Tag Archives: TS

William Travis vs. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1817017-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-02-02
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Petitioner's petition, raising three issues concerning the HOA's election nominating process, was dismissed entirely. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner William Travis Counsel —
Respondent The Val Vista Lakes Community Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article VIII
Bylaws Article VIII; Bylaws Article IV, Section 1
ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1812(A), (A)(1), and (A)(2)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition, raising three issues concerning the HOA's election nominating process, was dismissed entirely. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof on all issues. The ALJ found that the Nominating Committee acted within the authority granted by the Bylaws regarding deadlines and nominee selection discretion, and the relevant election statute (A.R.S. § 33-1812) was not applicable to the nomination process.

Key Issues & Findings

Nominating Committee disregarded a September 29, 2017 deadline by which parties were to submit applications to nominate themselves.

Petitioner alleged the Nominating Committee violated Article VIII by accepting applications after the September 29th administrative deadline, arguing the deadline was a 'term[], limitation[], or rule[] adopted by the Board of Directors'.

Orders: The claim was dismissed. The deadline was an administrative deadline set by management, not a rule adopted by the Board, and therefore the Committee did not violate Bylaws Article VIII by accepting applications late.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Bylaws Article VIII

The Nominating Committee exceeded its authority by asking candidates questions that had the effect of imposing qualification requirements for the Board’s Directors that exceed those set out in the Bylaws.

Petitioner alleged that the Committee imposing questions (such as whether an applicant had filed a lawsuit against the Association) created unauthorized qualifications for the Board, violating the Bylaws.

Orders: The claim was dismissed. Bylaws Article IV Section 3 grants the Nominating Committee discretion to determine the number of nominations, and it was not unreasonable for the Committee to question applicants while exercising this explicit discretion.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Bylaws Article VIII
  • Bylaws Article IV, Section 3

By failing to include on the election-ballot members who had submitted 'self-nominations,' the Committee violated election statutes.

Petitioner asserted that because members could not vote for the four applicants the Nominating Committee did not nominate, the Committee engaged in proxy voting, violating election requirements set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1812.

Orders: The claim was dismissed. Because Bylaws Article IV Section 3 requires nominations to be made by the Nominating Committee, nominations are not 'votes allocated to a unit' and ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1812 is not applicable.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1812(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1812(A)(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1812(A)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Nominating Committee, Bylaws Enforcement, Director Qualifications, Administrative Deadline, Statutory Interpretation, Self-Nomination
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1812

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

18F-H1817017-REL Decision – 615818.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:08:39 (125.4 KB)

18F-H1817017-REL Decision – 615818.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:22:17 (125.4 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Travis v. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1817017-REL, concerning a petition filed by William Travis against The Val Vista Lakes Community Association. The core of the dispute revolves around the actions of the Association’s Nominating Committee during the process for the November 16, 2017 Board of Directors election.

Mr. Travis raised three primary allegations: 1) the Committee violated Association Bylaws by accepting candidate applications after a stated September 29, 2017 deadline; 2) the Committee exceeded its authority by interviewing candidates, thereby imposing qualification requirements beyond those stipulated in the Bylaws; and 3) the failure to include all applicants on the ballot constituted a violation of Arizona state statutes related to proxy voting.

The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, dismissed Mr. Travis’s petition in its entirety. The decision found that Travis failed to prove the application deadline was a formal rule adopted by the Board, concluding it was an administrative deadline set by the management company. The Judge determined that the Committee’s actions, including interviewing applicants, were a reasonable exercise of the discretion explicitly granted to it by the Bylaws. Finally, the Judge ruled that the state statute cited by Travis applies to the casting of votes, not the internal nomination process, and was therefore inapplicable to the Committee’s actions. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association was deemed the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Number

18F-H1817017-REL

Petitioner

William Travis

Respondent

The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Hearing Date

January 26, 2018

Decision Date

February 2, 2018

Presiding Judge

Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge

Testifying Parties

William Travis (on his own behalf); Simone McGinnis (Association’s on-site manager)

Petitioner’s Allegations

William Travis’s petition, as amended, centered on three specific issues concerning the Nominating Committee’s conduct for the November 16, 2017 Board election:

1. Violation of Application Deadline: The Committee disregarded a September 29, 2017 deadline for candidate applications. Travis contended that this deadline was a “term, limitation, or rule adopted by the Board,” and by accepting applications after this date, the Committee violated Bylaws Article VIII.

