Rex E. Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association (ROOT)

Posted on April 27, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1818025-REL / 18F-H1818027-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-04-24
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	Petitioner won the statutory claim regarding access to association documents (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)) and was refunded the $500 filing fee. Petitioner lost the claim regarding the failure to maintain exterior walls (CC&Rs) due to insufficient evidence.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Rex E. Duffett	Counsel	—
Respondent	Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association	Counsel	Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner won the statutory claim regarding access to association documents (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)) and was refunded the $500 filing fee. Petitioner lost the claim regarding the failure to maintain exterior walls (CC&Rs) due to insufficient evidence.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the maintenance issue by a preponderance of the evidence (for case 18F-H1818025-REL).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to repair and maintain exterior walls

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to repair damage (crack) to the exterior wall of his unit as required by the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence (black and white photographs did not clearly show the damage) to establish a violation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition in Case Number 18F-H1818025-REL is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

CC&Rs
5
17

Failure to provide requested association records

Petitioner requested meeting notices and minutes in December 2017. Respondent's former management company failed to respond in a timely fashion. Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the statute.

Orders: Petitioner deemed the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818027-REL. Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) in the future and pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
19
20
21
22

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Document Request, Records Disclosure, Maintenance, CC&Rs, Filing Fee Refund

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
CC&Rs

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818025-REL Decision – 630610.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:10:12 (114.0 KB)

Administrative Hearing Brief: Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in two consolidated cases filed by homeowner Rex E. Duffett against the Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association (HOA). The ruling presents a split decision, with the petitioner prevailing on one claim while failing to provide sufficient evidence for the other.

The first petition, concerning the HOA’s alleged failure to repair exterior walls, was denied. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the submitted photographic evidence was unclear and did not sufficiently establish the existence or severity of the damage requiring immediate repair.

The second petition, concerning the HOA’s failure to provide association records upon request, was upheld. The judge found that the HOA, through its former management company, violated state law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)) by not responding to a formal document request within the mandated ten-business-day window.

As a result, Mr. Duffett was deemed the prevailing party in the records-request case. The HOA was ordered to pay his $500 filing fee and to ensure future compliance with the relevant statutes. The case highlights critical issues of evidence quality in homeowner disputes and demonstrates the legal liability an HOA retains for the failures of its management agents, particularly during periods of transition.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Numbers

18F-H1818025-REL and 18F-H1818027-REL (Consolidated)

Petitioner

Rex E. Duffett

Respondent

Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association

Hearing Date

April 4, 2018

Decision Date

April 24, 2018

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

The hearing addressed two separate petitions filed by Rex E. Duffett with the Arizona Department of Real Estate:

1. Petition 1 (18F-H1818025-REL): Alleged the HOA violated community CC&Rs by failing to repair exterior walls of the petitioner’s unit.

2. Petition 2 (18F-H1818027-REL): Alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide requested documents.

Petition 1: Failure to Repair Exterior Walls (Denied)

Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence

• Core Claim: The petitioner alleged the HOA failed its duty, as defined by a March 1993 amendment to the CC&Rs, to maintain the exterior walls of his unit. The CC&Rs state, “The Suntech Patio Homeowners Association shall be responsible for the painting and maintenance of the following: A) Exterior walls of all units . . . .”

• Initial Request (July 14, 2017): Mr. Duffett faxed the HOA’s management company, The Management Trust, stating, “While inspecting the outside of my property I noticed a crack in the exterior wall. Please inspect, repair and paint the wall as soon as possible to prevent any damage which could result from rain water in the interior of the wall.”

• Follow-Up Request (August 21, 2017): In a certified letter, Mr. Duffett provided more detail, identifying a crack in the entryway wall allowing “rain water to seep into the interior wall,” a “bare concrete” area on the garage, and a previously cracked garage wall that had been repaired by a roofing company but not painted.

• Hearing Testimony: Mr. Duffett testified that a roofing company he hired to find a leak in his garage ceiling determined the source was not the roof but a crack in the exterior wall.

• Submitted Evidence: The petitioner submitted five black-and-white photographs of his home’s exterior across his two communications.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

• Management Transition: Pride Community Management took over from The Management Trust on February 1, 2018. The new manager, Rebecca Stowers, and owner, Frank Peake, testified to a difficult transition where The Management Trust initially provided only one box of records, later discovering seven or eight more boxes in storage. Mr. Peake stated that Pride had not seen the petitioner’s communications regarding the damage until the hearing.

• Inspection: Ms. Stowers testified that she inspected the petitioner’s home on March 27, 2018. While she noted “a missing area of stucco on the front of the garage that needed to be repaired,” she “denied being able to identify a crack in the stucco anywhere else on the front of the house.”

• Community-Wide Repair Plan: Ms. Stowers stated that the HOA intended to repair the stucco and paint all exterior walls in the community during the 2018 calendar year at a projected cost of $46,000, to be funded potentially through a special assessment due to the HOA being underfunded.

Conclusion of Law and Ruling

• Burden of Proof: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the petitioner bore the burden of proving his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

• Evidence Failure: The ALJ found the submitted evidence insufficient. The decision states: “The black and white photographs submitted at hearing did not clearly show the crack Petitioner alleged existed on the exterior wall of his unit… The Administrative Law Judge was unable to identify the location or severity of the alleged crack, and therefore, cannot conclude that such a crack exists and/or that it is necessary to be repaired immediately.”

• Final Ruling: The petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The petition in Case Number 18F-H1818025-REL was denied.

Petition 2: Failure to Provide Association Records (Upheld)

Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence

• Core Claim: The petitioner alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which requires an association to fulfill a request for records within ten business days.

• The Request (December 22, 2017): Mr. Duffett faxed The Management Trust a request for specific documents, citing a statement made by the HOA in a separate case. He requested copies of:

◦ Meeting notices and minutes for all meetings where “rules and regulations were discussed” in August/September 2017.

◦ Meeting notices and minutes for meetings where the last HOA dues increase was discussed.

◦ A copy of the notice for the last association rate increase.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

• Lack of Awareness: The HOA’s initial response on January 29, 2018, indicated it had only become aware of the request upon receiving notice of the petition. The current management company, Pride, testified they had not seen the original communication from the petitioner.

• Vagueness of Request: Frank Peake of Pride testified that the request for minutes of meetings “where the rules and regulations were discussed” was unclear “because rules and regulations are discussed in some form at virtually every meeting of the association.”

• Claim of Privilege: The initial response from The Management Trust on January 29, 2018, claimed that the requested minutes were for “closed executive meetings and were only available to Board members.”

Conclusion of Law and Ruling

• Statutory Violation: The ALJ concluded that the petitioner clearly made a request for documents and that the HOA, via its former management company, failed to act as required by law.

• Failure of Former Management: The decision explicitly faults the prior management company: “The Management Trust should have responded or requested additional clarification of what documents Petitioner was requesting as it was the management company during the ten day window Respondent had to respond pursuant to the statute.”

• Final Ruling: The petitioner successfully established by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Mr. Duffett was deemed the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818027-REL.

Final Order and Implications

The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders based on the conclusions of law:

Case Number

Subject

Ruling

18F-H1818025-REL

Exterior Wall Repairs

Petition Denied

18F-H1818027-REL

Document Request

Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party

Directives to the Respondent (Suntech Patio Homes HOA):

1. Future Compliance: The HOA must comply with the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) going forward.

2. Payment of Filing Fee: The HOA must pay the petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.

This order is considered binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted.

Study Guide: Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes HOA

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the consolidated cases of Rex E. Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association, Case Numbers 18F-H1818025-REL and 18F-H1818027-REL. The decision, issued by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, addresses two separate petitions filed by a homeowner against his Homeowners Association (HOA), one concerning property maintenance and the other concerning access to association records.

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the case decision.

1. Who were the primary parties in this administrative hearing, and what were their respective roles?

2. What were the two distinct allegations made by the Petitioner in the petitions that were consolidated for this hearing?

3. According to the community’s governing documents (CC&Rs), what specific responsibility did the HOA have regarding the exterior of residential units?

4. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge rule against the Petitioner in his claim for wall repairs (Case No. 18F-H1818025-REL)?

5. What specific Arizona statute did the Petitioner claim the HOA violated in his second petition regarding access to records (Case No. 18F-H1818027-REL)?

6. Describe the roles and performance of the two management companies, The Management Trust and Pride Community Management, as detailed in the hearing evidence.

7. What was the final outcome of the petition concerning the HOA’s failure to provide documents, and who was named the prevailing party?

8. What specific types of documents did the Petitioner request from the HOA in his fax dated December 22, 2017?

9. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and for which petition did he successfully meet it?

10. What financial penalty was imposed upon the Respondent as part of the final Order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Rex E. Duffett, a homeowner who filed the petitions. The Respondent was the Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association, the entity Mr. Duffett alleged had violated community rules and state law.

2. The first petition alleged that the HOA violated the CC&Rs by failing to respond to repeated requests for repairs to the exterior walls of his unit. The second petition alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide requested association documents.

3. A March 1993 amendment to the CC&Rs states that the Suntech Patio Homeowners Association “shall be responsible for the painting and maintenance of the… Exterior walls of all units.”

4. The judge ruled against the Petitioner because he failed to establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The black and white photographs submitted did not clearly show the alleged crack’s location or severity, so the judge could not conclude that a repair was immediately necessary.

5. The Petitioner claimed the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). This statute requires an association to make records reasonably available for examination and to provide copies of requested records within ten business days.

6. The Management Trust was the HOA’s management company when the incidents occurred and failed to properly respond to the Petitioner’s requests. Pride Community Management took over on February 1, 2018, and testified that the transition was difficult due to the sparse documentation initially provided by The Management Trust.

7. The judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, deeming him the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818027-REL. The judge ordered the HOA to comply with the applicable statute in the future.

8. The Petitioner requested copies of meeting notices and minutes for meetings where rules and regulations were discussed and where the last HOA dues increase was discussed. He also requested a copy of the notice of the last rate increase and any associated signed written consents.

9. The legal standard was “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with the most convincing force. The Petitioner failed to meet this standard for the wall repair petition but successfully met it for the document request petition.

10. The Respondent (HOA) was ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00. The payment was to be made directly to the Petitioner within thirty days of the Order.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and issues a legally binding decision. In this case, the ALJ was Tammy L. Eigenheer.

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

An Arizona Revised Statute that legally requires homeowners associations to make financial and other records available for member examination and to provide copies upon request within ten business days.

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that grants jurisdiction to the Arizona Department of Real Estate to hear disputes between homeowners and their associations.

Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that establish the rules, obligations, and restrictions for a planned community and its homeowners association.

Consolidated for Hearing

A procedural step where two or more separate legal cases involving the same parties are combined into a single hearing for efficiency.

Department

Within the context of this case, refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency where the Petitioner initially filed his petitions.

The final, legally binding ruling issued by the Administrative Law Judge at the conclusion of the hearing.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, homeowner Rex E. Duffett.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is met when the evidence presented has “the most convincing force” and is more likely true than not.

Prevailing Party

The party who is found to have won the legal dispute. The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in the document request case.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association.

A Homeowner Sued His HOA Over a Cracked Wall. He Lost Because of Bad Photocopies.

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath Battle Against Your HOA

For many homeowners, a dispute with their Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like an uphill battle. It’s a common story of frustration, complex rules, and feeling unheard. The legal case of Rex E. Duffett versus the Suntech Patio Homes HOA is a perfect example, but with a twist. This isn’t just a story about winning or losing; it’s a fascinating cautionary tale filled with surprising lessons for any homeowner navigating a conflict with their association. This breakdown of the real-life administrative court decision reveals the unexpected details that can make or break a case.

——————————————————————————–

1. Takeaway #1: The Quality of Your Proof Matters More Than the Truth

The dispute began when Rex Duffett filed a petition alleging his HOA had failed to repair a crack in his exterior wall that he claimed was causing a water leak. According to the association’s own CC&Rs, maintaining exterior walls was the HOA’s responsibility. To document the problem, he diligently sent faxes and certified mail to the management company, including photographs of the damage.

Despite his efforts, the Administrative Law Judge denied his petition for repairs.

The reason was as surprising as it was simple: the evidence he submitted was not clear enough. The black and white copies of the photographs he provided at the hearing “did not clearly show any damage.” The judge’s finding was blunt and highlights a critical point for any legal dispute:

The Administrative Law Judge was unable to identify the location or severity of the alleged crack, and therefore, cannot conclude that such a crack exists and/or that it is necessary to be repaired immediately.

The lesson here is critical. In a legal dispute, having proof is not enough; the proof must be clear, convincing, and well-presented. Mr. Duffett’s primary case failed not because he was necessarily wrong, but because his evidence failed to persuade the judge. In an administrative hearing, a handful of high-resolution color photographs, or even a short video, would have provided irrefutable evidence and could have changed the entire outcome of his primary petition.

2. Takeaway #2: Your HOA is on the Hook for Its Management Company’s Failures

Mr. Duffett also filed a second petition against the HOA for failing to provide records he requested, such as meeting minutes. Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)), an association must fulfill such a request within ten business days. The HOA failed to do so.

The root of the problem was the HOA’s previous management company, “The Management Trust.” This company not only failed to respond to the homeowner’s request but also failed to notify the new management company about it. The relationship between the HOA and this vendor was so poor that the HOA had previously tried to terminate the contract, but the management company “refused to acknowledge the termination and held Respondent to the full two year contract.” The transition was chaotic; the old company initially provided only one box of information before later discovering “seven or eight more boxes” in storage.

Even though the management company was clearly at fault, the Judge ruled that the HOA violated the law. This provides a powerful insight for both boards and homeowners: an HOA cannot blame its vendors. Legally, the association is the responsible party. Hiring an incompetent or unresponsive management company creates significant legal and financial liability for the association and, by extension, every homeowner. This is not an abstract risk; in this case, the management company’s failure to forward a simple request directly led to a legal violation that cost the association—and thus, its members—the $500 filing fee ordered by the judge.

3. Takeaway #3: A “Win” Can Be More Complicated Than It Looks

When you look at the final outcome, Mr. Duffett’s case presents a nuanced picture of what a “win” really means in an HOA dispute. The judge issued a split decision:

• Petition for Repairs: Denied. The homeowner lost.

• Petition for Documents: The homeowner was deemed the “prevailing party.” He won.

As the prevailing party in the second petition, the homeowner received a clear victory. The judge ordered the HOA to comply with the document access law in the future and, crucially, to pay the homeowner back his $500 filing fee.

This highlights a common reality in legal disputes: a homeowner can secure a clear procedural victory (enforcing the right to documents and recovering fees) while simultaneously failing to achieve their core substantive goal (getting the wall repaired). The outcome shows that legal victories can be partial and may not address the real-world problem that initiated the dispute in the first place.

4. Takeaway #4: Vague Requests and Messy Records Create Chaos

This case is a masterclass in how poor communication from both sides can create a perfect storm of dysfunction.

First, the homeowner’s request for documents was “somewhat vague.” The new management company testified it was “unclear because rules and regulations are discussed in some form at virtually every meeting.” While the HOA still violated the law by failing to respond at all, this highlights a crucial lesson for homeowners: be as specific and clear as possible in all written communication to avoid ambiguity.

This vague request then ran headlong into the second problem: the HOA’s institutional chaos. The new Community Manager testified that the only relevant document they possessed was the minutes from a single meeting, and that “seven or eight more boxes” of records were missing after a disastrous transition between management companies. The homeowner’s ambiguous request met an organization that likely couldn’t have responded effectively even if it wanted to.

For both sides, meticulous documentation is a shield. For homeowners, a clear, specific, and undeniable paper trail strengthens their position. For HOA boards, organized records are essential for smooth operations, seamless transitions between management companies, and, most importantly, avoiding legal liability.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: The Devil is in the Details

The case of Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes HOA is a powerful reminder that in legal disputes, the outcome often hinges on the small stuff. Small details—the quality of a photocopy, the precise wording of a request, the competence of a vendor, the location of a box of files—can have massive consequences. They can mean the difference between winning and losing, between getting a problem solved and walking away with only a partial victory.

This case shows how easily things can go wrong. The next time you’re in a dispute, what’s the one small detail you might be overlooking that could change everything?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Rex E. Duffett (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Nathan Tennyson (attorney)
BROWN/OLCOTT, PLLC
Rebecca Stowers (property manager)
Pride Community Management
Community Manager
Frank Peake (property manager)
Pride Community Management
Owner of Pride
Shawn Mason (property manager)
The Management Trust
Former management company staff

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
LDettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
ncano (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
F. Del Sol (staff)
Signed transmission document

Thomas Satterlee vs. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property

Posted on March 15, 2018 by [email protected]

Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1716018-REL-RHG, 17F-H1716022-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-03-15
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The ALJ granted the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. The tribunal found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Respondent did not meet the statutory definition of a 'planned community' under A.R.S. § 33-1802(4), as it did not own real estate or hold a covenant to maintain roadways.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Thomas Satterlee	Counsel	—
Respondent	Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owners’ Association	Counsel	James A. Robles

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. The tribunal found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Respondent did not meet the statutory definition of a 'planned community' under A.R.S. § 33-1802(4), as it did not own real estate or hold a covenant to maintain roadways.

Why this result: Respondent is not a planned community as defined by statute.

Key Issues & Findings

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Petitioner alleged Respondent was subject to ADRE jurisdiction as a planned community due to maintenance of entrance walls and signs. Respondent moved to dismiss based on not meeting the statutory definition of a planned community.

Orders: The consolidated petitions were dismissed with prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lost

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)

Decision Documents

17F-H1716022-REL-RHG Decision – 622756.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:37 (85.6 KB)

**Case Summary: Satterlee v. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owners’ Association Case Numbers: 17F-H1716018-REL-RHG / 17F-H1716022-REL-RHG Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) Date of Decision:** March 15, 2018

Procedural Context: Rehearing This administrative decision is explicitly a rehearing of consolidated matters previously decided in 2017. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) addressed a renewed challenge regarding whether the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and OAH possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute,.

I. Original Proceedings (2017)

Procedural History: In the original proceeding, the Respondent (Green Valley Country Club Vistas II) filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing it did not meet the statutory definition of a "planned community" under A.R.S. § 33-1802(4) because it did not own real estate or possess roadway easements,.
Original Outcome: On July 7, 2017, the Commissioner accepted the ALJ’s recommendation to dismiss the case. The ALJ found that the Respondent was not a "planned community," and therefore, the administrative bodies lacked jurisdiction to hear the petitions,.
Transition to Rehearing: The Petitioner (Thomas Satterlee) filed a notice of rehearing in September 2017, which the Commissioner granted,.

II. Rehearing Proceedings (2018)

Main Issue: The central legal issue remained whether the Respondent qualified as a "planned community," which determines whether the OAH has subject matter jurisdiction. The specific dispute focused on statutory interpretation regarding the maintenance of community entrances,.
Key Arguments:
Petitioner’s Argument: The Petitioner argued that because the developer built walls and a sign at the community entrance, and the Respondent maintained the landscaping around them, the Association held a "covenant to maintain roadways." The Petitioner urged the ALJ to interpret "roadway" broadly to include "roadway systems," encompassing the land and improvements at the entrance.
Respondent’s Argument: The Respondent renewed its Motion to Dismiss, asserting that landscaping around a sign does not constitute a "roadway." Consequently, the Association still lacked the necessary covenant to maintain roadways required by A.R.S. § 33-1802(4) to qualify as a planned community,.

