place their ballots in the ballot box prior to the election and have those ballots counted.

Legal Basis

Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • ballots
  • couriers
  • voting rights

Question

What are valid reasons for an HOA to consider a ballot ineligible or spoiled?

Short Answer

Valid reasons typically include incorrect vote counts, unconfirmed ownership, illegibility, unsigned envelopes, or lack of good standing.

Detailed Answer

The decision outlines specific criteria for invalidating ballots found in the HOA's procedures. Arbitrary reasons not listed in the governing documents (like lack of a postmark when not required) are not valid grounds for rejection.

Alj Quote

Reasons a ballot may not be valid include incorrect number of votes, lot ownership cannot be confirmed, ballot is illegible, ballot envelope is not signed, or a member is not in good standing.

Legal Basis

Association Election Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • ballot validity
  • rules

Question

Is the HOA obligated to try to count votes rather than looking for reasons to disqualify them?

Short Answer

Yes. If the election procedures state that every effort will be made to count votes to ensure fairness, the HOA must adhere to that standard.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited the HOA's own mission statement which promised to make every effort to count votes. Rejecting ballots for minor procedural issues (like lacking a postmark) when the voters are present and eligible violates this obligation.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures state that 'every effort will be made to count as many votes as possible assuring a fair, open and honest election.' This was not the case at the July 5, 2022 Special Election.

Legal Basis

Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • fairness
  • HOA obligations

Question

If my mailed ballot is rejected, can the HOA prevent me from voting in person at the meeting?

Short Answer

No. If you are present at the meeting and your absentee ballot is rejected, the HOA should allow you to cast a replacement ballot.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found a violation when the HOA refused to accept in-person ballots from homeowners whose courier ballots were rejected. The decision noted that these ballots were not ineligible for any valid reason (like lack of standing).

Alj Quote

Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to accept in-person ballots at the meeting, notwithstanding that those ballots could not be considered ineligible ballots.

Legal Basis

Voting Rights / Election Procedures

Topic Tags

  • in-person voting
  • ballot rejection
  • elections

Question

Can the HOA enforce a voting deadline strictly against some owners but not others?

Short Answer

No. It is a violation to tell some owners they are 'too late' while allowing others to vote after the deadline.

Detailed Answer

The decision noted that while the Petitioners were told voting was closed at 6:00 PM and they were 'too late,' another homeowner was allowed to place a ballot in the box at 6:15 PM.

Alj Quote

Homeowner Jeffrey Knox personally handed in his ballot at the meeting by placing it in the ballot box at approximately 6:15 p.m., notwithstanding that voting supposedly closed at 6:00 p.m.

Legal Basis

Fair Election Practices

Topic Tags

  • discrimination
  • deadlines
  • fairness

Question

What penalties can an HOA face if they are found to have violated election rules?

Short Answer

The HOA may be ordered to refund the homeowner's filing fee and pay a civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay $500 to the petitioners (reimbursement) and a $500 civil penalty to the state.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that… Respondent shall pay to the Department a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • reimbursement

Question

What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The decision defines the evidentiary standard required for the petitioners to win their case.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation(s) by a preponderance of the evidence… 'A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • hearing process

Case

Docket No
23F-H002-REL
Case Title
Eileen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2022-11-17
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Eileen Ahearn (petitioner)
  • Robert Barfield (petitioner)
  • Randy Kling (witness / former board member)
    Testified for Petitioners. Also referred to as Randy Clling/Clean.
  • Claire Peachey (witness / election committee member)
    Testified for Petitioners. Custodian of the ballot box.
  • Joyce Green (witness)
    Testified for Petitioners.
  • Jeffrey Knox (witness)
    Testified for Petitioners. Property owner who received rejected ballots.

Respondent Side

  • Jason Smith (HOA attorney)
    Smith & Wamsley PLLC
  • Nancy Sakarelli (board member)
    High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
    Board President; appeared virtually.
  • Corinthia Pangalinan (former board president / board member)
    High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
    Subject of recall petition; responded to original complaint.
  • Becky Hilgart (Election Committee Chair / board member)
    High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
    Subject of recall petition. Also referred to as Rebecca Kilgart/Gilgart/Elart.
  • Tommy Smith (Election Committee Volunteer / property owner)
    Involved in denying votes.
  • Wally Oliday (board member)
    High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
    Subject of recall petition.
  • Amanda Miller (board member)
    High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
    Subject of recall petition.

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    OAH staff transmitting documents.
  • c. serrano (Administrative Staff)
    Staff transmitting documents.
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Edna Barton (observer)
    On the line during the hearing.
  • Jill Burns (observer)
    Present in the hearing room.
  • John Kron (observer)
    Present in the hearing room.
  • Stacy (board director)
    Director mentioned in meeting agenda.
  • Deborah Bonesac (property owner)
    Referenced in testimony regarding past courier procedures.
  • Billy McFarland (board member)
    Subject of previous recall election.