2. Exceeding Authority and Imposing Qualifications: The Committee exceeded its authority by interviewing and questioning applicants. Travis argued that this process had the effect of creating new qualification requirements for Board Directors, beyond the sole requirement of Association membership outlined in Bylaws Article IV. He asserted the Committee had no authority to ask any questions.

3. Statutory Violation of Voting Rights: By failing to place all members who submitted “self-nominations” on the official election ballot, the Committee violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A). Travis claimed this action was tantamount to proxy voting because it prevented members from voting for or against certain candidates.

Key Factual Findings

Election and Nomination Timeline

• August 17, 2017: The Board of Directors appoints Cheryl Peterson-McCoy as the Nominating Committee Chairperson.

• September 12, 2017: The Association’s management company emails residents, announcing three open Board positions and an application deadline of September 29, 2017, at 5:00 p.m.

• By September 29, 2017: Four applications are received. At this point, the members of the Nominating Committee (other than the Chairperson) have not yet been selected.

• After September 29, 2017: The Association accepts four additional applications, including one from Mr. Travis. No revised notice is sent to the membership about an extended deadline.

• October 5, 2017: Mr. Travis, then a Board member, makes an email motion to extend the application deadline to October 16, which is denied.

• October 19, 2017: The Board formally approves six members for the Nominating Committee. Mr. Travis’s subsequent motion at this meeting to extend the deadline fails for lack of a second.

Nominating Committee Actions and Rationale

• The Committee considered all eight applications submitted, including the four received after the initial deadline.

• The Committee scheduled and conducted interviews with all eight applicants.

• During interviews, applicants were asked questions including whether they had ever filed a lawsuit against the Association, were considering filing a lawsuit, or had any compliance violations.

• The Committee ultimately nominated four candidates to be placed on the ballot for the election. Of these four, two had applied by the September 29 deadline and two had applied after.

Association’s Position and Testimony

• Simone McGinnis, the Association’s on-site manager, testified that the September 29 deadline was not imposed by the Board but was an administrative deadline set by the management company to allow time for the nomination and ballot-printing process.

• The Association’s position, articulated at the November 16, 2017 Board meeting, is that the only way to get on the ballot is to be nominated by the Nominating Committee, although write-in candidates are permitted during the election.

• The Board acknowledged that it had only strictly adhered to the Bylaw requirement of using a Nominating Committee for the past two years, after thirty years of non-adherence.

• The Board’s attorney stated that the Committee members have a duty to act reasonably and that any member who disagrees with the Committee’s discretionary choices should seek to amend the bylaws.

Analysis of Governing Documents and Statutes

The judge’s decision rested on the interpretation of specific articles within the Association’s Bylaws and relevant Arizona state law.

Document/Statute

Relevant Provision

Application in this Case

Bylaws Article IV, Section 3

“Nominations for election to the Board of Directors shall be made by a Nominating Committee… The Nominating Committee shall make as many nominations… as it shall in its discretion determine…”

This article grants the Committee explicit discretion to select nominees. It does not provide for “self-nomination” or require the Committee to nominate all applicants.

Bylaws Article VIII

“no committee may take action which exceeds its responsibilities. Each committee shall operate in accordance with any terms, limitations, or rules adopted by the Board.”

Mr. Travis argued the deadline was a “rule adopted by the Board.” The court found no evidence to support this, concluding it was an administrative deadline.

Bylaws Article IV, Section 1

States that Board Directors must be members of the Association. It lists no other qualifications.

Mr. Travis argued that questioning candidates imposed extra qualifications. The court found this was part of the Committee’s discretionary selection process, not the imposition of new formal requirements.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812

Prohibits proxy voting and requires that ballots set forth each proposed action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against it.

The court determined this statute applies to “votes allocated to a unit” (i.e., the member’s vote) and not the nomination process itself, which is governed by the Bylaws.

Conclusions of Law and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge made the following conclusions based on a preponderance of the evidence:

1. Deadline was Administrative: There was no substantial evidence showing the September 29, 2017 deadline was a formal rule adopted by the Board. Therefore, the Nominating Committee did not violate Bylaws Article VIII by accepting applications after this date.