III. Legal Analysis and Final Decision The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent, dismissing the petitions with prejudice. The decision rested on the following legal points:

Subject Matter Jurisdiction: The ALJ emphasized that administrative jurisdiction is strictly defined by statute. Jurisdiction cannot be waived, nor can it be conferred by the agreement or estoppel of the parties, [

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Thomas Satterlee (Petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

James A. Robles (Respondent Attorney)
Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owners’ Association

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Douglas (Former ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Referenced as handling previous docket number 15F-H1515008-BFS
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol (Administrative Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Transmitted the order

William Brown vs. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Posted on October 11, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1717041-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-10-11
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) because the Petitioner received constructive notice of the infraction committee meeting before the penalties and suspension were imposed.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	William Brown	Counsel	—
Respondent	Terravita Country Club, Inc.	Counsel	Dax R. Watson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) because the Petitioner received constructive notice of the infraction committee meeting before the penalties and suspension were imposed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove that the notice required by A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) must be 'actual notice,' and the evidence supported a finding that Petitioner received constructive notice.

Key Issues & Findings

Prior to imposing reasonable monetary penalties on Petitioner for violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules of the association, Respondent failed to provide Petitioner proper notice in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) by failing to provide proper notice before imposing penalties ($2,500 fine and $5,000 recoupment of expenses) and indefinitely suspending his membership privileges. The ALJ found that Petitioner received constructive notice of the hearing and that Respondent did not violate the statute.

Orders: Petitioner's petition in this matter is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: notice, constructive notice, monetary penalties, suspension, certified mail, HOA violation

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1717041-REL Decision – 593953.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:06:42 (83.6 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision Analysis: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in case number 18F-H1717041-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowner William Brown (Petitioner) and the Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Respondent). The ALJ ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent, denying the Petitioner’s claim that the homeowners association violated Arizona state law regarding notification procedures before imposing penalties.

The central issue revolved around the interpretation of “notice” as required by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1803(B). The Petitioner argued that the statute requires “actual notice”—proof of personal receipt of a notification—which he claimed he never received for a critical disciplinary hearing. The ALJ rejected this argument, establishing that “constructive notice” is legally sufficient. Constructive notice was deemed to have been achieved through the Respondent’s documented efforts to deliver notice via both certified and first-class mail.

A key factor in the decision was the ALJ’s finding that the Petitioner’s testimony was “not credible” regarding his claim that the United States Postal Service (USPS) failed to notify him of a certified letter. The decision upholds the sanctions imposed by the association, which include an indefinite suspension of membership privileges, a $2,500 fine, and the recoupment of $5,000 in related expenses.

Case Background and Timeline

The dispute originated from an incident on November 29, 2016, where Petitioner William Brown was alleged to have left a box of matches at the Respondent’s clubhouse containing papers listing several club properties. This act was interpreted as a threat, leading the Terravita Country Club to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Mr. Brown subsequently filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on June 28, 2017, alleging the club failed to provide proper notice before taking action.

Nov 29, 2016

William Brown allegedly leaves a box of matches and notes at the clubhouse.

Dec 2, 2016

The club’s General Manager sends a letter to Brown notifying him of an immediate suspension pending a review.

Dec 8, 2016

Brown signs for and receives the certified mail delivery of the December 2 suspension letter.

Dec 14, 2016

The club sends a letter via first-class and certified mail notifying Brown of a January 9, 2017, Infractions Committee hearing.

Dec 24, 2016

USPS tracking shows the December 14 certified letter is “out for delivery” at Brown’s temporary address in Coldspring, Texas.

Jan 9, 2017

The Infractions Committee meets; Brown does not attend. The Committee sends a letter recommending indefinite suspension and fines.

Jan 12, 2017

The unclaimed December 14 certified letter is returned by the USPS to the club.

Jan 31, 2017

The club’s Board of Directors meets; Brown does not attend. The Board ratifies the sanctions.

Jan 31, 2017

The Board sends a letter to Brown detailing its decision: indefinite suspension, a $2,500 fine, and $5,000 in expense recoupment.

Jun 28, 2017

Brown files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1803.

Sep 22, 2017

The Office of Administrative Hearings holds a hearing on the matter.

Oct 11, 2017

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issues the decision, denying Brown’s petition.

Central Legal Issue: The Definition of “Notice”

The core of the legal dispute was the interpretation of the notice requirement within A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), which states, in part:

“After notice and an opportunity to be heard, the board of directors may impose reasonable monetary penalties on members for violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules of the association.”

The Petitioner argued that this statute requires “actual notice,” defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “[n]otice given directly to, or received personally by, a party.” Because there was no evidence he personally received the December 14, 2016, letter notifying him of the initial hearing, he contended that all subsequent actions by the club were invalid.

The ALJ rejected this interpretation for two primary reasons:

1. Statutory Silence: The governing statute, A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, does not define the term “notice” or specify that it must be “actual notice.”

2. Legal Precedent and Practicality: The ALJ reasoned that requiring actual notice would create an unworkable loophole. A homeowner could “avoid receiving ‘actual notice’ by simply refusing to sign for a certified mailing,” thereby thwarting any disciplinary process.

Instead, the ALJ determined that “constructive notice” was sufficient. Constructive notice is defined as “notice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of.” The Respondent’s actions of sending notice via multiple methods met this standard.

Key Findings and Rulings

The ALJ made several critical findings of fact and conclusions of law that led to the denial of the petition.

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner, William Brown, bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated the statute. The ALJ concluded he failed to meet this burden.

• Finding on Credibility: The ALJ explicitly stated that the Petitioner’s assertion was not credible. The decision notes: “Petitioner’s assertion that the USPS failed to notify him of the certified letter at any time between December 24, 2016, and January 12, 2017, was not credible.”

• Ruling on Constructive Notice: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner received constructive notice of the January 9, 2017, Infractions Committee meeting through two distinct actions taken by the Respondent:

1. The certified mailing of the December 14, 2016, letter, for which USPS tracking showed an attempted delivery and which the Petitioner was deemed to have refused.

2. The simultaneous first-class mailing of the same letter, which was “presumably delivered to his temporary address in Coldspring, Texas.”

• Notice for Subsequent Meetings: The ALJ further presumed that the first-class mailing of the January 9, 2017, letter—notifying the Petitioner of the Board of Directors meeting—was also delivered, thus satisfying notice requirements for the final decision-making body.

Final Decision and Sanctions

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The ruling affirmed that Terravita Country Club, Inc. did not violate the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).

This decision effectively upholds the sanctions imposed by the club’s Board of Directors on January 31, 2017, which include:

• Indefinite suspension of membership privileges.

• A fine of $2,500.00.

• Recoupment of expenses incurred related to the infraction, totaling $5,000.00.

The order is binding on both parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04.

Study Guide: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Case No. 18F-H1717041-REL)

This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case between Petitioner William Brown and Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc. It includes a quiz to test comprehension, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, based on the provided source material.

1. Who were the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what was their relationship?

2. What was the specific statutory violation that William Brown alleged Terravita Country Club had committed?

3. Describe the incident on November 29, 2016, that initiated the actions taken by the Respondent.

4. What was the immediate consequence imposed on the Petitioner by the Respondent’s General Manager on December 2, 2016?

5. How did a temporary change of address filed by the Petitioner affect the delivery of the certified mail notice sent on December 14, 2016?

6. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument regarding the type of notice he was required to receive for the disciplinary hearing?

7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge find the Petitioner’s claim about not being notified by the USPS of certified mail to be “not credible”?

8. What two forms of notice did the Administrative Law Judge conclude the Petitioner had received for the January 9, 2017 meeting?

9. What were the final penalties that the Respondent’s Board of Directors imposed on the Petitioner on January 31, 2017?

10. What was the final recommended order from the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Petitioner’s petition?

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, William Brown, and the Respondent, Terravita Country Club, Inc. Terravita Country Club is a homeowners association in Arizona, and William Brown is a property owner and member of that association.

2. William Brown alleged that the Terravita Country Club violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1803. The specific issue was that the Respondent failed to provide proper notice before imposing monetary penalties for violations of the association’s rules.

3. On or about November 29, 2016, the Petitioner allegedly left a box of matches at the Respondent’s clubhouse. Inside the box were three pieces of paper with the typed names of three locations: Director’s House, Desert Pavilion, and Country Club Clubhouse.

4. On December 2, 2016, the Respondent’s General Manager, Thomas Forbes, sent the Petitioner a letter immediately suspending him from all rights and privileges of the country club property. This suspension was to remain in effect until the disciplinary process was completed.

5. Because the Petitioner had filed a temporary change of address with the USPS, the certified letter was forwarded to Coldspring, Texas. USPS tracking showed it was “out for delivery” on December 24, 2016, but the Petitioner failed to claim it, and it was eventually returned to the Respondent.

6. The Petitioner argued that A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) required “actual notice” of the January 9, 2017 hearing. He asserted that because there was no evidence he personally received the December 14, 2016 letter, the notice requirement was not met.

7. The decision document does not explicitly state the evidence for why the claim was not credible. However, the Judge’s conclusion implies that the documented evidence from the USPS showing the letter was “out for delivery” in Coldspring, Texas, between December 24, 2016, and January 12, 2017, was more convincing than the Petitioner’s denial.

8. The Judge concluded that the Petitioner received “constructive notice” via the certified mailing for which he refused to sign. Additionally, it was presumed that the first-class mailing of the same letter was delivered to his temporary address in Coldspring, Texas.

9. The Board of Directors suspended the Petitioner’s membership privileges indefinitely. They also imposed a fine of $2,500.00 and sought to recoup $5,000.00 in expenses incurred related to the infraction.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) regarding notice.

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the legal distinction between “actual notice” and “constructive notice” as defined and applied in this case. Explain why accepting the Petitioner’s argument for requiring “actual notice” would have created a potential loophole, according to the Judge’s reasoning.

2. Trace the complete timeline of events and communications, beginning with the incident on November 29, 2016, and ending with the final decision from the Administrative Law Judge on October 11, 2017. Detail each key date, the action taken, and the method of communication used.

3. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it applies to this case. Explain what the Petitioner was required to prove and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that he failed to meet this burden.

4. Describe the multi-step disciplinary process employed by the Terravita Country Club. Identify the roles and recommendations of the General Manager, the Infractions Committee, and the Board of Directors in addressing the Petitioner’s alleged violation.

5. Evaluate the Respondent’s communication strategy for notifying the Petitioner of the disciplinary proceedings. Discuss the methods used (first-class mail, certified mail) and explain how these methods became a central point of contention and the ultimate basis for the Judge’s decision.

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.A.C. R2-19-119

A reference to the Arizona Administrative Code rule establishing that the Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this type of proceeding.

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

The specific section of Arizona Revised Statutes at the heart of the case. It provides that a homeowners association’s board of directors may impose reasonable monetary penalties on members for violations after providing “notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

Actual Notice

Defined as “[n]otice given directly to, or received personally by, a party.” This was the standard of notice the Petitioner argued was required.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding official (Tammy L. Eigenheer) in the hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings who hears evidence, makes findings of fact, and issues a decision.

Board of Directors

The governing body of the Terravita Country Club, Inc. that made the final determination on penalties, including the indefinite suspension and fines imposed on the Petitioner.

Constructive Notice

Defined as “[n]otice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of” or “notice presumed by law to have been acquired by a person and thus imputed to that person.” The Judge ruled the Petitioner received this type of notice.

Notice

Defined as “[l]egal notification required by law or agreement, or imparted by operation of law as a result of some fact…; definite legal cognizance, actual or constructive, of an existing right or title.” The term is not specifically defined in the relevant state statute (Title 33, Chapter 16).

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, William Brown.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet. It is defined as “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force.”

Respondent

The party against whom the petition was filed. In this case, Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Terravita Country Club Infractions Committee

A committee within the homeowners association that met on January 9, 2017, to hear evidence regarding the Petitioner’s alleged infraction and make a recommendation to the Board of Directors.

He Ignored a Letter From His HOA. It Cost Him $7,500. Here Are 5 Legal Lessons From His Case.

Introduction: The Dreaded Envelope

It’s a feeling many homeowners know: the sight of a formal, certified letter from the homeowners association (HOA). But for homeowner William Brown, the stakes were far higher than a dispute over landscaping or dues. His troubles began after he allegedly left a box of matches at the country club’s front desk, along with a list of three club properties. The HOA, Terravita Country Club, Inc., interpreted this as an implied threat of arson and took immediate action.

When Mr. Brown ignored the subsequent legal notices, it resulted in an indefinite suspension, a $2,500 fine, and an order to pay $5,000 in expenses. This article distills the official administrative court decision from his case into five surprising and critical legal takeaways that every homeowner should understand.

1. You Can Be Legally Notified—Even If You Never Open the Letter

The core of this case hinged on a crucial legal distinction. The judge’s decision rested on the critical difference between two types of legal notice:

• Actual Notice: “Notice given directly to, or received personally by, a party.”

• Constructive Notice: “Notice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of.”

Because the HOA sent the meeting notice via both certified and first-class mail, the judge concluded that the homeowner had received “constructive notice.” The certified mail provided a documented attempt at delivery, while the first-class mail carried a legal presumption of delivery. Together, this combination was legally sufficient, and the law presumed Mr. Brown was aware of the meeting. This distinction is a fundamental principle that every property owner must grasp.

2. Dodging Certified Mail Is a Terrible Legal Strategy

The homeowner’s primary argument was that because he never signed for or received the certified letter notifying him of the January 9, 2017 hearing, he could not be held responsible. The judge directly rejected this line of reasoning.

To accept Petitioner’s argument, a homeowner would be able to avoid receiving “actual notice” by simply refusing to sign for a certified mailing, as Respondent alleged Petitioner did in this case.

The court viewed this as an attempt to create a loophole to evade responsibility. Allowing someone to claim ignorance by simply avoiding a signature would undermine the entire legal notification process. The lesson for homeowners is that actively avoiding mail is interpreted by the courts not as ignorance, but as a deliberate attempt to evade responsibility.

3. First-Class Mail Is More Powerful Than You Think

A critical fact in the case was that the HOA didn’t rely solely on trackable certified mail; it also sent the notices via standard USPS first-class mail. This proved to be a savvy “belt and suspenders” legal strategy. By using both methods, the HOA created a redundant and legally robust notification system that was almost impossible to defeat. The judge noted the legal presumption about this standard mail:

…it is presumed that the first class mailing of the same letter was delivered to Petitioner at his address of record.

This concept of “presumed delivery” is a powerful tool in legal proceedings. In many contexts, proof that a letter was properly addressed and sent via standard mail is sufficient to assume it was delivered, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. This case demonstrates that even a standard envelope in your mailbox should be treated with the utmost seriousness.

4. In a Dispute, Credibility Is Everything

The case wasn’t decided on technicalities alone; a subjective, human element played a pivotal role. Because the homeowner had filed an official temporary change of address with the USPS, the certified letter was forwarded to his location in Texas. He claimed that the USPS never even left a notice for him to pick it up. The judge’s assessment of this claim was devastating to his case.

Petitioner’s assertion that the USPS failed to notify him of the certified letter at any time between December 24, 2016, and January 12, 2017, was not credible.

In the end, the outcome hinged on the judge’s assessment of believability. With no hard evidence to back up his claim, the homeowner’s story was found to be unconvincing, which fatally undermined his entire argument. The lesson is clear: when a dispute comes down to your word against theirs, your credibility can be your most valuable asset—or your most fatal liability.

5. The Burden of Proof Is on You, the Accuser

A fundamental legal concept that worked against the homeowner was the “burden of proof.” Because Mr. Brown filed the complaint, the responsibility was on him to prove that the HOA had violated the law, not the other way around. The judge stated this rule directly:

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).

“Preponderance of the evidence” is defined as “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force.” In other words, Mr. Brown had to prove that his version of events was more likely true than not true. As the petitioner, he failed to provide enough convincing evidence to support his accusation, and his case collapsed.

Conclusion: A $7,500 Lesson

This case is a stark reminder that legal communication is a serious process. Ignoring notices, dodging mail, and hoping problems will disappear is a strategy that carries severe financial and personal consequences. For Mr. Brown, the final outcome was an indefinite suspension from the country club, a $2,500 fine, and an order to pay $5,000 for the expenses the HOA incurred.

The next time a formal notice arrives in your mailbox, will you see it as just a piece of paper, or as a legal process you can’t afford to ignore?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

William Brown (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Dax R. Watson (HOA attorney)
Terravita Country Club, Inc.
Thomas Forbes (General Manager)
Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Mark Virden vs. Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Posted on June 27, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717027-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-06-27
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The petition was denied because the Tribunal found that the HOA's Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the internet tower under the governing documents (CC&Rs) without requiring ratification or disclosure of potential conflicts to the members acting as the board, thus avoiding a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 in this instance.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Mark Virden	Counsel	—
Respondent	Lakeside Ski Village HOA	Counsel	Stewart F. Salwin

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied because the Tribunal found that the HOA's Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the internet tower under the governing documents (CC&Rs) without requiring ratification or disclosure of potential conflicts to the members acting as the board, thus avoiding a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 in this instance.

Why this result: The decision to approve the tower was made by the Architectural Committee, which had independent authority under the CC&Rs. Therefore, the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1811 regarding disclosure of compensation to the members acting as the board were found not to apply to the Committee's action.

Key Issues & Findings

Board of Directors, Contracts, and Conflicts

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 when it allowed the construction of an internet service tower after a board member's spouse paid the upfront fee in exchange for permanent free service (compensation). Petitioner argued this compensation required disclosure in an open meeting of the board before approval, which did not occur.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1811
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: conflict_of_interest, architectural_committee, board_authority, internet_tower, compensation, CC&Rs

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1811
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 571928.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:04:26 (82.2 KB)

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 575046.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:04:32 (736.4 KB)

Briefing: Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA (Case No. 17F-H1717027-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the legal dispute between homeowner Mark Virden (Petitioner) and the Lakeside Ski Village Homeowners Association (Respondent) concerning the construction of an internet service tower on HOA common property. The Petitioner alleged a violation of Arizona’s conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811), asserting that HOA officials received undisclosed compensation—lifelong free internet service—in exchange for approving the tower.

The case culminated in a definitive ruling against the Petitioner. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The core of the ruling rested on the HOA’s unique governance structure. The decision to approve the tower was made not by the general “board of directors” (in this HOA, the members act as the board), but by the Architectural Committee, which was vested with independent authority to do so by the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs). Consequently, the ALJ concluded that the state law requiring conflict of interest disclosures before the board was not applicable to the committee’s action, rendering the Petitioner’s central argument invalid. The approval of the tower was deemed proper under the HOA’s governing rules.

Case Overview

Entity

Name / Description

Case Number

17F-H1717027-REL

Petitioner

Mark Virden

Respondent

Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Presiding ALJ

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Final Authority

Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Timeline of Key Events

• Circa 2017: The internet company AireBeam approached the HOA to install a service tower but did not secure enough subscribers to fund the project.