2. Committee Acted Within its Discretion: The plain language of Bylaws Article IV, Section 3 requires nominations to be made by the Committee and grants it discretion. The concept of “self-nomination” is not supported by the Bylaws. It was not unreasonable for the Committee to question applicants as part of exercising its explicit discretion to select nominees.

3. State Voting Statute Not Applicable: The nomination process, as dictated by the Bylaws, is separate from the act of voting. Since ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812 governs “votes allocated to a unit,” it is not applicable to the Committee’s function of selecting nominees.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner William Travis’s petition is dismissed.

The decision is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is requested from the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.

Study Guide: Travis v. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who were the primary parties involved in case number 18F-H1817017-REL, and what were their roles?

2. What were the three central issues that petitioner William Travis raised regarding the Board election held on November 16, 2017?

3. What was the petitioner’s argument concerning the September 29, 2017, application deadline set by the Association?

4. According to the Association’s on-site manager, Simone McGinnis, what was the origin and purpose of the September 29th deadline?

5. How did the petitioner claim the Nominating Committee exceeded its authority by questioning candidates?

6. What was the Association’s defense for the Nominating Committee’s practice of interviewing and questioning applicants?

7. What is the sole qualification required to serve on the Board of Directors, according to the Val Vista Lakes Community Association Bylaws?

8. How did the petitioner link the Nominating Committee’s failure to place all applicants on the ballot to a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1812?

9. According to testimony during the November 16, 2017, Board meeting, how long had the Association been strictly adhering to the Bylaw requirement of using a Nominating Committee?

10. What was the final Order issued by Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, William Travis, who brought the complaint, and the Respondent, The Val Vista Lakes Community Association, which was defending its actions. Mr. Travis represented himself, while the Association was represented by attorneys Mark K. Sahl and Nicholas C. Nogami.

2. The three issues raised by Mr. Travis were: (1) the Nominating Committee improperly disregarded the September 29th application deadline; (2) the Committee exceeded its authority by asking questions that effectively added new qualification requirements for Board members; and (3) the Committee’s failure to include all “self-nominations” on the ballot constituted a violation of Arizona state statutes on proxy voting.

3. Mr. Travis argued that the September 29th deadline was a “term, limitation, or rule adopted by the Board of Directors” under Bylaws Article VIII. Therefore, by accepting applications after this date, the Nominating Committee violated the Association’s own rules.

4. Simone McGinnis testified that the Board did not impose the deadline. Instead, it was an administrative deadline set by the Association’s management company to allow sufficient time for the Nominating Committee to review applications and have ballots printed.

5. Mr. Travis argued that by asking applicants questions, the Nominating Committee was effectively imposing qualification requirements beyond the single one set out in the Bylaws (being a member of the Association). He asserted the committee had no authority to ask any questions at all as part of its process.

6. The Association contended that questioning applicants was a reasonable exercise of the Nominating Committee’s discretion. This discretion is granted by the Bylaws, which state the Committee shall make as many nominations as it determines is appropriate.

7. According to Bylaws Article IV, Section 1, the only qualification required for an individual to serve on the Board of Directors is that they must be a member of the Association. No other qualifications are specified in the Bylaws.

8. Mr. Travis asserted that because members were not allowed to vote for or against the four applicants who were not nominated, the Committee effectively engaged in proxy voting. He argued this violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1812, which requires that ballots provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.

9. During the meeting, the Board acknowledged that it had only been following the Bylaw requirement to use a Nominating Committee for the last two years. Prior to that, for approximately thirty years, strict adherence to this Bylaw had not been observed.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Petitioner William Travis’s petition be dismissed. The Judge also deemed the Respondent, The Val Vista Lakes Community Association, to be the prevailing party in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt using only the information and arguments presented in the source document.

1. Analyze the conflicting interpretations of the Nominating Committee’s role and authority as presented by William Travis and the Association. How did the Administrative Law Judge use the plain language of Bylaws Article IV, Section 3 to resolve this dispute?

2. Discuss the significance of the September 29, 2017 deadline. Evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by both parties regarding its legitimacy and binding nature, and explain the Judge’s reasoning for concluding it was an administrative deadline.

3. Explain William Travis’s legal argument that the Nominating Committee’s selection process constituted a form of proxy voting in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1812. Detail the Judge’s conclusion on this matter and the legal reasoning used to determine the statute’s applicability.

4. Examine the concept of “discretion” as it applies to the Nominating Committee’s actions. Based on the hearing testimony, including the Board attorney’s explanation, what are the implied powers and limitations of this discretion?

5. The Judge determined that Mr. Travis failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Identify the key claims made by Mr. Travis and detail why the evidence he presented (or failed to present) was insufficient to prove his case on each of the three issues.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official (Thomas Shedden in this case) who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and makes legal findings and decisions.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the petitioner was William Travis.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this matter, the respondent was The Val Vista Lakes Community Association.

Bylaws

The formal rules and regulations governing the internal management of an organization, such as a homeowners’ association. They are considered a contract between the association and its members.

An acronym for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are rules governing the use of real estate within a planned community. Mr. Travis initially alleged a violation of CC&R Article V, Section 3.

Nominating Committee

A committee, established by the Bylaws, responsible for nominating candidates for election to the Board of Directors. It consists of a Chairperson from the Board and two or more other persons.

Self-Nomination

The act of a member putting their own name forward for consideration for a Board position. The petitioner acknowledged that the Bylaws do not explicitly provide for self-nomination.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a trial to produce evidence that proves the claims they have made against the other party. In this case, the burden of proof was on Mr. Travis.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It means the evidence presented is more convincing and has superior evidentiary weight than the evidence offered in opposition, inclining an impartial mind to one side over the other.

Proxy Voting

A form of voting where a member authorizes another person to vote on their behalf. ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1812 prohibits this practice for community associations after the period of declarant control.

Prevailing Party

The party that wins the lawsuit. In this case, the Respondent Association was deemed the prevailing party upon the dismissal of the petition.

Your HOA Bylaws Might Not Mean What You Think: 3 Surprising Lessons from a Legal Showdown

Introduction: The Devil in the Details

Anyone who has ever sat through a contentious HOA annual meeting or received a violation notice for an overgrown flowerbed knows the feeling. You live in a community governed by rules, and you assume those rules operate on a shared understanding of common sense. But what happens when that common sense collides with the cold, hard text of your community’s governing documents?

A recent administrative law case in Arizona, Travis vs. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association, provides a fascinating and instructive look under the hood of HOA governance. The dispute reveals how the precise, technical wording of community bylaws can lead to surprising and counter-intuitive outcomes for residents. This case isn’t just about one community; it’s a masterclass for any homeowner. Here are the three most impactful lessons from the legal showdown.

1. A Deadline Isn’t Always a Deadline

The first major complaint from the petitioner, Mr. Travis, seemed straightforward. For an election with three open seats on the Board of Directors, the HOA’s Nominating Committee had accepted applications after a publicly announced deadline of 5:00 p.m. on September 29, 2017. Four applications arrived on time, but four more—including one from Mr. Travis himself—were accepted after the cutoff. In a delicious twist of irony, Mr. Travis was a sitting Board member who had twice attempted to have the Board formally extend the deadline, but both motions failed. A missed deadline is a missed deadline, right?

Not in this case. The judge dismissed the complaint entirely, drawing a critical distinction: the September 29th deadline was not a formal “term, limitation, or rule adopted by the Board.”

Testimony from the Association’s manager, Simone McGinnis, revealed the deadline’s true nature. It was merely an administrative deadline set by the management company for purely logistical reasons, such as allowing the Nominating Committee enough time to review applications and get the ballots printed.

The Lesson: In legal and governance contexts, the source of a rule is as important as the rule itself. An administrative guideline set by a third-party manager for convenience does not carry the same binding legal weight as a formal rule passed by the Board of Directors according to the procedures outlined in the bylaws.

2. “Nomination” Is a Process of Selection, Not Just Collection

Mr. Travis’s second argument centered on the Nominating Committee’s actions. The committee interviewed all eight applicants and asked them questions, including whether they had ever sued the Association or had any compliance violations. Mr. Travis contended that the committee had exceeded its authority. In fact, he argued that because four members had applied by the original deadline for the three open seats, the committee’s job was already done—it shouldn’t have even been formed, let alone vetted anyone. His position was that its role was simply to collect names, not to filter them.