• Circa 2017: Lou Talarico, husband of an Architectural Committee member, offered to pay the tower’s upfront cost in exchange for free service for himself and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg. The Architectural Committee subsequently approved construction.

• March 23, 2017: Mark Virden filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a conflict of interest violation.

• June 7, 2017: A hearing was held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• June 27, 2017: ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition.

• July 10, 2017: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

The petition filed by Mark Virden centered on a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811, which governs contracts and conflicts of interest for HOA boards of directors.

Primary Allegation: Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated state law by failing to disclose a conflict of interest related to the tower’s approval.

• The Conflict: Susan Talarico, a licensed realtor serving on the Architectural Committee, had a conflict because her husband, Lou Talarico, paid an upfront fee to the tower company. In exchange for this payment, the Talaricos and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg were to receive free internet service for as long as the tower remained operational.

• The Alleged Violation: According to the petition, this arrangement constituted compensation that should have been formally declared in an open meeting before any action was taken, as required by law. The petition states: “This law states that if a member of the board is receiving compensation, and has not declared that conflict in advance, then any contract entered into in violation of this law is void and unenforceable!”

• Perceived Inadequate Compensation: The Petitioner claimed the value of the free service far exceeded the cash contribution, stating, “…their contribution would only pay the equivalent of about 1-2 years of service for the two households.”

• Lack of Transparency: The petition alleges a refusal by the involved board members to provide details of their arrangement. When asked about the compensation, the Vice President reportedly stated, “it’s none of your business.”

Secondary Argument

The Petitioner alternatively argued that the Architectural Committee exceeded its authority. Because the tower could provide service to individuals outside the HOA, it was not exclusively “for the benefit of all or portions” of the HOA, as stipulated by the governing documents.

Personal Grievance

The petition notes a direct personal impact on the Petitioner, stating that the tower was constructed within 150 feet of his front door and that he found it to be “a huge eye sore.”

Respondent’s Governance and Authority

The Lakeside Ski Village HOA’s defense rested on its specific governing documents and organizational structure, which were found to be central to the case’s outcome.

• Unconventional Board Structure: The HOA does not have a traditional, separate board of directors. Its Bylaws stipulate that “The affairs of the Association will be managed by the Members, who by the Association’s Articles of Organization are authorized to exercise all powers normally exercised by a board of directors.”

• Delegated Authority to Architectural Committee: The HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs) grants specific and independent power to its Architectural Committee. The CC&Rs state: “The Architectural Committee may permit one or more aerial satellite dishes or satellite communication systems, and/or other apparatus and equipment for an antenna or cable system for the benefit of all or portions of the Project.”

This structure meant that the authority to approve the tower resided with the committee, not the general membership acting as a board.

Adjudication and Final Ruling

The dispute was adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings, with the final decision adopted by the Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner’s claims were ultimately rejected.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

The ALJ’s decision, issued on June 27, 2017, denied the petition based on the following legal rationale:

• Architectural Committee’s Authority Was Dispositive: The ALJ found that the CC&Rs explicitly empowered the Architectural Committee to approve the communication tower. Crucially, the decision established that “Nothing in the CC&Rs requires that the Architectural Committee’s decision must be ratified by the members acting as a board.”

• Conflict of Interest Law Not Applicable: A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies to actions and decisions taken “by or on behalf of the board of directors.” Because the Architectural Committee acted under its own authority granted by the CC&Rs, its decision was not an action of the “board” as defined by the statute.

• Conclusion on Disclosure: The ALJ concluded that even if the free internet service was considered compensation (assuming arguendo), the arrangement “did not have to be disclosed to the members acting as a board.”

• Rejection of Secondary Argument: The ALJ dismissed the argument that the tower did not benefit the HOA, noting that the CC&R language “does not require that the satellite dish or other system may benefit exclusively all or portions of the HOA.”

The final conclusion of the tribunal was that “the Architectural Committee’s approval of the AireBeam tower was proper under Respondent’s governing documents.”

Final Order of the Department of Real Estate

On July 10, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order that formally adopted the ALJ’s decision.

• Outcome: The Petitioner’s petition was officially denied.

• Binding Nature: The Order is binding on the parties and represents a final administrative action.

• Avenues for Appeal: The Order noted that a party may request a rehearing within 30 days for specific causes, such as procedural irregularity, newly discovered evidence, or an arbitrary or capricious decision. Furthermore, a party may appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.

Study Guide: Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between Petitioner Mark Virden and Respondent Lakeside Ski Village HOA, concerning the construction of an internet service tower. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found in the legal documents.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided source documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what was the central dispute?

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did the Petitioner allege was violated, and what does this statute govern?

3. Describe the unique governance structure of the Lakeside Ski Village HOA as noted in the hearing’s findings of fact.

4. What was the arrangement between AireBeam, Lou Talarico, and Carl Rygg that led to the construction of the internet tower?

5. According to the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs), what specific authority was granted to its Architectural Committee?

6. On what key legal basis did the Administrative Law Judge reject the Petitioner’s claim of a conflict of interest violation?

7. What was the Petitioner’s alternative argument regarding the tower not being for the “benefit of all or portions” of the HOA, and how did the Judge rule on it?

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

9. What was the final outcome of Mark Virden’s petition, as determined by the Administrative Law Judge and subsequently adopted?

10. After the Final Order was issued on July 10, 2017, what were the potential next steps for a party wishing to challenge the decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Mark Virden (Petitioner) and the Lakeside Ski Village HOA (Respondent). The central dispute was Virden’s allegation that the HOA improperly allowed the construction of an internet service tower on common property due to an undisclosed conflict of interest involving board members.

2. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811. This statute governs contracts and conflicts of interest for an HOA’s board of directors, requiring a board member to declare a conflict in an open meeting if a decision would benefit them or a close family member.

3. The Lakeside Ski Village HOA does not have a traditional board of directors. Instead, its Bylaws state that the affairs of the Association are managed directly by the members, who are authorized to exercise all powers normally held by a board.

4. After the HOA failed to secure enough subscribers for AireBeam to build the tower, Lou Talarico offered to pay the upfront cost. In exchange for his payment, AireBeam agreed to provide free internet service to Mr. Talarico and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg for as long as the tower was operational.

5. The HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs) grants the Architectural Committee the authority to “permit one or more aerial satellite dishes or satellite communication systems, and/or other apparatus and equipment for an antenna or cable system for the benefit of all or portions of the Project.”

6. The Judge rejected the claim because the HOA’s CC&Rs empowered the Architectural Committee to approve the tower directly, without needing ratification from the members acting as a board. Therefore, the disclosure requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1811, which apply to actions taken “by or on behalf of the board of directors,” were not applicable to the Committee’s decision.

7. The Petitioner argued that because people outside the HOA could subscribe to the service, the tower was not for the “benefit of all or portions” of the HOA, meaning the Architectural Committee exceeded its authority. The Judge ruled that the language of the CC&Rs does not require that the system exclusively benefit the HOA.

8. “Preponderance of the evidence” is defined as evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not. In this proceeding, the Petitioner, Mark Virden, bore the burden of proving his allegations by this standard.

9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied, concluding that the Architectural Committee’s approval of the tower was proper. This decision was adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, making it the Final Order.

10. A dissatisfied party could request a rehearing within thirty (30) days for specific causes, such as procedural irregularity, misconduct, or newly discovered evidence. Alternatively, a party could appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review in court.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the central conflict between the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1811, which governs board actions, and the specific powers granted to the Architectural Committee in the Lakeside Ski Village HOA’s CC&Rs. Explain in detail how this conflict, and its interpretation by the Judge, determined the outcome of the case.

2. Discuss the concept of “conflict of interest” as presented in the Petitioner’s complaint. Evaluate whether the actions of the Talaricos and Carl Rygg constituted a conflict of interest, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge’s decision did not ultimately hinge on this point, referencing the use of the term arguendo in the Conclusions of Law.

3. Explain the procedural journey of this case, from the initial petition filing on or about March 23, 2017, to the Final Order issued on July 10, 2017. Identify the key bodies and officials involved at each stage (e.g., Department of Real Estate, Office of Administrative Hearings, Administrative Law Judge, Commissioner).

4. The Petitioner’s complaint details his frustration with a perceived lack of transparency from board members regarding their compensation agreement with AireBeam. Despite these ethical concerns, the petition failed. Based on the “Conclusions of Law,” explain the legal reasoning that rendered the Petitioner’s arguments about transparency and fairness insufficient to prove a violation under the cited statute.

5. The Final Order outlines eight specific causes for which a rehearing or review could be granted. Choose two of these causes (e.g., “The findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion,” or “Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing”) and construct a hypothetical argument that Mark Virden could have made for a rehearing based on them, using the facts presented in the case documents.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over the administrative hearing, reviews evidence, makes findings of fact, draws conclusions of law, and issues a decision. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The collection of all the laws passed by the Arizona legislature. The statute at the center of this case was A.R.S. § 33-1811.

Arguendo

A Latin term meaning “for the sake of argument.” The Judge used this to temporarily accept a point as true (that the free service was compensation) in order to show that even if it were true, the Petitioner’s argument would still fail on other legal grounds.

An acronym for Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements. These are the governing legal documents that establish the rules and operational framework for a homeowners association.

Common Area

Property within the HOA, such as land for a community tower, that is owned and shared by all members of the association.

Department of Real Estate

The Arizona state agency that has jurisdiction to hear certain disputes between property owners and their homeowners associations.

HOA (Homeowners Association)

An organization in a planned community or subdivision that creates and enforces rules for the properties within its jurisdiction. In this case, the Lakeside Ski Village HOA.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Mark Virden.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It means the evidence presented must be of greater weight or more convincing than the opposing evidence, showing a fact is more probable than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Lakeside Ski Village HOA.

How Two HOA Insiders Got Free Internet For Life—And Why the Law Couldn’t Stop Them

Introduction: The Rules Aren’t Always What They Seem

For many homeowners, the relationship with their Homeowner Association (HOA) is built on a simple assumption: while the rules can be strict, they exist to protect the community from abuses of power. We trust that state laws and an HOA’s own documents prevent board members from using their position for personal enrichment. The concept of a “conflict of interest” seems straightforward—board members can’t vote on deals that benefit themselves or their families.

But what if a deal that looks like a textbook conflict of interest was found to be perfectly legal? This is the cautionary tale of Mark Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA, a shocking case from Arizona that turns our assumptions on their head. It’s a story where insiders secured a deal for free lifetime internet service, and despite a homeowner’s legitimate outrage, the law was powerless to stop them. The case wasn’t decided on fairness or ethics, but on the fine print buried in the HOA’s governing documents.

This case is a crucial lesson for every homeowner. It reveals how seemingly innocuous clauses can be weaponized to bypass transparency laws, effectively legalizing what would otherwise be considered a blatant conflict of interest. It demonstrates that in the world of community associations, power doesn’t always reside where you think it does, and the only thing protecting you is a deep understanding of your own community’s rules.

Takeaway 1: A Committee’s Power Can Sidestep Conflict-of-Interest Laws

The petitioner’s argument was simple and seemed like a slam dunk. An internet company needed to build a service tower on HOA common property but lacked enough subscribers to fund it. Lou Talarico, whose wife Susan was on the HOA’s Architectural Committee, offered to pay the upfront installation costs. In exchange, Mr. Talarico and the HOA’s Vice President, Carl Rygg, would receive free internet service for life.

This arrangement reeks of a conflict of interest, and on its face, appears to be a direct violation of Arizona’s statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811). The law requires that if an action “taken by or on behalf of the board of directors” would benefit a board member’s spouse, the conflict must be declared in an open meeting. Here, no such declaration was made.

But here is the stunning legal twist: the Administrative Law Judge found that the decision to approve the tower was made not by the “board,” but exclusively by the “Architectural Committee.” The HOA’s governing documents explicitly granted this committee the power to approve communication systems. Because the state’s conflict-of-interest law applies specifically to actions taken by the board, it had no jurisdiction over a decision made independently by the committee. In essence, the state law was watching the front door (the board), but the HOA’s documents gave the Architectural Committee a back door—one with no legal supervision for conflicts of interest. This technicality meant the deal, and the conflict of interest at its core, was entirely proper under the law.

Takeaway 2: An HOA ‘Board’ Might Not Be a Board at All

The second critical fact that enabled this outcome was the highly unusual structure of the Lakeside Ski Village HOA itself. The judge noted that the association “does not have a traditional Board.” Instead, all the members collectively act as the board.

The HOA’s Bylaws lay out this unique governance model:

“[t]he affairs of the Association will be managed by the Members, who by the Association’s Articles of Organization are authorized to exercise all powers normally exercised by a board of directors.”

This structure is fundamentally important. State laws governing HOAs are written with a traditional model in mind—a small group of elected directors making decisions for the community. But at Lakeside Ski Village, the power of the “members acting as a board” was limited by specific authority delegated to other entities, most notably the Architectural Committee. This decentralized structure created a loophole the state’s conflict-of-interest law was not designed to close.

The lesson for homeowners is that you can never assume all HOAs are structured alike. The very definition of the “board” and the scope of its power can be radically different from one community to another. Here, that unique structure was the key that unlocked the committee’s unchecked power.

Takeaway 3: The Fine Print Is All That Matters

Ultimately, this entire dispute was decided not by broad principles of transparency or fiduciary duty, but by specific phrases written in the HOA’s founding documents years ago. The petitioner, Mark Virden, expressed understandable outrage that the insiders involved refused to be transparent.

He recounted a particularly telling exchange with the association’s Vice President when he asked about the terms of the internet deal:

When we initially asked the VP what their compensation was, he stated “it’s none of your business”.

While this response would infuriate any homeowner, the court’s final decision effectively proved it right. Because the Architectural Committee was acting within its sole authority, the details of its agreement were not subject to the disclosure rules that govern the board. The response, “it’s none of your business,” turned out to be legally correct.

The petitioner’s frustration was compounded by the professional background of the committee member at the center of the conflict. In his filing, he wrote: “To make things worse, the board member whose spouse paid the upfront fee to the tower company is a licensed realtor, Susan Talarico. If anyone should understand the fiduciary responsibility to owners of a HOA, it’s a realtor serving on a Board of that HOA.” His belief that a real estate professional should have known better underscores the feeling of betrayal.

And in a final, dramatic turn that reinforces the theme of insiders benefiting, the petitioner noted what happened after the deal was done: “She has since resigned but her husband has taken her place on the board.” This illustrates the most vital lesson of all: your sense of what is “fair” is legally irrelevant if the governing documents allow for a specific action. The CC&Rs and Bylaws are the ultimate source of truth and power in any HOA dispute.

Conclusion: Are You Sure You Know Your Rules?

The case of Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA serves as a stark reminder that HOA governance is a world of legal technicalities, where the written word of the founding documents is supreme. It shows how specific, delegated authority can create outcomes that defy the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. What appears to be a clear-cut case of self-dealing can be rendered perfectly permissible by a few key sentences in the bylaws or CC&Rs.

This case was decided on the specific authority granted to a single committee—do you know which committees in your HOA have the power to make decisions without board approval?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Mark Virden (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Stewart F. Salwin (attorney)
Lakeside Ski Village HOA
Susan Talarico (board member)
Lakeside Ski Village HOA
Licensed realtor; spouse of Lou Talarico; resigned but husband took her place on the board
Lou Talarico (board member)
Lakeside Ski Village HOA
Spouse of Susan Talarico; paid upfront tower cost; received free internet service; referred to as Treasurer in petition excerpt
Carl Rygg (board member)
Lakeside Ski Village HOA
Vice President; received free internet service
Emmett Mitchell (board member)
Lakeside Ski Village HOA
President

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
Addressee for rehearing requests

Linda Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

Posted on June 18, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717029-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-06-18
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The HOA (Respondent) was found to have acted beyond the scope of its authority under its governing documents by removing the Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and banning her from holding office for 24 months. The imposed discipline was quashed, and the HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Linda Haderli	Counsel	Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent	Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.	Counsel	Samuel E. Arrowsmith

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The HOA (Respondent) was found to have acted beyond the scope of its authority under its governing documents by removing the Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and banning her from holding office for 24 months. The imposed discipline was quashed, and the HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA lacked authority to impose discipline (removal as club president and 24-month ban on holding office) under governing documents.

Petitioner alleged Respondent lacked authority pursuant to governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and preclude her from serving as any officer for 24 months as purported discipline. The Tribunal concluded the Board’s decision was in excess of its authority because Respondent did not establish that removal and the prohibition on holding office were remedies available under the governing documents.

Orders: Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party; Respondent's imposed discipline was quashed; Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
CC&R’s Section 14.2
CC&R’s Section 15.2B
CC&R’s Section 12.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: discipline, governing documents, authority, club officer removal, homeowner vs HOA

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
CC&R’s Section 14.2
CC&R’s Section 15.2B
CC&R’s Section 12.2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 570378.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:04:51 (84.2 KB)

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 575026.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:04:55 (700.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between resident Linda Haderli (Petitioner) and the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s decision to remove Ms. Haderli from her position as President of the Pickleball Club and to bar her from holding any club office for 24 months as a disciplinary measure.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of Ms. Haderli. The central finding was that the disciplinary action imposed by the Association was in excess of the authority granted by its own governing documents (CC&Rs). While the Association’s rules allowed for remedies such as financial assessments up to $500 or the suspension of common area use rights for violations, they did not provide for the removal of a resident from an elected club office. Consequently, the ALJ ordered that Ms. Haderli be deemed the prevailing party, the Association’s disciplinary action be quashed, and the Association reimburse Ms. Haderli’s $500 filing fee. This decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, making it a final administrative order.

Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Linda Haderli

◦ Respondent: Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc., a homeowners association in Mesa, Arizona.

• Legal Venue: The Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona.

• Case Number: 17F-H1717029-REL

• Hearing Date: May 30, 2017

• Core Issue: On March 28, 2017, Ms. Haderli filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. She alleged that the Association lacked the authority under its governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and to prohibit her from serving in any club officer position for two years as a form of discipline.

The Association’s Disciplinary Action and Justification

The Association took disciplinary action against Ms. Haderli and provided three specific reasons for its decision in a formal letter:

1. Challenging Board Policies: The letter accused Ms. Haderli of harassing Association employees and circumventing established systems designed to implement Association policies.

2. Improper Officer Representation: The Association stated that Ms. Haderli had permitted Ms. Joyce Wooton to represent herself as an “Advisor” to the Pickleball Club, a position not recognized as an official Officer position in the Pickleball By-Laws.

3. Unauthorized Representation to External Entities: The Association claimed Ms. Haderli had represented herself to the City of Mesa and SRP (Salt River Project) as having the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Association, which had not been granted by the Board of Directors.

Analysis of Allegations and Testimony

During the May 30, 2017 hearing, testimony was presented by both parties regarding the three justifications for the disciplinary action.

Allegation 1: Harassment of an Association Employee

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria testified that on January 4, 2017, Ms. Haderli had a “contentious interaction” with an employee, Barb Putnam. According to some observers, Ms. Haderli was yelling. The following day, Ms. Putnam was hospitalized with a hemorrhage in her eye. Ms. Candelaria “theorized” that the stress from the encounter caused the medical issue. She collected written statements from observers but did not speak with Ms. Haderli about the incident, citing confidentiality concerns.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied yelling at Ms. Putnam, explaining that her hearing loss sometimes causes her to speak louder than intended, which can be misinterpreted as yelling. She stated she was attempting to reserve dates for Pickleball Club fundraising events and that Ms. Putnam was uncooperative. Ms. Haderli testified she was unaware of the harassment accusation until reviewing exhibits for the hearing with her attorney.

Allegation 2: Improper Officer Representation (Joyce Wooton)

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli testified that Ms. Wooton was already serving as an advisor to the Pickleball Club when Ms. Haderli was elected Vice President, a full year before she became President on March 1, 2016.

Allegation 3: Unauthorized Representation to External Entities

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria stated that while the Pickleball Club was exploring a project to build a small structure, Ms. Haderli contacted the City of Mesa and SRP directly, representing herself as acting on behalf of the Association. This continued even after Ms. Haderli was advised to work through the project’s architect for technical questions.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied representing herself as having authority to act for the Association. She testified that her intent was merely to gather background information to be better informed about the project. She initially did not want to provide her name or address to the entities for fear of appearing to act in an official capacity, only providing the address when required because regulations differ by city area.

Governing Documents and Permitted Remedies

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the specific remedies available to the Association as outlined in its governing documents, the CC&Rs. The Association clarified that the discipline was imposed on Ms. Haderli in her capacity as a resident who violated community rules, not as a disciplinary action against the Pickleball Club itself.

The following sections of the CC&Rs were cited as relevant:

CC&R Section

Description

Authorized Remedy

Section 14.2

Employee Abuse: Prohibits physical or verbal harassment of employees by residents.

Enforcement as an “Other Violation” under Section 15.2B.

Section 15.2B

Other Violations: Stipulates that such violations are subject to a financial penalty.

An assessment set by the Board of Directors, not to exceed $500.00.

Section 12.2

Suspension of Rights: Grants the Association the right to suspend an Owner’s rights for infractions.

Suspension of an Owner’s voting rights and Common Areas use rights.

Legal Conclusions and Final Ruling

The Administrative Law Judge reached several key conclusions of law that led to the final order.

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner, Linda Haderli, bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association acted without the authority granted by its governing documents.

• Excess of Authority: The Respondent (the Association) “did not establish that removal as the Pickleball Club President and/or a prohibition of holding any other officer position for a period of 24 months is a remedy available under the governing documents.”

• Final Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Board of Directors’ decision to impose this specific discipline was in excess of its authority.

Recommended and Final Order

Based on these conclusions, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a recommended order on June 18, 2017:

1. Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party: Linda Haderli was declared the prevailing party in the matter.

2. Discipline Quashed: The disciplinary action imposed by the Association against Ms. Haderli was ordered to be quashed.

3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to pay Ms. Haderli her $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.

On June 21, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in its entirety. This order became a final administrative action, effective immediately.

Study Guide: Haderli v. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

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

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

2. What was the central violation alleged by the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, in her petition?

3. What specific disciplinary action did the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. impose on Linda Haderli?

4. List the three reasons the Association provided to justify its disciplinary action against the Petitioner.

5. How did Linda Haderli explain her interaction with the Association employee, Barb Putnam, which the Association characterized as harassment?

6. What was the Petitioner’s explanation for contacting the City of Mesa and SRP regarding the Pickleball Club’s building project?

7. According to the Association’s governing documents (CC&R’s), what specific remedies are available for non-monetary infractions and “Other Violations”?

8. What is the legal standard of proof that the Petitioner was required to meet in this case, and how is it defined in the document?

9. What was the final conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Association’s authority to impose its chosen discipline?

10. What were the three components of the Recommended Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, which was later adopted as the Final Order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Linda Haderli, the Petitioner, and Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc., the Respondent. The Petitioner is the individual homeowner who filed the dispute, while the Respondent is the homeowners association (HOA) that took disciplinary action against her.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent did not have the authority under its own governing documents to take the disciplinary action it imposed. Specifically, she challenged her removal as President of the Pickleball Club and the subsequent ban from holding any officer position.

3. The Association removed Linda Haderli from her position as President of the Pickleball Club. Additionally, it precluded her from serving as any officer of the Pickleball Club for a period of 24 months.

4. The Association cited three reasons: (1) harassing Association employees and circumventing policies; (2) improperly permitting Ms. Joyce Wooton to represent herself as an “Advisor,” a non-existent officer position; and (3) representing herself to the City of Mesa and SRP as having authority to make decisions on behalf of the Association.

5. Ms. Haderli denied yelling at Ms. Putnam, attributing her loud voice to hearing loss which can be misinterpreted. She stated she was simply trying to reserve dates for Pickleball Club fundraising events and that the employee was not being cooperative in providing information.

6. The Petitioner testified that she approached the City of Mesa and SRP merely to gather background information to be more informed about the building project. She denied ever representing herself as having authority to act for the Association and was initially hesitant to even provide her name for fear of creating that impression.

7. For “Other Violations,” Section 15.2B of the CC&R’s allows for a monetary assessment up to $500.00. For non-monetary infractions, Section 12.2 allows the Association to suspend an Owner’s voting rights and Common Areas use rights until the infraction is cured.

8. The Petitioner was required to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. The document defines this as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Board’s decision to remove the Petitioner as Pickleball Club President and ban her from holding office for 24 months was in excess of its authority. The judge found that this specific penalty was not a remedy available to the Association under its governing documents.

10. The Order dictated that (1) the Petitioner be deemed the prevailing party in the matter, (2) the Respondent’s imposed discipline against the Petitioner be quashed (nullified), and (3) the Respondent pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Consider the following prompts for longer, essay-style responses. Use evidence and specific details from the case documents to construct your arguments.

1. Analyze the discrepancy between the disciplinary penalties available to the Association under its CC&R’s (Sections 12.2 and 15.2B) and the penalty it actually imposed on Linda Haderli. Explain why this discrepancy was the pivotal factor in the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.

2. Discuss the three allegations made by the Association against Linda Haderli. For each allegation, present the evidence and testimony offered by the Association (via Mary Candelaria) and the counter-evidence or explanation provided by the Petitioner.

3. Trace the procedural timeline of this case, starting from the filing of the Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition. Describe each key step, including the date of filing, the Notice of Hearing, the hearing itself, the Administrative Law Judge Decision, and the final adoption of that decision by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.

4. The Respondent stated that the discipline was against Linda Haderli in her capacity as a resident, not as a representative of the Pickleball Club. Evaluate this argument in the context of the specific penalties imposed. Did the nature of the discipline align with the Association’s claim?

5. Explain the legal concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. How did the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, successfully meet the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association acted outside its authority?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The judicial officer, Tammy L. Eigenheer, who presided over the administrative hearing, evaluated evidence, and issued a decision and recommended order.

Answer

The formal response filed by the Respondent (Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.) denying the violation alleged in the Petitioner’s petition.

CC&R’s

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are part of the Association’s governing documents that outline the rules for residents and the remedies available to the Association for violations.

Commissioner

The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, who has the authority to adopt the ALJ’s decision, making it a Final Order.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency with jurisdiction to hear disputes between homeowners and homeowners associations.

Final Order

The official, binding order issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate that adopts the ALJ’s decision. This order becomes effective immediately and is appealable through judicial review.

Governing Documents

The collection of rules, bylaws, and CC&R’s that legally govern the operation of the Homeowners Association and the conduct of its members.

Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition

The formal document filed by the Petitioner (Linda Haderli) with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about March 28, 2017, to initiate the legal dispute against the Association.

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, homeowner Linda Haderli.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Prevailing Party

The party that wins the legal dispute. The Administrative Law Judge’s order deemed the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, to be the prevailing party.

Quashed

A legal term meaning to nullify, void, or set aside. The Judge’s order quashed the disciplinary action that the Respondent had imposed on the Petitioner.

Respondent

The party against whom the petition is filed and who is responding to the allegations. In this case, Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

She Fought Her HOA Over Pickleball—And Won on a Technicality. Here Are 4 Surprising Lessons.

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath of Neighborhood Disputes

For many homeowners, a dispute with their Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like an unwinnable battle. The board holds what seems like absolute power, leaving residents feeling powerless. However, a recent administrative hearing in Arizona offers a powerful counter-narrative and a series of crucial lessons for anyone living in a planned community. The case involved Linda Haderli, the President of a community Pickleball Club, and her HOA, the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. What started as a disagreement over her conduct escalated into a formal disciplinary action that was ultimately overturned. The story of her victory reveals surprising truths about the limits of an HOA’s authority.

Takeaway 1: Your HOA’s Power Isn’t Unlimited—It’s Written in Black and White

An HOA Board Can’t Invent Punishments.

The core of the dispute was the punishment the HOA Board imposed on Linda Haderli. In response to alleged rule violations, the Board removed her from her elected position as President of the Pickleball Club and banned her from holding any club office for 24 months.

However, a close look at the Association’s own governing documents—the CC&Rs—revealed a critical flaw in the Board’s action. The documents specified exactly which remedies were available for violations. These included a monetary assessment not to exceed $500, or the suspension of an owner’s voting rights and their right to use common areas.

The punishment the Board chose—removal from an elected position and a ban from future office—was simply not on that list. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was unequivocal on this point:

Therefore, this Tribunal concludes that the Board’s decision to remove Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and to preclude her from holding any other officer position for a period of 24 months was in excess of its authority under the Association’s governing documents.

Ultimately, the HOA was bound by the rules it had created. Its failure to adhere to its own documents was the key to its defeat.

Takeaway 2: It Might Not Matter Who Was “Right”

The Case Can Hinge on Procedure, Not on the Facts of the Dispute.

The HOA levied three main accusations against Haderli: harassing an Association employee during a contentious interaction, improperly allowing an “Advisor” to participate in the club, and misrepresenting herself to the City of Mesa while researching a project. For her part, Haderli explained that her hearing loss can cause her to speak loudly, that the advisor had served in that capacity previously, and that she was only gathering information from the city and never claimed to have authority.

Here is the counter-intuitive twist: the judge never ruled on whether Haderli was actually guilty of any of these actions. The final decision did not weigh the evidence to determine who was “right” or “wrong” about the incidents. The entire case was decided on the grounds that the punishment itself was invalid because it was not authorized by the HOA’s governing documents, regardless of the alleged offenses that prompted it.

This procedural victory underscores the first lesson: it didn’t matter if the Board’s accusations were 100% true, because they attempted to enforce their judgment with a punishment they had no authority to invent. This is a crucial lesson. In an HOA dispute, winning isn’t always about proving your innocence regarding an incident. It can be about proving the board failed to follow its own established rules and procedures for discipline.

Takeaway 3: You May Have to Prove the HOA is Wrong

The Burden of Proof Can Fall on the Homeowner.

Many might assume that an HOA, as the governing body imposing discipline, would be required to prove it had the authority to do so. In this case, however, the legal burden was reversed. The administrative ruling states that the homeowner, referred to as the “Petitioner,” had the “burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence” that the HOA acted without authority. This is not unusual; in an administrative hearing, the person who files the petition is the one bringing the complaint, and it is standard procedure for them to carry the burden of proving their claim.

The court defined “preponderance of the evidence” as:

[E]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

This is a significant hurdle. It meant that Haderli couldn’t just question the Board’s power; she had to affirmatively prove, with more convincing evidence, that they didn’t have the authority they claimed. Despite this challenge, she successfully met that burden.

Takeaway 4: Victory Can Be Found in the Fine Print

Knowing Your Governing Documents is Your Greatest Weapon.

This case was not won through complex legal maneuvering or emotional arguments about who was to blame. Victory was found in a straightforward reading of the HOA’s own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The judge’s decision specifically cited Sections 14.2, 15.2B, and 12.2 of the CC&Rs as the foundation for what constituted authorized punishments—namely, fines and the suspension of privileges. By pointing out that the Board’s chosen discipline was absent from these sections, Haderli demonstrated that the Board had overstepped.

This reinforces the central lesson for every homeowner. The most powerful tool you have in a dispute with your association is a copy of your own governing documents. The answer to whether a board is overstepping its authority is often written right there in the text. Homeowners should treat their CC&Rs not as a dusty rulebook, but as a binding contract that holds their Board accountable.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

In the end, Linda Haderli was officially deemed the “prevailing party.” The judge ordered that the HOA’s imposed discipline be “quashed” and that her $500 filing fee be returned. This victory was possible for one primary reason: the HOA board exceeded the specific authority granted to it by its own rules. The case serves as a powerful reminder that an HOA’s power is not absolute; it is defined and limited by its documents.

The Board’s power ended where their documents said it did. Do you know where that line is drawn in your community?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Linda Haderli (petitioner)
Jonathan A. Dessaules (attorney)
Ashley C. Hill (attorney)

Respondent Side

Samuel E. Arrowsmith (attorney)
Ryan J. McCarthy (attorney)
Mary Candelaria (general manager)
Respondent's General Manager; testified
Barb Putnam (employee)
Association employee allegedly harassed by Petitioner

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)

Other Participants

Joyce Wooton (involved individual)
Individual associated with the Pickleball Club, subject of allegation

Barry Saxion vs. Silverton II Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on May 16, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1716023-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-05-16
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted the ALJ Decision, ordering the petition be dismissed because the governing documents require the claim be handled through internal dispute resolution prior to administrative action.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Barry Saxion	Counsel	—
Respondent	Silverton II Homeowners Association, Inc.	Counsel	Troy B. Stratman, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Declaration Section 12.1

Outcome Summary

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted the ALJ Decision, ordering the petition be dismissed because the governing documents require the claim be handled through internal dispute resolution prior to administrative action.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to use the mandatory dispute resolution procedures set forth in the Declaration before filing the administrative action.

Key Issues & Findings

Requirement for mandatory dispute resolution procedures

The Petition was dismissed because the Declaration of Homeowners Benefits and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Silverton II requires that all covered claims must be resolved using internal dispute resolution procedures in lieu of initiating administrative proceedings.

Orders: The ALJ recommended that the Petition be dismissed, and the Commissioner accepted the ALJ decision.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Declaration Section 12.1
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Mandatory Dispute Resolution, Dismissal, Standing Issue Denied

Additional Citations:

Declaration Section 12.1
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716023-REL Decision – 564668.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:03:27 (51.2 KB)

17F-H1716023-REL Decision – 564672.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:03:32 (54.6 KB)

17F-H1716023-REL Decision – 568837.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:03:37 (425.5 KB)

Briefing on Case No. 17F-H1716023-REL: Saxion vs. Silverton II HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing details the administrative proceedings and final disposition of the case involving petitioners Barry and Sandra Saxion and respondent Silverton II Homeowners Association, Inc. The petition was ultimately dismissed by the Arizona Department of Real Estate, which adopted the recommendation of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The dismissal was based on a procedural failure by the petitioners to adhere to the mandatory dispute resolution process outlined in the HOA’s governing documents before initiating administrative action.

The respondent’s motion for dismissal presented two primary arguments. The first, challenging petitioner Barry Saxion’s standing due to non-ownership of property, was denied by the ALJ, who found that co-petitioner Sandra Saxion did own property and had standing. The second, and decisive, argument was that the HOA’s Declaration explicitly requires all “covered claims” to be resolved through its internal dispute resolution procedures in lieu of administrative proceedings. The ALJ agreed with this argument, leading to a recommendation for dismissal, the vacating of a scheduled hearing, and the issuance of a final order confirming the dismissal.

Case Overview

This section outlines the primary participants, key identifiers, and procedural timeline of the administrative action.

Affiliation

Petitioner

Barry Saxion

Petitioner

Sandra Saxion

Property owner within the Association

Respondent

Silverton II Homeowners Association, Inc.

Adjudicator

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings

Final Authority

Judy Lowe

Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Respondent’s Counsel

Troy B. Stratman, Esq.

Stratman Law Firm, PLC

Identifier

Case Number

HO 17-16/023

Docket Number

17F-H1716023-REL

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), Phoenix, Arizona

Referring Body

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

• Petition Filed: Both Barry and Sandra Saxion signed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition.

• Referral to OAH: The Department of Real Estate referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, creating the caption Barry Saxion v. Silverton II Homeowners Association, Inc.

• Motion for Summary Judgment: The Respondent HOA filed a motion to dismiss the petition.

• May 16, 2017: Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a decision recommending the petition be dismissed.

• May 16, 2017: A Minute Entry was issued, vacating the hearing scheduled for May 22, 2017, based on the dismissal recommendation.

• May 30, 2017: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision and officially dismissing the petition.

Analysis of the Motion for Summary Judgment

The Silverton II HOA’s Motion for Summary Judgment was the pivotal filing in this case. It presented two distinct arguments for dismissal, which were addressed separately by the Administrative Law Judge.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Lack of Standing: The initial argument was that the petitioner, identified in the case caption as Barry Saxion, did not own property within the Association and therefore lacked the legal standing necessary to pursue the action.

2. Failure to Adhere to Governing Documents: The second argument was that the petition must be dismissed because it violated the procedural requirements set forth in the HOA’s governing documents. Specifically, Section 12.1 of the Declaration of Homeowners Benefits and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Silverton II (the “Declaration”) mandates a specific internal dispute resolution process for all “covered claims.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

The ALJ’s decision, issued on May 16, 2017, analyzed both of the respondent’s arguments and made distinct recommendations for each.

• The ALJ recommended that the motion to dismiss be denied on the grounds of standing.

• The judge acknowledged the fact, undisputed by the petitioner, that Barry Saxion does not own property within the association.

• However, the judge’s review of the original HOA Dispute Process Petition revealed that Sandra Saxion, who does own property, had also signed the petition as a petitioner. The judge concluded that the case caption, which named only Barry Saxion, was an administrative creation by the Department of Real Estate upon referral.

• The finding was that Sandra Saxion clearly “has standing to pursue this action,” thereby nullifying the argument for dismissal based on a lack of standing.

• The ALJ recommended that the petition be dismissed for failing to follow the mandatory dispute resolution procedures outlined in the HOA’s Declaration.

• The judge cited Section 12.1 of the Declaration, which defines “covered claims” as “all claims, grievances, controversies, disagreements, or disputes that arise in whole or part out of . . . the interpretation, application, or enforcement of the Declaration or the other Project Documents.”

• The judge found that the current dispute fell squarely within this definition.

• The decision states that the “plain language of the Declaration prevents this dispute… to be brought in the Office of Administrative Hearings and mandates that the dispute must be handled through the dispute resolution process set forth in the Declaration and Bylaws.”

• The conclusion was that the petition was improperly filed, as the internal remedies had not been pursued first.

Final Disposition and Subsequent Actions

The ALJ’s recommendation to dismiss directly led to the final resolution of the case.

Vacating of Hearing

A Minute Entry dated May 16, 2017, formally vacated the hearing that was scheduled for May 22, 2017. The order was a direct result of the ALJ’s decision recommending the complaint be dismissed.

Final Order from the Department of Real Estate

On May 30, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order that officially concluded the matter.