This argument also failed. The judge found the committee acted squarely within its rights as defined by the Association’s Bylaws. Article IV, Section 3 explicitly grants the Nominating Committee the discretion to “make as many nominations for election to the Board of Directors as it shall in its discretion determine.” The judge concluded that questioning applicants was a reasonable part of exercising this discretion to select candidates.

Adding a fascinating historical twist, the Board admitted during a meeting that for thirty years prior, the Association had not strictly followed its own Bylaw requiring the use of a Nominating Committee, only beginning to do so in the last two years. A long-ignored rule had suddenly become the central mechanism for determining board candidacy.

While the committee must act reasonably—it couldn’t disqualify a candidate for having red hair, the Board’s attorney noted—it absolutely has the power to be selective. The core issue decided by the court was not how the committee used its discretion, but whether the Bylaws granted it discretion in the first place. The answer was a clear yes.

The Lesson: The term “Nominating Committee” can be misleading. Depending on your bylaws, it may not be a passive paper-pusher that forwards all names to the ballot. It can be an active gatekeeper empowered to interview, question, and ultimately select which members get a chance to be elected.

3. The ‘Right’ to Run for Your HOA Board Might Be a Myth

The final issue gets to the heart of homeowner assumptions. Mr. Travis argued for a right to “self-nominate”—his term for a system where any member could place themselves directly on the ballot. He claimed that by failing to include all applicants, the Association was engaging in a form of illegal proxy voting under Arizona state law.

The judge’s refutation of this idea was decisive. Mr. Travis himself acknowledged that the Bylaws contained no provision allowing a member to “self-nominate.” The court found that the only path to the ballot specified in the governing documents was via nomination by the Nominating Committee.

This created a critical procedural prerequisite. Because the Bylaws require nomination by the committee before a member can become a candidate, the state law governing voting (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812) was legally inapplicable. The judge ruled that the act of nomination is not a “vote allocated to a unit.” In other words, if you don’t clear the prerequisite of being nominated, your right to be voted upon by the membership doesn’t even come into play.

The Lesson: This is a powerful and potentially shocking takeaway for many homeowners. Unless your community’s governing documents explicitly guarantee it, you may not have an inherent “right” to run for your HOA board simply by being a member in good standing. The power to decide who appears on the ballot can be exclusively vested in a small, appointed committee.

Conclusion: Read Your Bylaws. Really.

The case of Mr. Travis vs. Val Vista Lakes is a stark reminder that an HOA’s governing documents are a binding contract. In the courtroom of community governance, common-sense assumptions are legally irrelevant; only the written word matters. An administrative deadline may be toothless, a nominating committee may be a powerful gatekeeper, and the right to run for office may not be a right at all.

It all comes down to what is written in the documents. So, when was the last time you read your community’s governing documents from start to finish? The power structures they define might be very different from what you imagine.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William Travis (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
  • Nicholas C. Nogami (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
  • Simone McGinnis (property manager)
    Testified as a witness
  • Cheryl Peterson-McCoy (board member)
    Nominating Committee Chairperson

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Jeff Lion vs. Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1817009-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-01-10
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Petitioner's petition was dismissed because he failed to appear or provide an authorized representative at the scheduled hearing, resulting in the Respondent being deemed the prevailing party.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jeff Lion Counsel —
Respondent Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

Article 8 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition was dismissed because he failed to appear or provide an authorized representative at the scheduled hearing, resulting in the Respondent being deemed the prevailing party.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing scheduled at his request and failed to provide an authorized representative (as appearances are considered the practice of law under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31).

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs

Petitioner Jeff Lion alleged that the Respondent violated Article 8 of the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petitioner Jeff Lion’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Dismissal, Failure to Appear, Unauthorized Representation, HOA, CC&R
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1817009-REL Decision – 611264.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:08:16 (69.6 KB)

18F-H1817009-REL Decision – 611264.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:21:53 (69.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Lion v. Riggs Ranch Meadows HOA (Case No. 18F-H1817009-REL)

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Jeff Lion (Petitioner) versus Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner’s case, which alleged a violation of the Respondent’s CC&Rs, was dismissed due to the Petitioner’s failure to appear at the scheduled hearing on January 9, 2018.