• Adoption of ALJ Decision: The Order explicitly states, “The Commissioner accepts the ALJ decision that the petition in this matter be dismissed as the applicable governing documents require that the claim must be handled through the dispute resolution process prior to administrative proceedings being brought.”

• Effective Date: The Order was designated a “final administrative action” and was effective immediately from the date of service.

• Appellate Rights: The parties were informed of their right to file for a rehearing or review within 30 days of the order. They were also advised of their right to appeal for a judicial review by filing a complaint pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Title 12, Chapter 7, Article 6. A court-obtained stay would be required to delay the order during a judicial review.

Official Communications

The Final Order and related documents were formally transmitted to all parties of record via certified mail or electronic means on May 30, 2017. Recipients included:

• Barry Saxion

• Troy B. Stratman, Esq. (counsel for the HOA)

• The Office of Administrative Hearings

• Judy Lowe and other staff at the Arizona Department of Real Estate

Study Guide: Saxion v. Silverton II Homeowners Association, Inc.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.

1. Identify the primary parties involved in case number 17F-H1716023-REL and their respective roles.

2. What was the initial argument made by the Respondent, Silverton II HOA, in its Motion for Summary Judgement?

3. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) resolve the issue of Barry Saxion’s standing to pursue the action?

4. What was the second, and ultimately successful, argument presented by the Respondent for the case’s dismissal?

5. According to the HOA’s governing documents, what is the definition of a “covered claim”?

6. What was the final recommendation made by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer in her decision dated May 16, 2017?

7. What immediate procedural action was taken as a result of the ALJ’s recommended decision on May 16, 2017?

8. Who formally accepted the ALJ’s decision, and what was the title of the document that finalized this acceptance?

9. What process must the petitioners now follow to resolve their dispute with the HOA, according to the final ruling?

10. Following the issuance of the Final Order on May 30, 2017, what right did the parties have if they disagreed with the decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioners, Barry and Sandra Saxion, and the Respondent, Silverton II Homeowners Association, Inc. The Saxions initiated the dispute process, and the Homeowners Association was the entity against which the claim was filed.

2. The Respondent initially argued that the case should be dismissed because Petitioner Barry Saxion did not own property within the Association. This lack of ownership, they claimed, meant he did not possess the legal standing required to pursue the action.

3. The ALJ found that although Barry Saxion did not own property, Sandra Saxion did own property and had also signed the petition. Therefore, Sandra Saxion had standing to pursue the action, and the ALJ recommended denying the motion to dismiss on these grounds.

4. The Respondent’s successful argument was that Section 12.1 of the HOA’s Declaration required all covered claims to be resolved using the internal dispute resolution procedures set forth in the Declaration and Bylaws. They argued this must be done in lieu of initiating administrative proceedings.

5. A “covered claim” is defined as “all claims, grievances, controversies, disagreements, or disputes that arise in whole or part out of . . . the interpretation, application, or enforcement of the Declaration or the other Project Documents.”

6. On May 16, 2017, the ALJ recommended that the Petition be dismissed. She concluded that the plain language of the HOA’s governing documents required the claim to be handled through the internal dispute resolution process before any administrative proceedings could be brought.

7. As a result of the ALJ’s recommendation, an order was issued vacating the hearing that was scheduled for May 22, 2017. The parties were advised of this through a Minute Entry.

8. Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, formally accepted the ALJ’s decision. This was finalized in a document titled “Final Order,” dated May 30, 2017.

9. The petitioners must handle their claim through the dispute resolution process set forth in the Silverton II Declaration and Bylaws. The Final Order mandates that this internal process must be used prior to bringing administrative proceedings.

10. After the Final Order, pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a party had the right to file a motion for rehearing or review within thirty (30) days. They also had the right to appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions require a more detailed analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each, drawing connections between the different documents and legal concepts presented.

1. Analyze the concept of “standing” as it was presented and resolved in this case. Discuss why Barry Saxion’s lack of property ownership did not result in the case’s dismissal on those grounds, and explain the role of the original Petition in the ALJ’s finding.

2. Explain the legal hierarchy and procedural flow of this dispute. Trace the case from the initial petition to the Final Order, identifying the specific roles and actions of the Department of Real Estate, the Office of Administrative Hearings, the Administrative Law Judge, and the Commissioner.

3. Discuss the significance of Section 12.1 of the “Declaration of Homeowners Benefits and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Silverton II.” How did the “plain language” of this specific clause determine the ultimate outcome of the administrative proceeding?

4. Evaluate the two distinct arguments made by the Respondent in their Motion for Summary Judgement. Compare the legal reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge in her recommendations for each argument and explain why one argument failed while the other succeeded.

5. Describe the post-decision options available to the parties following the issuance of the Final Order on May 30, 2017. What specific steps could a party take if they disagreed with the outcome, what were the associated deadlines, and to whom would a request for rehearing be addressed?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, and issues a recommended decision. In this case, the ALJ was Tammy L. Eigenheer.

Administrative Law Judge Decision

The formal written recommendation of the ALJ. In this matter, the decision recommended that the petition be dismissed based on the HOA’s governing documents.

Commissioner

The head of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. In this case, Commissioner Judy Lowe adopted the ALJ’s decision and issued the Final Order.

Covered Claims

A specific category of disputes defined in the HOA’s Declaration. It includes all claims, grievances, or disputes related to the interpretation, application, or enforcement of the HOA’s governing documents.

Declaration

The short name for the “Declaration of Homeowners Benefits and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Silverton II.” This is a core governing document for the HOA that dictates required procedures, such as dispute resolution.

Department of Real Estate (Department)

The Arizona state agency that referred the HOA dispute to the Office of Administrative Hearings and whose Commissioner issued the Final Order.

Final Order

A binding order issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate that accepts the ALJ’s decision. This order made the dismissal of the petition official and effective immediately.

Homeowners Association (HOA)

The governing body for the Silverton II community, which was the Respondent in this case.

Minute Entry

A brief entry on the case record noting a court or judge’s order or action. In this case, a Minute Entry was issued to vacate the scheduled May 22, 2017 hearing.

Motion for Summary Judgement

A formal request made by a party (in this case, the Respondent) asking the judge to rule in their favor without a full hearing, based on the argument that there are no disputed facts and the law is on their side.

Office of Administrative Hearings

The state office where the case was heard. It provides a neutral forum for resolving disputes involving state agencies.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this case, the petitioners were Barry and Sandra Saxion.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the respondent was the Silverton II Homeowners Association, Inc.

Standing

The legal right to bring a lawsuit or administrative action. In this context, standing was initially questioned based on property ownership within the HOA.

Why This Homeowner’s Complaint Against Their HOA Was Dismissed Before It Began

Dealing with a Homeowners Association (HOA) can be one of the most frustrating aspects of homeownership. When you feel the association is overstepping its bounds or failing to enforce the rules fairly, the natural impulse is to seek a formal resolution. Homeowners have rights, and there are official channels, like administrative hearings, designed to address these disputes.

But what if the path to justice has a mandatory detour you didn’t know about? The case of Saxion vs. Silverton II HOA is a powerful cautionary tale for any homeowner who believes they have a legitimate grievance. A close look at the official documents reveals surprising lessons, and it’s a stark reminder that in an HOA dispute, being right is not enough; you must also be procedurally perfect.

1. The Fine Print Is Your First Hurdle

The primary reason the homeowners’ petition was dismissed had nothing to do with the merits of their actual complaint. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) never weighed in on whether the homeowners were right or the HOA was wrong. Instead, the case was dismissed because the homeowners failed to follow the mandatory dispute resolution process required by their own HOA’s governing documents before they filed for an administrative hearing.

The association’s own rules legally required an internal process to be completed first. By going straight to an administrative filing, the homeowners had unintentionally bypassed a mandatory first step outlined in their governing documents. The ALJ pointed to the specific language in the HOA’s Declaration, which was the ultimate authority on the matter.

all covered claims “must be resolved using the dispute resolution procedures set forth . . . in [the] Declaration and the Bylaws in lieu of filing a lawsuit or initiating administrative proceedings.”

2. A Simple Clerical Error Can Jeopardize Your Entire Case

Before even getting to the core procedural issue, the HOA made another challenge that could have ended the case immediately. They argued that the petitioner officially named in the case caption, Barry Saxion, didn’t actually own property in the association and therefore had no legal standing.

This error, however, wasn’t made by the homeowners. The case documents reveal a critical lesson: when the Arizona Department of Real Estate referred the matter for a hearing, it was the agency that created the incorrect caption. This bureaucratic mistake could have been fatal, but the petition was saved because the ALJ noted that the original paperwork was signed by both Barry Saxion and Sandra Saxion, who did own property. Because both their names and signatures were on the petition, the ALJ could overlook the agency’s error. This highlights the need for homeowners to be vigilant, double-checking all official documents—even those prepared by a state agency.

3. A “Win” Doesn’t Always Mean Justice Was Served

The final outcome was not a judgment on the underlying disagreement. The petition was simply “dismissed.” This means the core issues the homeowners wanted to resolve were never actually heard or ruled on by the Administrative Law Judge.

The process itself is revealing. On May 16, 2017, the ALJ, Tammy L. Eigenheer, issued a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed. This recommendation was then reviewed by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, who accepted it and issued a FINAL ORDER making the dismissal official on May 30, 2017. For the HOA, this was a victory won on a technicality. For the homeowners, it was a procedural dead end, preventing their core complaints from being heard in the administrative hearing. This shows how a legal victory can be won entirely on procedure, preventing the central conflict from ever being addressed.

Conclusion

The core lesson from the Saxion vs. Silverton II HOA case is clear: in a dispute with your HOA, understanding the procedural rules in your governing documents is just as important as the substance of your complaint. Failing to read and follow these rules can render your entire effort, no matter how justified, completely invalid. It can cost you time, money, and the opportunity to have your case heard at all. Before you take on your HOA, have you read the rulebook they require you to play by?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Barry Saxion (petitioner)
Sandra Saxion (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Troy B. Stratman (Respondent attorney)
Stratman Law Firm, PLC

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
L. Dettorre (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
D. Jones (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
J. Marshall (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
N. Cano (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
M. Aguirre (Staff)

Richard A. DeBoer vs. Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association

Posted on January 9, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1616006-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-01-09
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party, finding that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by conducting votes via email. The HOA was ordered to comply with the statute, reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee, and pay a civil penalty of $1,000.00 to the Department of Real Estate.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$1,000.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Richard A. DeBoer	Counsel	—
Respondent	Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party, finding that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by conducting votes via email. The HOA was ordered to comply with the statute, reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee, and pay a civil penalty of $1,000.00 to the Department of Real Estate.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Open Meeting Requirements

Petitioner alleged that the HOA board violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by using email communications to vote on substantive issues (common area lighting installation and removal). The Tribunal concluded that the Board’s practice of taking action via email consensus violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), which requires meetings of the board of directors to be open to all members.

Orders: Respondent must comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) in the future. Respondent must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00. Respondent must pay a civil penalty of $1,000.00 to the Department of Real Estate.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $1,000.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Open Meetings, Email Voting, HOA Governance

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119

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

17F-H1616006-REL Decision – 538360.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T20:59:50 (72.5 KB)

17F-H1616006-REL Decision – 539992.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T21:00:03 (678.7 KB)

Briefing Document: DeBoer vs. Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the findings and outcome of the legal dispute between homeowner Richard A. DeBoer and the Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association (HOA). The central issue was the HOA Board of Directors’ practice of conducting votes on non-emergency matters via email, which the petitioner alleged violated Arizona’s open meeting laws.

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the State of Arizona concluded that the HOA Board did violate state law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) by using email to approve the purchase of new street lights and the removal of existing fixtures, thereby circumventing requirements for open meetings accessible to all members. The Board’s defense, that it had relied on poor advice from its management company, was not sufficient to overcome the violation.

Consequently, Mr. DeBoer was declared the prevailing party. The HOA was ordered to cease this practice, pay a $1,000 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, and reimburse Mr. DeBoer for his $500 filing fee. The ALJ’s decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, making it a final administrative order.

Case Background

• Case Name: Richard A. DeBoer vs. Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association

• Case Numbers: 17F-H1616006-REL (Office of Administrative Hearings), HO17-16/006 (Department of Real Estate)

• Jurisdiction: The dispute was filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate and heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Petitioner: Richard A. DeBoer, a homeowner.

• Respondent: Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association, located in Phoenix, Arizona.

Key Dates

August 23, 2016

Petition filed by Richard A. DeBoer.

December 19, 2016

Hearing held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

January 9, 2017

Administrative Law Judge Decision issued.

January 12, 2017

Final Order issued by the Department of Real Estate Commissioner.

January 13, 2017

Compliance letter sent to the HOA by the Department of Real Estate.

February 11, 2017

Deadline for HOA to show proof of payment for petitioner’s filing fee.

March 13, 2017

Deadline for HOA to pay the civil penalty.

Petitioner’s Allegations

Richard A. DeBoer’s petition, filed on August 23, 2016, alleged that the Turtle Rock III HOA Board of Directors had a “common practice” of conducting unnoticed email meetings to vote on non-emergency matters. This practice was alleged to be in violation of both Arizona state law and the HOA’s own bylaws.

• March 2016: The Board conducted an email vote to approve the purchase and installation of four high-mast street lights in the common area.

• April 2016: The Board conducted an email vote to approve the removal and sale or disposal of fourteen large, iconic, architectural light fixtures from the common areas.

• The email meetings were not open to all association members.

• Members were denied the opportunity to attend and speak before the Board took formal action.

• The subject matter did not meet the criteria for a closed meeting.

• The Board failed to provide members with at least 48 hours’ advance notice.

• The meetings did not qualify as emergency meetings.

• Proper notices and agendas containing information “reasonably necessary to inform the members” were not provided.

• The petitioner alleged the actions were contrary to Turtle Rock III Bylaws, Division VI, Item 2.i, which incorporates Robert’s Rules of Order.

• Specifically, the email meetings were conducted without authorization in the bylaws and failed to provide for “a single official gathering in one room or area.”

• The format lacked the required “conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among participating members.”

Respondent’s Defense and Testimony

The Turtle Rock III HOA initially filed an answer denying all allegations made in the petition.

During the hearing on December 19, 2016, the following testimony was provided on behalf of the HOA:

• Verl Curtiss (Board President) and Steve Pilcher (Board Treasurer) both acknowledged that the email votes regarding the lighting had occurred.

• Their defense centered on the claim that they had been advised by their management company and manager that their actions were not in violation of Arizona statutes or the HOA’s bylaws.

• Mr. Pilcher testified that they believed they had received “good advice.”

Legal Findings and Conclusion

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Tammy L. Eigenheer, determined that the petitioner bore the burden of proving the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

The decision focused on A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), which states:

“Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors… are open to all members of the association… and all members or designated representatives so desiring shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time during the deliberations and proceedings.”

Based on the evidence and testimony, including the Board’s admission that email votes took place, the ALJ issued a clear conclusion:

“This Tribunal concludes that the Board’s prior practice of taking action in the absence of a meeting by obtaining unanimous written consent of the Board’s members via email violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).”

Final Order and Penalties

The ALJ’s Recommended Order was officially accepted and adopted as a Final Order by Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, on January 12, 2017. The HOA was ordered to undertake the following actions:

1. Cease and Desist: The Respondent must comply with all applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) in the future.

2. Fee Reimbursement: The Respondent must pay the Petitioner, Richard A. DeBoer, his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the Order.

3. Civil Penalty: The Respondent must pay a civil penalty of $1,000.00 to the Department of Real Estate within sixty (60) days of the Order.

The Final Order constituted a final administrative action, subject to appeal or a motion for rehearing within 30 days.

Key Parties and Officials

Name/Entity

Richard A. DeBoer

Petitioner / Homeowner

Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association

Respondent

Verl Curtiss

President, Respondent’s Board of Directors

Steve Pilcher

Treasurer, Respondent’s Board of Directors

Goodman Law Group

Respondent’s Representative

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Office of Administrative Hearings

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Regulatory Agency / Jurisdiction for HOA Disputes

Judy Lowe

Commissioner, Department of Real Estate

Abby Hansen

HOA Dispute Coordinator, Department of Real Estate

Study Guide: DeBoer v. Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case Richard A. DeBoer v. Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association, case number 17F-H1616006-REL. It covers the key facts, legal arguments, judicial findings, and final orders as detailed in the provided legal documents.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.

1. Who were the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what were their respective roles?

2. What specific actions taken by the Turtle Rock III HOA Board of Directors in March and April 2016 were at the center of the dispute?

3. What key Arizona statute did the Petitioner allege the Respondent had violated, and what is the primary requirement of that law?

4. In addition to the state statute, what internal governing document and procedural rules did the Petitioner claim the HOA’s actions violated?

5. What was the defense offered by the HOA’s representatives, Verl Curtiss and Steve Pilcher, during the hearing?

6. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and how is it defined in the case documents?

7. What was the ultimate conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge regarding the HOA’s practice of conducting votes via email?

8. What two distinct financial penalties were imposed on the Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association in the final order?

9. Which state agency has jurisdiction over disputes between homeowners and condominium associations in Arizona and formally adopted the Judge’s decision?

10. What specific, non-financial order was given to the Respondent to ensure future adherence to the law?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Richard A. DeBoer, a homeowner who filed the complaint. The Respondent was the Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association (HOA), the governing body of the community, which was accused of violating state law and its own bylaws.

2. In March 2016, the Board conducted an e-mail vote to purchase and install four high-mast street lights. In April 2016, the board held another e-mail vote to remove and sell or give away fourteen large, architectural light fixtures from the common areas.

3. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804. This statute’s primary requirement is that all meetings of an HOA’s board of directors must be open to all members of the association, who must be permitted to attend and speak.

4. The Petitioner claimed the e-mail votes also violated the Turtle Rock III Bylaws, specifically Division VI, Item 2.i. This section references Robert’s Rules of Order (RONR), which requires a “single official gathering” and “simultaneous aural communication” for meetings.

5. Verl Curtiss (President) and Steve Pilcher (Treasurer) testified that their management company and manager had advised them that they were not in violation of any statutes or bylaws. They did not deny that the e-mail votes had occurred.

6. The Petitioner had the burden of proving the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as evidence of greater weight or more convincing than opposing evidence, showing the fact is more probable than not.

7. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Board’s practice of taking action through unanimous written consent via email, in the absence of a meeting, violated the open meeting provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

8. The HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 directly to him. Additionally, the HOA was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $1,000.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

9. The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) has jurisdiction to hear these disputes. The Commissioner of the ADRE formally accepted and adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, making it a Final Order.

10. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) in the future. This directive mandates that the HOA cease its practice of holding votes outside of open meetings.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed response for each question, drawing evidence and examples from the source documents.

1. Analyze the Petitioner’s complaint, detailing both the statutory violations (A.R.S. § 33-1804) and the alleged bylaw infractions (Robert’s Rules of Order). Explain how these two lines of argument reinforced each other.

2. Discuss the legal concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case documents. Explain how the testimony of the HOA’s own representatives, Verl Curtiss and Steve Pilcher, helped the Petitioner meet this burden of proof, despite their intentions.