The hearing had been rescheduled to this date at the Petitioner’s own request. On the day of the hearing, two witnesses for Mr. Lion appeared but were informed by the tribunal that they could not legally represent him as they were not licensed attorneys, a requirement under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31. Because no authorized representative for the Petitioner was present, no evidence could be presented to support the claim. Consequently, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden dismissed the petition and designated the Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association as the prevailing party.

Case Background and Procedural History

The matter originated from a petition filed by Jeff Lion against the Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association.

• Initial Allegation: Mr. Lion alleged that the Respondent violated Article 8 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

• Notice of Hearing: On October 2, 2017, the Arizona Department of Real Estate issued a Notice of Hearing, initially scheduling the matter for November 29, 2017, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix.

• Continuance: Mr. Lion filed a Motion to Continue the hearing, which was rescheduled for 9:00 a.m. on January 9, 2018, without objection from the Respondent.

Analysis of the January 9, 2018 Hearing

The proceedings on the rescheduled hearing date were pivotal to the case’s outcome.

• Petitioner’s Failure to Appear: Mr. Jeff Lion, the Petitioner, did not appear at the hearing at its scheduled time.

• Attempted Representation by Non-Attorneys: Two witnesses named by Mr. Lion were present. They informed the tribunal that Mr. Lion would not be appearing and that they intended to represent him.

• Tribunal’s Ruling on Representation: The tribunal advised the witnesses that they were legally prohibited from representing Mr. Lion. Citing Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31, the judge clarified that appearances at the Office of Administrative Hearings constitute the practice of law and require representation by an attorney licensed in Arizona. The witnesses confirmed they did not hold such licenses.

• Consequences of Non-Appearance: As there was no authorized representative present for the Petitioner, no evidence was taken. The judge noted that the hearing had been continued to that specific date at Mr. Lion’s request and proceeded to vacate the matter based on his failure to appear.

Legal Findings and Conclusions of Law

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was grounded in established legal principles and procedural rules.

• Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate was confirmed to have authority over the matter pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

• Burden of Proof: The decision reiterated that the party asserting a claim—in this case, Mr. Lion—carries the burden of proof. The standard required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

• Core Rationale for Dismissal: The central conclusion of law was that Mr. Lion failed to meet his burden of proof. By not appearing at the hearing he had requested, and by not securing authorized legal representation, he “failed to present any evidence in support of his petition.”

Final Order and Implications

The decision, issued on January 10, 2018, formally concluded the administrative hearing process with a definitive outcome.

• Dismissal of Petition: The Administrative Law Judge ordered that “Petitioner Jeff Lion’s petition is dismissed.”

• Prevailing Party: The Respondent, Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association, was officially deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

• Post-Decision Options: The order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, as stipulated by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04 and § 41-1092.09.

Key Parties and Representatives

Name/Entity

Contact/Representation Information

Petitioner

Jeff Lion

PO Box 1350, Selma, CA 93662

Respondent

Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association

Represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq.

Respondent’s Counsel

Nathan Tennyson, Esq.

BROWN/OLCOTT, PLLC, 373 S. Main Ave., Tucson, AZ 85701

Administrative Law Judge

Thomas Shedden

Office of Administrative Hearings

Overseeing Body

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Commissioner: Judy Lowe

Study Guide for Administrative Law Judge Decision: Lion v. Riggs Ranch Meadows HOA

This study guide provides a review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Jeff Lion v. Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association, Case No. 18F-H1817009-REL. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms found within the document.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based entirely on the provided legal decision.

1. Who were the petitioner and respondent in this matter, and what was the petitioner’s central allegation?

2. Why was the administrative hearing held on January 9, 2018, instead of the originally scheduled date?

3. Describe the events that occurred at the scheduled hearing time on January 9, 2018.

4. What specific rule was cited by the tribunal to prevent the petitioner’s witnesses from representing him?

5. What is the standard of proof for this matter, and which party had the burden of proof?

6. According to the decision, what was the direct consequence of the petitioner’s failure to have an authorized representative present at the hearing?

7. How does the legal document define the term “preponderance of the evidence”?

8. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge?