3. Examine the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge and adopted by the Commissioner. Detail the specific remedies imposed and explain the purpose of each component (compliance, restitution, and civil penalty).

4. Based on the arguments presented, evaluate the significance of Arizona’s open meeting laws (A.R.S. § 33-1804) for homeowners in a planned community. Why is it critical for board decisions, such as those concerning common area fixtures, to be made in an open forum?

5. Trace the timeline of the case from the initial filing of the petition on August 23, 2016, to the issuance of the compliance letter from the Department of Real Estate on January 13, 2017. Identify the key milestones and explain the function of each step in the administrative hearing process.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official (Tammy L. Eigenheer) who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal rulings and recommendations.

A.R.S. § 33-1804

The Arizona Revised Statute cited in the case that mandates all HOA board meetings be open to all association members, allowing them to attend and speak.

Bylaws

The internal rules governing the operation of an organization. In this case, the Turtle Rock III Bylaws (Division VI, Item 2.i) were cited as being violated.

Civil Penalty

A monetary fine levied by a government agency for a violation of law, distinct from criminal punishment. The HOA was ordered to pay a $1,000.00 civil penalty.

Common Area

Property within a planned community owned and maintained by the homeowners association for the use and benefit of all members. The light fixtures in the case were located in the common areas.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Arizona Department of Real Estate had jurisdiction to hear the dispute under A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Office of Administrative Hearings

The state agency that conducts formal hearings for disputes involving other state agencies, providing an impartial forum for adjudication.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was homeowner Richard A. DeBoer.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case, defined as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Prevailing Party

The party in a legal dispute who is found to have won the case. Richard A. DeBoer was deemed the prevailing party.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an action is brought. In this case, the Respondent was the Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association.

Robert’s Rules of Order (RONR)

A manual of parliamentary procedure that governs most meetings of deliberative assemblies. The Petitioner argued that the HOA’s e-mail votes violated RONR’s requirement for simultaneous aural communication.

Your HOA Board’s Emails Might Be Illegal Meetings: How One Homeowner Fought Back and Won

Introduction: The Hidden Risks of HOA Board Emails

Do you ever wonder how your Homeowners Association (HOA) board really makes its decisions? For many residents, board operations can feel like a black box. While official meetings are announced, it’s easy to assume that much of the groundwork happens behind the scenes. But what if those seemingly harmless email chains among board members are more than just casual discussions? What if they are, in fact, illegal meetings?

A powerful legal case from Arizona, involving a homeowner named Richard A. DeBoer and the Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association, provides a powerful lesson for HOA members nationwide. This post breaks down the four most impactful takeaways from that case, showing how one homeowner successfully held his board accountable for its lack of transparency.

Takeaway 1: “Convenient” Email Votes Can Be Illegal Secret Meetings

An Email Vote Isn’t Just an Email—It’s a Meeting.

In 2016, the Turtle Rock III HOA board made two significant decisions affecting community property. In March, they conducted an email vote to purchase and install four high-mast street lights. In April, they conducted another email vote to remove and sell, or give away, fourteen “large, iconic, architectural, light-fixtures” from the common areas.

The petitioner, Richard A. DeBoer, argued that this practice was a direct violation of Arizona’s open meeting law for HOAs, which states:

“Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association or any person designated by a member in writing as the member’s representative and all members or designated representatives so desiring shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time during the deliberations and proceedings. . .” — A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

The Administrative Law Judge agreed with the homeowner, concluding that the board’s practice of taking action via email “violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).” The case record reveals the board’s actions failed on multiple fronts. Specifically, their email votes violated the law because they were conducted in a way that:

• Were not open to all members: The decisions were made in a private digital space, excluding the very residents they affected.

• Denied members the right to attend and speak: Homeowners were given no opportunity to hear the deliberations or provide input before the board took formal action.

• Failed to provide 48-hour notice: Members were not given the legally required advance notice of the “meetings” where votes were cast.

• Lacked proper agendas: No agendas were provided to inform members of the matters to be discussed or decided.

• Did not qualify as emergency meetings: The subject matter did not meet the stringent requirements for an emergency session that might bypass standard notice rules.

This ruling affirms a crucial principle: transparency laws apply to modern forms of communication. Boards cannot use technology to circumvent their legal obligation to conduct business in the open.

Takeaway 2: “Bad Advice” Is Not a Valid Legal Defense

“But Our Manager Said It Was OK” Won’t Hold Up in Court.

During the hearing, the HOA board did not deny that the email votes took place. Instead, they offered a defense: they were just following advice.

Board President Verl Curtiss and Treasurer Steve Pilcher both testified that their management company and its manager had told them they were not in violation of the law. Mr. Pilcher stated that they believed they had received “good advice.”

Despite this testimony, the judge ruled against the HOA. This outcome is a stark reminder that reliance on bad advice is not a legal shield. Board members have a fiduciary duty to the community they serve, and a core part of that duty is understanding and adhering to the laws governing their association. This responsibility cannot be outsourced to a management company. Ultimately, the board—not its vendors—is accountable for upholding the principles of open governance.

Takeaway 3: A Single Homeowner Can Force an Entire Board to Comply

One Determined Homeowner Can Win Against the Whole Association.

Perhaps the most empowering aspect of this case is who brought it forward. The petition was not filed by a large group of angry residents or a high-powered law firm. It was initiated by a single person: Richard A. DeBoer.

Mr. DeBoer filed the petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on August 23, 2016. When the hearing took place on December 19, 2016, he “appeared on his own behalf.”

In the end, the court’s order officially deemed Mr. DeBoer the “prevailing party.” This victory demonstrates that the legal framework provides a viable path for individual homeowners to hold their boards accountable. It shows that one person with a clear understanding of the law and the determination to see it enforced can successfully challenge an entire association and win.

Takeaway 4: Cutting Corners on Transparency Carries a Financial Cost

Ignoring the Law Comes With a Price Tag.

Violating open meeting laws isn’t just a procedural error; it has direct financial consequences. As a result of the ruling, the Turtle Rock III HOA was ordered to pay for its actions. The financial penalties included:

• The HOA was ordered to pay back the petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

• The HOA was ordered to pay a $1,000.00 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

The board’s decision to cut corners on transparency cost their neighbors—the very people they were elected to serve—a total of $1,500. This money, which came directly from the association’s funds, could have gone toward community maintenance or improvements. Instead, it was spent paying for a legal and procedural failure. This case proves that when a board fails to follow the law, the entire community pays the price.

Conclusion: Transparency Is Not Optional

The case of DeBoer v. Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association delivers a clear and powerful message: HOA boards must conduct business in the open, and homeowners have both the right and the ability to enforce those transparency laws. Email votes and other back-channel communications that exclude members from the decision-making process are not just bad practice—they can be illegal.

This case was decided in Arizona, but the principle of transparency is universal. Does your HOA board’s communication meet the standard of the law, and what would you do if you discovered it didn’t?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Richard A. DeBoer (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Verl Curtiss (board member)
Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
President; Appeared on behalf of Respondent; witness
Steven Pilcher (board member)
Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
Treasurer; Appeared on behalf of Respondent; witness

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
Business Services Division (ADRE)

Barbara Printy vs. Olive Grove Village Association Inc.

Posted on November 14, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	16F-H1616010-BFS
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-11-14
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) and governing documents by failing to complete the required 2014 audit by March 31, 2015. The audit was not completed until October 2016. The ALJ imposed a $5,000 civil penalty due to the ongoing refusal to comply.
Filing Fees Refunded	$750.00
Civil Penalties	$5,000.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Barbara Printy	Counsel	Phil Whitaker
Respondent	Olive Grove Village Association Inc.	Counsel	Jonathan Ebertshauser

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) and governing documents by failing to complete the required 2014 audit by March 31, 2015. The audit was not completed until October 2016. The ALJ imposed a $5,000 civil penalty due to the ongoing refusal to comply.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to obtain annual financial audit

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to obtain an audit of the 2014 financials. Respondent's fiscal year ended Dec 31, 2014. The audit was not received until Oct 11, 2016, despite multiple requests by Petitioner. ALJ found Respondent violated statute and governing documents.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $750.00 filing fee and pay Department $5,000.00 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $750.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $5,000.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

16F-H1616010-BFS Decision – 528449.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:10 (81.5 KB)

16F-H1616010-BFS Decision – 538188.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:10 (60.7 KB)

16F-H1616010-BFS Decision – 540732.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:10 (61.9 KB)

16F-H1616010-BFS Decision – 562623.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:11 (82.3 KB)

16F-H1616010-BFS Decision – 564331.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:11 (58.7 KB)

16F-H1616010-BFS Decision – 564332.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:11 (60.5 KB)

Administrative Decision Briefing: Printy v. Olive Grove Village Association Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the administrative law proceedings and final decision regarding the dispute between Barbara Printy (Petitioner) and the Olive Grove Village Association Inc. (Respondent). The central conflict involved the Respondent’s failure to conduct a timely financial audit for the 2014 fiscal year, as mandated by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the Association’s own governing documents.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Respondent committed a clear violation of A.R.S. § 33-1243(J). Despite multiple requests from the Petitioner starting in early 2015, the Association did not receive the required audit until October 2016—nearly eighteen months past the deadline set in its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Consequently, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $750 filing fee and pay a civil penalty of $5,000 to the Department of Real Estate.

——————————————————————————–

Factual Background and Parties

The dispute involves the following entities and legal context:

• Petitioner: Barbara Printy, a condominium owner within the Association.

• Respondent: Olive Grove Village Association Inc., a condominium owners association located in Phoenix, Arizona.

• Subject Matter: Failure to provide a required financial audit for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2014.

• Jurisdiction: Originally filed with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, the matter was transferred to the Department of Real Estate on July 1, 2016, under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

——————————————————————————–

Governing Regulatory Framework

The ALJ’s decision was based on three distinct but overlapping requirements for financial transparency and reporting:

Authority

Requirement

Deadline

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Annual financial audit, review, or compilation must be completed.

No later than 180 days after fiscal year-end.

Association CC&Rs

Books and records must be audited by an independent auditor.

Results submitted to Owners within 90 days of fiscal year-end.

Association By-Laws

Treasurer must cause an audit by a CPA.

Complete audit in even-numbered years; review allowed in odd years.

While the state statute allows up to 180 days for a financial review, the Association’s CC&Rs established a stricter 90-day deadline for a full audit. The 2014 fiscal year audit was therefore legally due by March 31, 2015.

——————————————————————————–

Chronology of Non-Compliance

The Petitioner made repeated attempts to obtain the 2014 audit, which were met with delays and conflicting information from the Association:

1. April 15, 2015: Petitioner requested the audit at an Association meeting. She was informed it would be ready by June.

2. October 15, 2015: Petitioner submitted a formal written request.

3. October 21, 2015: At a meeting, the Association directed the Petitioner to contact the management company for the information.

4. March 17, 2016: The Association informed homeowners that they would be charged $35.00 each for a copy of the audit.

5. March 23, 2016: The Petitioner filed a formal Petition with the state, paying a $750.00 filing fee.

6. August 2016: The Respondent finally engaged a CPA to perform the 2014 audit.

7. October 11, 2016: The Respondent received the audit report, one day before the scheduled administrative hearing.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Analysis and Conclusions

Violation of Statutory and Governing Documents

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(J). The Association admitted that an audit was required for the 2014 financials under both the CC&Rs and the By-Laws.

Defense and Rebuttal

• Respondent’s Defense: The Association argued that inconsistencies between the CC&Rs and By-Laws caused confusion regarding the level of review required. They also argued against a civil penalty, suggesting the cost would ultimately be passed on to homeowners via assessments.

• Petitioner’s Evidence: The Petitioner testified to the ongoing and “flagrant refusal” of the Association to comply with its governing documents. She further noted that the audit received on the eve of the hearing revealed discrepancies in financial records when compared to previously received compilations.

Final Ruling

The ALJ found that the audit should have been completed by March 31, 2015. The Respondent’s failure to engage a CPA until August 2016 constituted a clear breach of duty.

——————————————————————————–

Sanctions and Orders

The ALJ issued a Recommended Order, which was subsequently certified as the final administrative decision:

• Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner $750.00 within 30 days of the order’s effective date.

• Civil Penalty: Due to the nature of the violation, the ALJ imposed a civil penalty of $5,000.00, payable to the Department of Real Estate within 60 days.

• Method of Payment: The civil penalty must be paid via cashier’s check or money order.

——————————————————————————–

Administrative Certification and Finality

The decision-making process followed a strictly defined administrative timeline:

1. November 14, 2016: ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer issued the initial decision.

2. December 20, 2016: Deadline for the Department of Real Estate to accept, reject, or modify the decision. Since no action was taken by the Department, the ALJ decision was certified as final per A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D).

3. January 9, 2017: A “Nunc Pro Tunc” order was issued by Interim Director Greg Hanchett to correct the date of issuance of the certification to January 9, 2017.

Notice to Parties: The final decision includes the right to request a rehearing from the Department of Real Estate or seek judicial review through the Superior Court, provided such actions are taken within the statutory timeframes. Failure to act in a timely manner results in the loss of these rights.

Study Guide: Barbara Printy v. Olive Grove Village Association Inc.

This study guide reviews the administrative legal proceedings regarding the dispute between a condominium owner and her homeowners association. It focuses on the statutory requirements for financial audits, the hierarchy of governing documents, and the administrative process for resolving such disputes in Arizona.

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

1. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against Olive Grove Village Association Inc.?

2. According to A.R.S. § 33-1243(J), what are the default requirements for an association’s annual financial report if the condominium documents do not specify an audit by a CPA?

3. How did the Respondent’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) differ from the state statute regarding the timing of the audit?

4. What inconsistency existed between the Association’s CC&Rs and its By-Laws regarding financial reviews?

5. Describe the progression of the Petitioner’s requests for the audit from April 2015 to March 2016.

6. When did the Respondent finally engage a CPA, and when was the audit eventually received?

7. What is the legal definition of “preponderance of the evidence” as used in this administrative proceeding?

8. What was the Respondent’s primary argument against the imposition of a civil penalty?

9. Which state departments have held jurisdiction over disputes between property owners and condominium associations according to the source?

10. What was the purpose of the “Order Nunc Pro Tunc” issued on January 9, 2017?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. The Core Allegation: The Petitioner, Barbara Printy, alleged that the Olive Grove Village Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) by failing to obtain a required audit of the 2014 financials. She claimed the Association failed to complete this audit within the 90-day timeframe mandated by its own governing documents.

2. Statutory Requirements: In the absence of stricter requirements in condominium documents, the board must provide for an annual financial audit, review, or compilation. This must be completed within 180 days of the fiscal year’s end and made available to owners within 30 days of request following its completion.

3. CC&R vs. Statute Timing: While the state statute allows up to 180 days for a financial report, the Association’s CC&Rs specifically required the audit to be completed and submitted to owners within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year. This established a more stringent deadline of March 31, 2015, for the 2014 fiscal year.

4. Governing Document Inconsistency: The CC&Rs mandated an audit by an independent auditor at the close of every fiscal year. However, the By-Laws suggested a “complete August” (audit) was only required in even-numbered years, while a review could be conducted in odd-numbered years.

5. Progression of Requests: Printy first requested the audit at a meeting in April 2015, followed by a written request in October 2015 and further verbal requests in October 2015 and March 2016. Throughout this period, she was told various things, including that the information was with the CPA, that she should contact the management company, or that she would be charged $35.00 for the audit.

6. Timeline of Compliance: Despite the audit being due in early 2015, the Respondent did not engage a CPA to perform the work until August 2016. The Association did not actually receive a copy of the completed audit until October 11, 2016, which was the eve of the administrative hearing.

7. Preponderance of the Evidence: This legal standard requires that the evidence presented is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposing evidence. It means that the facts sought to be proved are shown to be “more probable than not.”

8. Argument Against Penalties: The Respondent argued that a civil penalty was inappropriate because the CC&Rs and By-Laws were inconsistent, leading to confusion regarding the necessary level of review. Furthermore, they contended that any penalty would ultimately be a burden on the homeowners themselves through increased assessments.

9. Jurisdictional Departments: Originally, the matter was filed with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. As of July 1, 2016, jurisdiction over these disputes was transferred to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

10. Order Nunc Pro Tunc: This order was issued to correct a clerical error regarding the date of the decision’s certification. It retroactively established January 9, 2017, as the official date of issuance for the certification of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

1. The Hierarchy of Governing Documents: Analyze how the conflict between the CC&Rs and the By-Laws impacted the Association’s compliance. Discuss the legal implications when internal documents provide conflicting instructions for fiduciary duties like financial audits.

2. Fiduciary Transparency and Homeowner Rights: Evaluate the Association’s conduct in responding to the Petitioner’s repeated requests for financial records. Discuss whether the Association’s suggestions—such as charging $35 for a copy of the audit—align with the statutory requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1243(J).

3. Administrative Law Processes: Explain the process by which an Administrative Law Judge’s decision becomes a final agency action. Refer specifically to the role of the Department of Real Estate in accepting, rejecting, or modifying a decision within the statutory 30-day window.

4. The Significance of Civil Penalties: Assess the ALJ’s decision to impose a $5,000 civil penalty. Consider the Petitioner’s claim of “ongoing and flagrant refusal” versus the Respondent’s claim that penalties harm innocent homeowners.

5. Financial Discrepancies and Audit Importance: The Petitioner testified that the final audit showed discrepancies compared to previous financial compilations. Discuss why an independent audit is a critical tool for condominium associations compared to simpler financial “compilations” or “reviews.”

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding officer who conducts hearings and issues recommendations or decisions in disputes involving government agencies.

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

The Arizona Revised Statute governing the financial reporting and audit requirements for condominium associations.

An official examination and verification of financial accounts and records by an independent certified public accountant (CPA).

By-Laws

The internal rules and regulations that govern the administration and management of an association.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

Legal documents that lay out the rules of a community or condominium and are binding on all property owners within that association.

Civil Penalty

A financial punishment imposed by a government agency or court for a violation of laws or regulations, distinct from criminal fines.

Compilation

A basic financial report that organizes an association’s financial data into financial statement format without providing any assurance or auditing.

Nunc Pro Tunc

A Latin legal phrase meaning “now for then,” used to correct an order retroactively to correct a previous clerical error or omission.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal proceeding or petition, in this case, the homeowner Barbara Printy.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning the evidence shows that a claim is more likely to be true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a legal petition is filed, in this case, Olive Grove Village Association Inc.

Review

A financial reporting service that is more analytical than a compilation but less thorough than a full audit.

Case

Agency: ADRE
Tribunal: OAH
Docket No: 16F-H1616010-BFS
Case Title: Barbara Printy v. Olive Grove Village Association Inc.
Decision Date: 2016-11-14
Alj Name: Tammy L. Eigenheer

Parties

Party Id: P1
Role: petitioner
Name: Barbara Printy
Party Type: homeowner
Attorney Name: Phil Whitaker
Attorney Firm: STEGALL KATZ & WHITAKER P.C.

Party Id: R1
Role: respondent
Name: Olive Grove Village Association Inc.
Party Type: HOA
Attorney Name: Jonathan Ebertshauser
Attorney Firm: Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen PLC

Issues

Summary

Issue Id

ISS-001

Type

statute

Citation

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Caption

Failure to obtain annual financial audit

Violation(S)

Failure to complete 2014 financial audit within 90 days (CC&Rs) or 180 days (Statute) of fiscal year end.

Outcome

petitioner_win

Filing Fee Paid

750.0

Filing Fee Refunded

True

Civil Penalty Amount

5000.0

Orders Summary

Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $750.00 filing fee and pay Department $5,000.00 civil penalty.

Cited

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Money Summary

Issues Count: 1
Total Filing Fees Paid: 750.0
Total Filing Fees Refunded: 750.0
Total Civil Penalties: 5000.0

Outcomes

Petitioner Is Hoa

False

Petitioner Win

yes

Summarize Judgement

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Barbara Printy (Petitioner)
Phil Whitaker (Petitioner's Attorney)
Stegall Katz & Whitaker P.C.
Also listed as Philip B. Whitaker

Respondent Side

Olive Grove Village Association Inc. (Respondent)
Association of condominium owners
Jonathan Ebertshauser (Respondent's Attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen PLC
Affiliation inferred from mailing list address for Respondent's counsel

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Certification of Decision
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision transmission
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed mailing/transmission certification

Kesha A. Hodge v. Cottonfields Community Association

Posted on April 18, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1516002-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-04-18
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The ALJ recommended dismissal, finding that the Board's action to withdraw Notices of Errata did not legally amend the community documents and thus did not require the member approval mandated for amendments. The Department of Fire Building and Life Safety certified the decision.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Kesha A. Hodge	Counsel	—
Respondent	Cottonfields Community Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

Declaration Section 14.2; REMA Article 5 § 5.1, Article 12

Outcome Summary

The ALJ recommended dismissal, finding that the Board's action to withdraw Notices of Errata did not legally amend the community documents and thus did not require the member approval mandated for amendments. The Department of Fire Building and Life Safety certified the decision.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove a violation because the Withdrawals did not legally amend the Declaration or REMA, rendering the requirement for a member vote inapplicable.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Amendment/Withdrawal of Notices

Petitioner alleged that the Board's vote to withdraw Notices of Errata and allow the Golf Course Owner to use property differently constituted an amendment requiring a two-thirds member vote, which was not obtained.

Orders: Complaint dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

15F-H1516002-BFS Decision – 491229.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:54:37 (72.9 KB)

15F-H1516002-BFS Decision – 491324.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:54:41 (52.5 KB)

15F-H1516002-BFS Decision – 499789.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:54:45 (60.0 KB)

Administrative Law Decision: Hodge vs. Cottonfields Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative legal proceedings in the case of Kesha A. Hodge vs. Cottonfields Community Association (No. 15F-H1516002-BFS). The dispute centered on whether the Association’s Board of Directors violated community governing documents by voting to record "Notices of Withdrawal" regarding previous "Notices of Errata" without obtaining a two-thirds majority vote from the membership.

The Petitioner, Kesha A. Hodge, alleged that the Board's actions in July 2015 effectively altered land-use restrictions on the Southern Ridge Golf Club property in violation of the Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA) and the Association’s Declaration. The Respondent argued that these filings were administrative notices with no legal effect on the underlying land-use restrictions.

The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) concluded that the Board’s recording of Withdrawals did not constitute an amendment to the community documents. Consequently, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended the dismissal of the complaint, a decision that was certified as the final administrative decision on June 3, 2016.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Governance and Authority Structures

The relationship between the Cottonfields Community Association and the Southern Ridge Golf Club is governed by two primary documents:

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (The Declaration): Specifically Section 7.9, which grants the Board authority to enter into and perform obligations under the REMA without member consent, except where member approval is expressly required.
The Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA): A contract between the Association and the golf course owner (Jaguar Premium Properties, LLP) governing the use of the Golf Course Property.

2. The Conflict of Land Use Restrictions

At the heart of the dispute is Section 5.1 of the REMA, which stipulates that the Golf Course Property must be used "solely and exclusively for Golf Course Use or as open space." Article 12 of the REMA protects this restriction by requiring that any modification to Section 5.1 must receive written approval from two-thirds of the Association's members, mirroring the requirements for amending the Declaration itself.

3. The Sequence of Legal Filings (2011–2015)

The case involves a complex history of board-level actions and litigation:

2011 Revisions: The Board attempted to revise the definition of the Golf Course Property. Due to internal disagreement over whether this required a member vote, the Board recorded Notices of Errata, declaring the revisions void.
2014 Litigation: The golf course owner, Jaguar, sued the Association over the validity of these revisions and the Notices of Errata.
2015 Settlement and "Withdrawals": To settle the litigation, the Board voted (4-1) to record Notices of Withdrawal of the 2011 Notices of Errata.

4. Jurisdiction and the Nature of "Amendments"

The Department of Fire Building and Life Safety has jurisdiction over disputes regarding violations of "community documents" (declarations, bylaws, articles of incorporation, and rules). The central legal question was whether a "Notice of Withdrawal" functions as an amendment to a declaration. The OAH determined that while these notices provide public notice of a dispute or a change in board position, they do not possess the legal weight to rescind or ratify an actual land-use restriction.

Important Quotes with Context

On Board Authority

"Except to the extent that the Reciprocal Easement Agreement expressly requires the approval of Members… the Board shall have the power and authority (without the consent of any Members or any other Person) to make decisions and take all actions by, for and on behalf of the Association." — Section 7.9.3 of the Declaration

Context: This provision establishes the Board's broad powers to manage the REMA, which the Association used to justify the July 2015 vote to record the Withdrawals without a membership-wide vote.

On Use Restrictions

"The Golf Course Property shall be used solely and exclusively for Golf Course Use or as open space and for no other purposes." — Section 5.1 of the REMA

Context: This is the specific protection the Petitioner argued was being circumvented by the Board’s procedural filings.

On the Petitioner’s Allegation

"The Board… voted to withdraw the Notices of Erratas… and to allow the Golf Course Owner to use portions of the Golf Course Property in a manner other than as open space and/or golf course, even though the proposed change… had not received the written approval of the required number of members." — Kesha A. Hodge, Single Issue Petition (August 12, 2015)

Context: This summarizes the Petitioner's claim that the Board was using administrative filings (Withdrawals) to bypass the democratic requirements of the community.

On the Legal Finality of the Filings

"While the Notices of Errata may have given the public notice that the Revisions were not validly executed, that is not to say that they rescinded the Revisions. Similarly, it cannot be said that the Withdrawals had the effect of ratifying the Revisions." — Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Context: This finding was the basis for the dismissal. The ALJ ruled that the "Withdrawals" were essentially legally neutral regarding the validity of the underlying 2011 revisions.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners and Members

Distinguish Between Notice and Substance: Homeowners should be aware that not every document recorded by a Board constitutes a formal amendment to community CC&Rs. Administrative notices (like Notices of Errata) may signal a Board's intent or legal position without legally altering the underlying property rights.
Statutory Timelines: The right to challenge an administrative decision is time-sensitive. Per A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(A), a party has a limited window to request a rehearing or seek judicial review in Superior Court before those rights are lost.

For Association Boards

Legal Counsel as a Shield: The Cottonfields Board successfully argued that their actions were based on the advice of counsel and were part of a litigation settlement. Documenting the legal rationale for procedural votes can provide a defense against claims of document violations.
Recording Administrative Actions: While the Board won this case, the confusion surrounding the 2011 Revisions and the 2015 Withdrawals suggests that recording contradictory notices (Errata vs. Withdrawal) can lead to protracted administrative litigation, even if the Board's actions are ultimately found to be within their authority.

Final Case Status

Action	Date
ALJ Decision Issued	April 18, 2016
Recommendation	Dismissal of Complaint
Certification of Final Decision	June 3, 2016
Effective Date of Orders	40 days from Certification

Note: This document is based solely on the provided excerpts of the OAH case records for Case No. 15F-H1516002-BFS.

Study Guide: Hodge v. Cottonfields Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal case Kesha A. Hodge vs. Cottonfields Community Association (No. 15F-H1516002-BFS). It examines the governance of planned communities, the interpretation of community documents, and the administrative hearing process in Arizona.

I. Case Overview and Core Themes

The case centers on a dispute between a homeowner (Petitioner) and a planned community association (Respondent) regarding the Board of Directors' authority to record legal notices without a vote from the general membership.

Key Entities

Petitioner: Kesha A. Hodge, a homeowner in the Cottonfields Community.
Respondent: Cottonfields Community Association ("Association" or "the Board").
Jaguar Premium Properties, LLP: The owner of the Southern Ridge Golf Club ("Golf Course Property").
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH): The tribunal responsible for adjudicating the dispute.
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety: The state agency with jurisdiction over planned community document violations.

Central Arguments

Petitioner's Stance: The Board violated community documents by recording "Notices of Withdrawal" that essentially ratified land-use changes to the golf course property without the required two-thirds member approval.
Respondent's Stance: The recording of "Notices of Withdrawal" was a administrative action related to a legal settlement and did not constitute an amendment to the community documents; therefore, no member vote was required.

II. Key Concepts and Governing Documents

1. Community Documents

The legal relationship between the parties is governed by two primary sets of documents:

The Declaration: Specifically, the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for The Bougainvillea (Cottonfields Community).
The REMA: The Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement between the Association and the owner of the Golf Course Property.

2. Relevant Provisions

Declaration Section 7.9: Grants the Board authority to enter into and perform obligations under the REMA without member consent, except where the REMA expressly requires member approval.
Declaration Section 14.2: Establishes that amendments to the Declaration require a two-thirds vote of the Association members.
REMA Section 5.1: Restricts the use of the Golf Course Property "solely and exclusively for Golf Course Use or as open space."
REMA Article 12: Prohibits modifications to Section 5.1 without the written approval of the same number of members required to amend the Declaration (two-thirds).

3. Procedural History of the Dispute

2011 Revisions: The Board voted to revise the definition of "Golf Course Property." Following disagreements, the Board recorded "Notices of Errata" claiming the revisions were void.
2014-2015 Litigation: Jaguar sued the Association over the validity of the revisions.
2015 Settlement: To settle the lawsuit, the Board voted to record "Notices of Withdrawal," effectively retracting the Notices of Errata.
2016 ALJ Decision: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded the Withdrawals were not amendments and recommended dismissal of the complaint.

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. According to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1802, what four types of documents are defined as "community documents"?

Answer: The declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation (if any), and rules (if any).

2. What was the specific factual basis for Kesha Hodge's petition filed on August 12, 2015?

Answer: The Petitioner alleged that the Board's July 22, 2015, vote to record "Notices of Withdrawal" allowed the golf course owner to use the property for purposes other than open space/golf course without obtaining the required member approval.

3. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclude that the 2011 "Revisions" were not the issue in this specific case?

Answer: Because the Petitioner’s complaint specifically concerned the July 22, 2015, vote to record the "Withdrawals" of the Notices of Errata.

4. What threshold of member approval is required to amend the Declaration or modify Section 5.1 of the REMA?

Answer: A two-thirds (2/3) vote of the members of the Association.

5. What is the consequence if the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety fails to take action on an ALJ decision within the statutory timeframe?

Answer: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D), the ALJ decision is certified as the final administrative decision.

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The "Meaningless" Document Argument: Analyze the Respondent’s argument that the "Notices of Withdrawal" were "essentially meaningless." Contrast this with the Petitioner’s argument that "land use restrictions must be recorded." How did the ALJ reconcile these opposing views to determine that the Board did not violate the Declaration?

2. Board Authority vs. Member Consent: Discuss the tension between Declaration Section 7.9 (granting the Board power to act on behalf of the Association) and REMA Article 12 (requiring member approval for land use changes). In the context of a legal settlement (like the one with Jaguar), where should the line be drawn between administrative board duty and member voting rights?

3. Administrative Review Process: Detail the timeline and procedural steps required for an ALJ recommendation to become a final order. Include the role of the OAH, the specific state department involved, and the rights of the parties to seek rehearing or judicial review in Superior Court.

V. Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition per Source Context
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B)	The statute granting the Department jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and planned community associations regarding document violations.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	The official who presides over the hearing, evaluates evidence, and issues a recommended decision to the state agency.
Certification of Decision	The process by which an ALJ decision becomes final, often occurring automatically if the agency director takes no action within a set period (e.g., until May 23, 2016, in this case).
Dismissal with Prejudice	The termination of litigation (specifically the 2014 Jaguar vs. Association case) that prevents the same claim from being filed again.
Notice of Errata	A recorded document used in this case to publicly state that previous revisions to the REMA were purportedly void and unenforceable.
Notice of Withdrawal	The document recorded by the Board in 2015 to retract the Notices of Errata as part of a settlement agreement.
Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA)	A contract governing the operation and use of the Golf Course Property within the community.
Res Judicata	A legal doctrine asserted by the Respondent suggesting that the matter had already been adjudicated or settled and could not be pursued again (though the ALJ focused on other grounds).
Summary Judgment	A legal motion requesting the judge to decide the case based on the facts provided without a full trial; both parties in this case filed cross-motions for this.

Understanding the Cottonfields Dispute: When HOA Board Decisions Meet Property Restrictions

1. Introduction: A Community in Conflict

The Cottonfields Community and the adjacent Southern Ridge Golf Club recently served as the backdrop for a sophisticated legal battle concerning the boundaries of board authority. The dispute between homeowner Kesha A. Hodge and the Cottonfields Community Association centered on a fundamental question in community association law: Can administrative filings—such as "Notices of Errata"—be used to bypass substantive voting requirements for land-use changes?

This analysis examines Case No. 15F-H1516002-BFS, heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings. As a Real Estate & Community Association Law Analyst, I will explore the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, which serves as a critical reminder that the procedural "paper trail" created by a Board cannot substitute for the substantive legal processes mandated by a community's governing instruments.

2. The Foundation: REMA and the 2/3 Rule

The legal framework of the Cottonfields Community is anchored by its Declaration and a specific servitude known as the Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA). These documents dictate the relationship between the residential lots and the golf course property.

The Declaration: The master governing document.
Section 1.37: Establishes and defines the "Reciprocal Easement Agreement" (REMA).
Section 7.9: Grants the Association authority to perform REMA obligations but explicitly limits the Board's power in Section 7.9.3, stating that Member approval is required whenever the REMA expressly mandates it.
The REMA (Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement): A recorded servitude binding the Association and the golf course owner.
Section 5.1 (Golf Course Use/Open Space): Explicitly restricts the Golf Course Property to be used "solely and exclusively for Golf Course Use or as open space."
Article 12: Requires a specific amendment threshold—any change to the land-use restrictions in Section 5.1 must be approved by the same number of members required to amend the Declaration.

The "Two-Thirds Rule" Per Section 14.2 of the Declaration, any substantive amendment requires the approval of two-thirds of the Association members. This supermajority requirement acts as a safeguard against unilateral board decisions that could fundamentally alter the community's character.

3. The Timeline of the Dispute (2011–2015)

The conflict was not the result of a single action, but a years-long administrative and legal saga:

The 2011 Board Revisions: The Board voted twice to amend the REMA to revise the definition of "Golf Course Property" found in Recital C. Amid internal legal concerns that these revisions lacked the required 2/3 member vote, the Board recorded "Notices of Errata," effectively flagging the revisions as void and unenforceable.
2014–2015 Litigation: The Association and the golf course owner, Jaguar Premium Properties, entered into litigation regarding the validity of the 2011 Revisions and the subsequent Errata.
July 2015 Settlement & Withdrawal: To settle the litigation, the Board voted 4-1 to record "Notices of Withdrawal" regarding the 2011 Notices of Errata.
August 2015 Petition: Petitioner Hodge filed a Single Issue Petition with the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety. She alleged that by withdrawing the "void" notices, the Board effectively ratified the 2011 Revisions and changed land-use restrictions without the mandatory 2/3 member vote.

4. The Legal Technicality: Notice vs. Amendment

The crux of this case was whether the Board’s "Withdrawal of Errata" constituted a substantive amendment to the community’s land-use protections.

Perspective	Argument / Reasoning
Petitioner's Argument (Hodge)	Hodge argued that land-use restrictions must be recorded to be effective. She contended that by recording "Withdrawals" of the previous Errata, the Board essentially ratified the 2011 Revisions, thereby bypassing the 2/3 voting requirement.
Respondent's/ALJ's Conclusion	The Board’s "Withdrawals" were legally "meaningless." Because the 2011 Revisions were never validly enacted via a 2/3 vote, they were void ab initio. Withdrawing an Errata (a notice of dispute) cannot magically breathe life into a void action.

The ALJ’s synthesis was sharp: The "Notices of Errata" did not originally rescind the 2011 Revisions; they merely provided public notice of a dispute. Consequently, withdrawing those notices did not "ratify" the revisions. As the ALJ noted, the Withdrawals "had no legal effect" on amending the actual governing documents. In short, the Board’s administrative filings were merely "noise" atop a void action; they did not constitute a formal amendment to the REMA or Declaration.

5. The Final Verdict: Dismissal and Certification

In Case No. 15F-H1516002-BFS, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer found that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of the community documents because the Board's vote did not—and could not—legally amend the REMA without a member vote.

The administrative process followed a strict two-step procedure:

Recommendation: On April 18, 2016, Judge Eigenheer recommended the dismissal of the complaint.
Final Certification: Under the authority of A.R.S. § 41-1092.08, Interim Director Greg Hanchett certified the decision as the final administrative action on June 3, 2016, after the Department took no action to reject or modify the recommendation within the statutory timeframe.

6. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

The Cottonfields case provides essential professional lessons for those navigating the complexities of community association governance:

Authority Limits: Boards must distinguish between administrative tasks and substantive amendments. A board cannot use "notices" or "errata" to bypass member voting rights when a change impacts land-use protections like the REMA.
The Power of Jurisdiction: Homeowners should be aware of A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B). In Arizona, the Department has the jurisdiction to hear disputes, but only when they concern actual violations of the recorded "community documents" (Declarations, Bylaws, etc.).
Legal "Errata" vs. Substantive Compliance: Recording a notice may alter the public record's "paper trail," but it does not carry the legal weight required to alter established servitudes. If an underlying action (like the 2011 Revisions) was invalid at its inception, no amount of administrative filing can rectify it.

Final Thought: This case highlights that transparency and compliance are not interchangeable. While the Board’s various notices provided the public with information about a dispute, they could not replace the rigorous 2/3 member vote required for substantive land-use changes. For community members, the lesson is clear: The strength of your property protections lies in the specific amendment procedures dictated by your Declaration.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Kesha A. Hodge (Petitioner)
Cottonfields Community
Homeowner

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Debra Blake (Interim Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Joni Cage (Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
c/o for Debra Blake
M. Aguirre (Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Clerk/Admin
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Certification of Decision
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Clerk/Admin

John & Debborah Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek

Posted on July 7, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1515003-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-07-07
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The ALJ concluded that Petitioners established a violation regarding the Giambanco affidavit and Manager's Report, as these were association records not provided. However, Petitioners failed to establish violations regarding other requested documents (insurance, policy amendments, bids) as the evidence showed these documents did not exist or were not in Respondent's possession at the time of the request.
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John & Debborah Sellers	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Crossings at Willow Creek	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ concluded that Petitioners established a violation regarding the Giambanco affidavit and Manager's Report, as these were association records not provided. However, Petitioners failed to establish violations regarding other requested documents (insurance, policy amendments, bids) as the evidence showed these documents did not exist or were not in Respondent's possession at the time of the request.