9. Who was identified as the “prevailing party” and why?

10. What option was available to the parties if they disagreed with the judge’s order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Jeff Lion, and the respondent was the Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association. Mr. Lion alleged that the respondent had violated Article 8 of its CC&Rs.

2. The hearing was originally set for November 29, 2017. It was rescheduled to January 9, 2018, because the petitioner, Mr. Lion, filed a Motion to Continue, to which the respondent did not object.

3. On January 9, 2018, the petitioner, Jeff Lion, did not appear for the hearing. Two witnesses appeared on his behalf and stated their intention to represent him, but they were not permitted to do so.

4. The tribunal cited Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31, which governs the practice of law. Since the witnesses were not licensed attorneys in Arizona, they were not legally permitted to represent Mr. Lion at the hearing.

5. The standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.” The party asserting the claim, in this case, the petitioner Jeff Lion, had the burden of proof.

6. Because no authorized representative was present for Mr. Lion, no evidence was taken in support of his petition. This failure to present evidence was a key factor in the case’s dismissal.

7. The document defines “preponderance of the evidence” by quoting Black’s Law Dictionary as: “The greater weight of the evidence…that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

8. The final order was that Petitioner Jeff Lion’s petition is dismissed. The decision was issued on January 10, 2018.

9. The Respondent, Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association, was deemed the prevailing party. This was because Mr. Lion failed to present any evidence in support of his petition, leading to its dismissal.

10. The parties could request a rehearing pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04. The request had to be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses to explore the procedural and legal principles of the case more deeply.

1. Analyze the significance of Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31 in the outcome of this case. How does the principle that appearances at administrative hearings constitute the “practice of law” affect how individuals can pursue claims?

2. Discuss the interrelated concepts of “burden of proof” and “standard of proof” as they apply to this case. Explain why Jeff Lion’s failure to appear made it legally impossible for him to meet the standard of a “preponderance of the evidence.”

3. Evaluate the procedural fairness of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to dismiss the petition. Consider the timeline of events, including the petitioner’s own request to reschedule the hearing, in your analysis.

4. Based on the “Conclusions of Law” section, construct an argument explaining the logical steps Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden took to arrive at the final order of dismissal.

5. Examine the roles of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings as outlined in the document. How do these two entities interact in resolving a dispute initiated by a homeowner against a Homeowners Association?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official (Thomas Shedden in this case) who presides over hearings at an administrative agency to resolve disputes.

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE

The Arizona Administrative Code, a compilation of rules and regulations of Arizona state agencies. Section R2-19-119 is cited as establishing the standard of proof.

ARIZ. REV. STAT.

The Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the laws passed by the Arizona state legislature. Title 32, Chapter 20, Article 11 is cited as giving the Department of Real Estate authority.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the petitioner (Mr. Lion) had the burden of proof.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are rules governing a planned community or homeowners association. Mr. Lion alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs.

Motion to Continue

A formal request made by a party to an administrative tribunal or court to postpone a scheduled hearing to a later date.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

The state agency where the hearing took place, which conducts hearings for other state agencies.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings a legal action against another party. In this case, Jeff Lion.

Practice of Law

The act of representing others in legal proceedings. The decision states that appearances at the OAH are considered the practice of law and are restricted to licensed attorneys under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this case. It is met when the evidence presented is more convincing and has greater weight than the evidence offered in opposition, inclining a fair mind to one side of the issue.

Prevailing Party

The party who wins a legal case or dispute. The Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association was deemed the prevailing party.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to re-examine the issues and the decision. The parties had 30 days to file a request for a rehearing.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association.

Tribunal

A body established to settle certain types of dispute. In this context, it refers to the Administrative Law Judge presiding over the hearing.

How One Homeowner Lost His Case Against His HOA Before It Even Began

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath Story You Haven’t Heard

Disputes with a Homeowners Association (HOA) are a common source of frustration. It often feels like a David vs. Goliath battle, pitting an individual against a structured organization with rules and resources. When faced with what they believe is an unfair application of those rules, some homeowners decide to fight back.

This was the situation for Jeff Lion, who filed a petition against his HOA, Riggs Ranch Meadows, alleging a violation of Article 8 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). But this story didn’t end with a dramatic debate over property rights. Instead, it was over before it started, derailed by a simple but fatal procedural misstep. This case offers three critical lessons for anyone considering a formal dispute, revealing how understanding the basic rules of the game is far more important than just believing you have a good argument.