Why this result: For the specific records not awarded, the ALJ found the documents did not exist or were not retained by the Respondent at the time of the request.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records (Giambanco affidavit and Manager's Report)

Petitioners alleged Respondent failed to provide requested documents (affidavit, insurance records, policy amendments, RV road access, manager's report, and bids) within the statutory 10-day timeframe.

Orders: Respondent is ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 and provide Petitioners with copies of the Giambanco affidavit and the Manager's Report within ten days. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

15F-H1515003-BFS Decision – 447655.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:52:32 (126.7 KB)

15F-H1515003-BFS Decision – 453308.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:52:41 (64.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law case John & Debborah Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek (No. 15F-H1515003-BFS). The dispute centered on an allegation that the Respondent, a homeowners' association, violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by failing to provide various association records requested by the Petitioners in January 2015.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Respondent failed to comply with the statute regarding two specific documents: the "Giambanco affidavit" and the "Manager’s Report." While the Respondent argued these documents were either not in their possession or did not contain useful information, the ALJ ruled that accessibility and content utility do not negate the statutory obligation to provide records. Consequently, the Respondent was ordered to produce the documents and reimburse the Petitioners for their $550.00 filing fee. The decision was certified as final on August 18, 2015.

Procedural History

January 29, 2015: Petitioners emailed a formal records request to the property management company, AMCOR.
February 27, 2015: Petitioners filed a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety alleging statutory violations.
June 17, 2015: A formal hearing was held before ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer.
July 7, 2015: The ALJ issued a decision finding the Respondent in partial violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
August 18, 2015: The decision was certified as the final administrative action after the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety took no action to modify or reject the ruling.

Analysis of Records Request and Findings

The following table details the seven items requested by the Petitioners and the ALJ’s findings for each:

Requested Record	Respondent’s Defense	ALJ Finding / Outcome
1. Giambanco Affidavit (2007)	Not in Respondent's possession; questioned the Petitioners' need for it.	Violation. The document was an association record accessible via legal counsel. The "need" for the document is irrelevant.
2. Employee Dishonesty Insurance Records	Not in possession initially; later obtained from the carrier and offered to Petitioners.	No Violation. Petitioners failed to prove the document existed in Respondent's possession at the time of the request.
3. Member Notification Policy Amendments	No such policy or amendments existed.	No Violation. Petitioners failed to prove the documents existed.
4. RV Road Access Records	Provided a payment document for a sign; did not retain the actual invoice.	No Violation. Petitioners failed to prove the document existed at the time of the request.
5. Manager’s Report (Jan 21, 2015)	Claimed pages were blank or only contained bullet points; utility was questioned.	Violation. The report existed in the Board Packet. Content utility is not a basis for denial.
6. Competing Management Bids	Bids were destroyed after AMCOR was selected.	No Violation. The documents did not exist at the time of the request.
7. Statements per ARS 10.11620	Petitioners conceded this issue was moot.	Moot. No ruling required.

Key Themes and Analysis

1. The Scope of "Association Records" and Accessibility

A central theme of the ruling is that an association’s duty to provide records extends beyond documents physically present in their office. The ALJ clarified that if a record is held by the association’s legal counsel, it is considered "accessible" and remains an association record. The Respondent’s failure to contact their attorneys to retrieve the Giambanco affidavit was a primary factor in the finding of a violation.

2. Physical vs. Electronic Record Management

The case highlighted a transition in the association’s record-keeping. When the Respondent was self-managed, records were stored electronically (Google.docs and thumb drives). However, upon hiring AMCOR, these electronic records were printed into hard copies. The ALJ ruled that while the electronic versions might still exist on the internet, they no longer constituted the "association’s records" once the management company elected to maintain only hard copies for inspection and production.

3. Record Retention vs. Statutory Production

The Petitioners argued that the Respondent violated its own record retention policy by destroying competing bids and failing to keep invoices. However, the ALJ noted that a violation of a retention policy does not automatically constitute a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. The statute governs the production of existing records; it does not mandate the creation or preservation of records that no longer exist, regardless of why they were destroyed.

Important Quotes and Legal Context

Statutory Requirement for Production

"The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records." — A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

On Accessibility of Records

"While the affidavit may not have been in Respondent’s possession at the time of the request, it was an association record that was accessible to Respondent had it sought to obtain a copy from counsel." — Conclusion of Law ¶ 5

On the Irrelevance of Document Content

"Whether that information would be useful to anyone is not a basis to deny the request. Again, Respondent did not establish that the document was covered by an exception to the statute…" — Conclusion of Law ¶ 6 (regarding the Manager's Report)

On the Burden of Proof

"Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805." — Conclusion of Law ¶ 2

Recommended Order and Final Action

The ALJ recommended, and the Office of Administrative Hearings certified, the following orders:

Production of Records: Respondent must provide the Giambanco affidavit and the Manager’s Report within ten days of the Order.
Financial Restitution: Respondent must pay the Petitioners $550.00 (the cost of the filing fee) within 30 days of the effective date.

Actionable Insights

Proactive Document Retrieval: Associations must realize that records held by third-party agents (such as attorneys or past management companies) are still subject to member inspection requests under A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Utility is Not a Defense: Associations cannot withhold records based on the belief that the records contain "useless" information or bullet points, provided the records do not fall under specific statutory exceptions (e.g., privileged legal advice).
Proof of Existence: Petitioners in these matters must be prepared to prove that the records they are seeking actually exist. The court cannot order the production of documents that have been destroyed, even if that destruction was arguably in bad faith or against a retention policy.
Management Transitions: When moving from self-management to a professional management company, associations should clearly define which medium (electronic or physical) constitutes the official record to ensure compliance with inspection requests.

Study Guide: Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek (Case No. 15F-H1515003-BFS)

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law proceedings regarding a dispute between homeowners and their homeowners association (HOA). It covers the legal standards for records requests, the specific findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and the resulting legal obligations.

Key Concepts and Case Summary

1. Legal Basis: A.R.S. § 33-1805

The central legal statute in this case is A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs the management of records for planned community associations. Under this statute:

Availability: All financial and other records of an association must be made reasonably available for examination by a member or their designated representative.
Timeframes: Associations have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.
Fees: Associations may charge for copies, but the fee cannot exceed fifteen cents per page.

2. Burden of Proof

In administrative hearings of this nature, the Petitioners (the homeowners) bear the burden of proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence. This means they must demonstrate that it is "more probable than not" that the Respondent violated the law.

3. Record Possession vs. Accessibility

A key legal finding in this case was that an association is responsible for records that are "accessible" even if they are not in the association's immediate physical possession. If a document (such as a legal affidavit) is held by the association's counsel, it is still considered an association record that must be produced upon request.

4. Destruction and Existence of Records

The ALJ determined that an association cannot be found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 for failing to produce documents that:

Do not exist: Such as policies that were never formally adopted.
Have been destroyed: Such as competing bids that were discarded after a contract was awarded.
Are not retained: Such as specific invoices for which no copy was kept.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

Who were the Petitioners and the Respondent in this case?
What was the specific statutory violation alleged by the Petitioners?
According to A.R.S. § 33-1805, how many business days does an association have to provide requested copies of records?
How much was the filing fee paid by the Petitioners to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety?
Why did the ALJ rule that the failure to provide the "Giambanco affidavit" was a violation, even though the Respondent did not have it in their immediate possession?
What happened to the competing bids from Hoamco, Liberty Management, and G&D Development?
What was the Respondent’s initial claim regarding pages 21–23 of the Board Package (the Manager’s Report), and how did they later clarify this?
Did the ALJ find that the Respondent was required to allow inspection of electronic records on Google.docs? Why or why not?
What specific documents was the Respondent ordered to provide within ten days of the final Order?
If the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action on the ALJ’s decision by August 12, 2015, what was the legal result?

Essay Questions for Deeper Exploration

1. The Scope of Association Records

The Respondent argued they did not know why the Petitioners needed the Giambanco affidavit. Analyze the ALJ's conclusion regarding the relevance of a member's motive when requesting records under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Does the association have the legal right to vet the necessity of a request before fulfilling it?

2. Record Retention Policies vs. Statutory Compliance

During the hearing, Mr. Sellers presented a record retention policy that he claimed the Respondent failed to follow. Discuss the ALJ’s distinction between a violation of an internal record retention policy and a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. Why did the ALJ rule that the retention policy was not relevant to the statutory determination?

3. Electronic vs. Physical Records Management

The Respondent transitioned from self-management to using a professional management company (AMCOR), during which electronic records were printed into hard copies and the electronic versions were no longer updated. Evaluate the legal implications of this transition as it relates to a member’s right to inspect records. How does the medium (electronic vs. hard copy) affect the association's obligations?

Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	An official who presides over an administrative hearing, hears evidence, and issues a decision or recommended order.
AMCOR	AMCOR Property Professionals, Inc., the property management company hired by The Crossings at Willow Creek.
A.R.S. § 33-1805	The Arizona Revised Statute that mandates the availability of association records to its members.
Association Record	Any financial or other document related to the operation of a homeowners association that is subject to member inspection.
Giambanco Affidavit	A specific legal document from 2007, signed by a board member, which became a central point of contention in the records request.
Manager’s Report	A document (or section of a Board Package) outlining updates from the property management company; in this case, it consisted of specific bullet points for discussion.
Petitioners	The parties who file a complaint or petition (in this case, John and Debborah Sellers).
Preponderance of the Evidence	The evidentiary standard in civil and administrative cases where a fact is proven if it is more likely than not to be true.
Respondent	The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed (in this case, The Crossings at Willow Creek).
Statutory Timeframe	The legally mandated period within which an action must be taken (e.g., ten business days for record production).

Transparency at The Crossings: A Case Study in Homeowner Rights and Record Access

1. Introduction: The Conflict Over Disclosure

In the realm of planned communities, transparency is not a courtesy—it is a statutory mandate. Yet, all too often, homeowners are met with stonewalling and administrative "runarounds" when they attempt to exercise their right to oversight. Such was the case for John and Debborah Sellers, who in early 2015 found themselves locked in a legal battle with "The Crossings at Willow Creek" homeowners association.

The dispute centered on the association’s failure to produce vital records within the ten-business-day window required by Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805. What began as a standard records request escalated to a formal hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings on June 17, 2015. The resulting decision, certified as final on August 18, 2015, serves as a landmark reminder that an HOA cannot hide behind its legal counsel or its management company to evade the law.

2. The 10-Day Rule: Understanding A.R.S. § 33-1805

The legal backbone of this case is A.R.S. § 33-1805, which establishes the "Homeowner’s Bill of Rights" regarding association records. As synthesized from the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) Conclusions of Law, the statute imposes the following strict obligations:

Broad Availability: All financial and other records of the association must be made "reasonably available" for examination by any member or their designated representative.
The Ten-Day Mandate: The association has precisely ten business days to fulfill a request for either the examination of records or the delivery of copies.
Capped Costs: While the act of reviewing records must be free of charge, the association may charge a copying fee, strictly limited to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.
Mandatory Disclosure: Unless a document falls under specific, narrow legal exceptions (such as attorney-client privilege or personal privacy), it must be produced regardless of the board's opinion on its utility.

3. The Information Gap: What the Homeowners Requested

On January 29, 2015, the Sellers—one of whom is a trained banker—submitted a written request for seven specific categories of records. Their background in finance made the discrepancies they observed in the 2014 accounts particularly concerning.

Requested Document	Brief Description/Context
1. Giambanco Affidavit	A November 2007 document signed by Board Member Peter Giambanco, prepared by the association's counsel (Ekmark & Ekmark) for a prior OAH hearing.
2. Employee Dishonesty Insurance	Policy copies and communications regarding additional coverage approved at the October 1, 2013, Board meeting.
3. Notification Policy Amendments	Records regarding a June 6, 2013, policy update involving member notification of Board meetings via post.
4. RV Road/Pioneer Park Access	Records and invoices regarding the closure of public access to Pioneer Park via the Association-owned RV road.
5. Manager’s Report	The report and contemporaneous notes from the January 21, 2015, Board Meeting (pages 21–23 of the Board Package).
6. Competing Management Bids	Written proposals from Hoamco, Liberty Management, and G&D Development (other than the winning firm, AMCOR).
7. A.R.S. § 10-11620 Statements	Explanatory statements regarding accounting changes; the Sellers noted the 2014 accounts differed substantially in format. (Later deemed moot during the hearing as info was eventually provided).

4. Defense vs. Reality: The Association’s Arguments

During the proceedings, the Association relied on a defense of "non-existence" and "loss of possession," arguments that the Judge viewed with varying degrees of skepticism.

The Miracle of the Missing Policy

Regarding the "Employee Dishonesty Insurance," the Association initially claimed it had no records. However, once the Sellers filed their petition, the Association "miraculously" contacted the insurance carrier, obtained the documents, and offered them months later. This highlights a common HOA tactic: claiming a record doesn't exist simply because it isn't currently in the desk drawer of the board president.

The Case of the Destroyed Bids

The Association admitted that once AMCOR was selected as the management company, the competing bids from Hoamco, Liberty, and G&D Development were destroyed. While the Judge ruled this was not a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805—because the records did not exist at the time of the request—this is a cautionary tale for homeowners. The law only requires the production of records that exist; it does not necessarily punish the prior "proper" destruction of documents unless a specific retention statute is proven.

Electronic vs. Hard Copy: A Warning

The Sellers argued that because the records were once maintained on Google.Docs and a thumb drive, they should be accessible electronically. However, management (AMCOR) testified they had converted everything to hard copies. The ALJ ruled that once an HOA chooses to maintain its records in hard copy format to facilitate inspection, it is not legally required to provide them in an electronic format it no longer utilizes.

5. Precedent Set: Why Possession Does Not Equal Ownership

The ALJ found the Association in direct violation of state law regarding two specific items. These rulings set a critical precedent for homeowner rights.

Constructive Possession: The Giambanco Affidavit

The Association tried to deflect responsibility by claiming they didn't have the 2007 affidavit—their lawyers, Ekmark & Ekmark, did. The Judge flatly rejected this, establishing the principle of constructive possession: If a document is held by the Association’s agents (lawyers or managers), it is an accessible "association record." Furthermore, the Association’s query into why the Sellers wanted the affidavit was ruled irrelevant. An HOA is not a gatekeeper of motive; if the record is requested, it must be produced.

The "Useless" Manager’s Report

The Association initially claimed pages 21–23 of the Board Package were blank. They later admitted the pages contained bullet points for the manager’s discussion topics but argued the info wasn't "useful." The Judge ruled that utility is not a legal basis for withholding documents. If the document contains information—even just bullet points—it is a record subject to disclosure.

6. The Final Order: Restoring Accountability

On July 7, 2015, the Administrative Law Judge issued an order designed to penalize the Association’s delays and restore the Sellers' rights:

Mandatory Production: The Association was ordered to provide the Giambanco affidavit and the Manager’s Report within ten days.
Cost-Shifting Reimbursement: Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01, the Association was ordered to reimburse the Sellers their $550.00 filing fee. While the Association may view this as a penalty, the law views it as a necessary restoration of the homeowners' finances after being forced to litigate for records they were legally entitled to from the start.

7. Conclusion: The Homeowner's Bill of Rights for Record Access

The Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek case is a blueprint for how homeowners can successfully challenge HOA secrecy. The key takeaways form a modern "Bill of Rights" for record access:

Agents’ Files are Association Files: Records held by your HOA's attorney or management company are legally "in the possession" of the HOA.
Motive is Legally Irrelevant: You do not need a "good reason" to see your Association's records. The board cannot demand a justification.
The 10-Day Clock is Absolute: Associations cannot use administrative transitions or lawyer delays to bypass the ten-business-day deadline.
Content Trumps Form: Whether a report is a polished document or a page of bullet points, if it belongs to the Association, it belongs to the members.

Transparency is the only antidote to community mismanagement. When an HOA fails to provide the "paper trail," the law provides the hammer. Homeowners should never hesitate to demand the accountability they are guaranteed by statute.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John Sellers (petitioner)
Appeared on own behalf
Debborah Sellers (petitioner)
Appeared on own behalf

Respondent Side

Brenda Dozier (representative)
The Crossings at Willow Creek
Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Peter Giambanco (board member)
The Crossings at Willow Creek
Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Dennis May (property manager)
AMCOR Property Professionals, Inc.
President of AMCOR
Mrs. Giambanco (unknown)
The Crossings at Willow Creek
Alleged note keeper for board meetings
Robin Thomas (property manager)
AMCOR Property Professionals Inc
Copied on final certification

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Debra Blake (Interim Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the decision
Joni Cage (staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
c/o for Debra Blake
Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed mailing certification

Case Summary

Parties & Counsel

Alleged Violations

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to repair and maintain exterior walls

Failure to provide requested association records

Analytics Highlights

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818025-REL Decision – 630610.pdf

Administrative Hearing Brief: Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes HOA

Executive Summary

Case Overview

Petition 1: Failure to Repair Exterior Walls (Denied)

Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

Conclusion of Law and Ruling

Petition 2: Failure to Provide Association Records (Upheld)

Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

Conclusion of Law and Ruling

Final Order and Implications

Study Guide: Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes HOA

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Answer Key

Suggested Essay Questions

Glossary of Key Terms

A Homeowner Sued His HOA Over a Cracked Wall. He Lost Because of Bad Photocopies.

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath Battle Against Your HOA

1. Takeaway #1: The Quality of Your Proof Matters More Than the Truth

2. Takeaway #2: Your HOA is on the Hook for Its Management Company’s Failures

3. Takeaway #3: A “Win” Can Be More Complicated Than It Looks

4. Takeaway #4: Vague Requests and Messy Records Create Chaos

Conclusion: The Devil is in the Details

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Respondent Side

Neutral Parties

Case Summary

Parties & Counsel

Alleged Violations

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Decision Documents

17F-H1716022-REL-RHG Decision – 622756.pdf

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Respondent Side

Neutral Parties

Case Summary

Parties & Counsel

Alleged Violations

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Prior to imposing reasonable monetary penalties on Petitioner for violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules of the association, Respondent failed to provide Petitioner proper notice in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).

Analytics Highlights

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1717041-REL Decision – 593953.pdf

Administrative Law Judge Decision Analysis: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Executive Summary

Case Background and Timeline

Central Legal Issue: The Definition of “Notice”

Key Findings and Rulings

Final Decision and Sanctions

Study Guide: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Case No. 18F-H1717041-REL)

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Answer Key

Essay Questions

Glossary of Key Terms

He Ignored a Letter From His HOA. It Cost Him $7,500. Here Are 5 Legal Lessons From His Case.

Introduction: The Dreaded Envelope

1. You Can Be Legally Notified—Even If You Never Open the Letter

2. Dodging Certified Mail Is a Terrible Legal Strategy

3. First-Class Mail Is More Powerful Than You Think

4. In a Dispute, Credibility Is Everything