——————————————————————————–

1. The Most Important Step is Showing Up

The central, decisive event of the case was a stunning failure in participation: the petitioner, Jeff Lion, did not appear at the hearing on January 9, 2018. The ultimate procedural irony? This was the exact hearing date that he himself had requested.

The contrast on that day could not have been starker. While Mr. Lion was a no-show for the fight he started, the HOA—the “Goliath” in this story—arrived fully prepared, represented by its attorney, Nathan Tennyson, Esq. The judge’s decision was swift and absolute. Because Mr. Lion did not appear, no evidence was taken, and his petition was dismissed entirely.

This outcome is rooted in a core legal principle known as the “burden of proof.” Simply put, the person making a claim is responsible for presenting evidence to support it. As the one who filed the petition, it was Mr. Lion’s job to prove his case. By failing to appear, he presented zero evidence and could not possibly meet this fundamental burden. The merits of his specific complaint about Article 8 were never even heard, all because of a self-inflicted failure to participate in the process he initiated on the day he chose.

——————————————————————————–

2. Not Just Anyone Can Speak for You in Court

In a surprising turn, while Mr. Lion was absent, his two named witnesses did appear at the hearing. They informed the judge that the petitioner would not be attending and that they intended to represent him in his absence.

The Administrative Law Judge immediately shut down their attempt. The reason highlights a crucial rule that trips up many non-lawyers: the witnesses were not licensed attorneys, and the law strictly forbids such representation. Appearances at these administrative hearings are legally considered “the practice of law.”

The court’s decision was based on an unambiguous rule, which it cited in its legal conclusions:

Appearances at the Office of Administrative Hearings are considered to be the practice of law. See Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31.

This is a counter-intuitive lesson for many. You might assume a trusted friend, family member, or knowledgeable witness could speak on your behalf. This case demonstrates that the legal system has rigid rules about who is authorized to provide representation. Good intentions and a willingness to help are not enough to grant someone the legal authority to act as your advocate in a formal hearing.

——————————————————————————–

3. “Winning” is About Tipping the Scale of Evidence

In administrative hearings, the standard for winning is called “a preponderance of the evidence.” This doesn’t mean proving your case beyond all doubt. Think of it like a scale. “Preponderance of the evidence” simply means you have to provide enough evidence to make the scale tip, even just slightly, in your favor.

The formal definition clarifies this concept of relative weight:

The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Applying this standard to Mr. Lion’s case makes the outcome painfully clear. Since he failed to appear and no evidence was taken on his behalf, the “weight” of his evidence was zero. It was therefore impossible for him to tip the scale, no matter how strong his case might have been in theory. Because he presented nothing, Riggs Ranch Meadows was deemed the “prevailing party” by default. This demonstrates how the legal system is a structured process focused on evidence presented according to rules, not just on feelings or the theoretical rightness of a claim.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: The Rules of the Game Matter

The case of Jeff Lion provides a masterclass in legal procedure. The three key lessons are simple but absolute: you must show up to your own hearing, especially one you scheduled; only licensed attorneys can legally represent you; and you must present evidence to meet your burden of proof.

This case wasn’t ultimately about CC&Rs or neighborhood rules; it was about procedure. It serves as a stark reminder that before entering any formal dispute, the first question to ask isn’t “Am I right?” but “Do I understand the rules?”

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jeff Lion (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Nathan Tennyson (respondent attorney)
    BROWN/OLCOTT, PLLC

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Felicia Del Sol (ADRE transmission signatory)
  • LDettorre (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • ncano (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Brian Sopatyk vs. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.

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

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716004-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-08-10
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The ALJ decision, certified as the final administrative decision, dismissed the Petitioner's claim after rehearing, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260. The challenged $660 fee was determined to be a permissible working capital contribution under the CC&Rs, not a fee restricted by the statutory cap on resale disclosure services.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brian Sopatyk Counsel Nathan Andrews
Respondent The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc. Counsel Bradley R. Jardine

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260

Outcome Summary

The ALJ decision, certified as the final administrative decision, dismissed the Petitioner's claim after rehearing, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260. The challenged $660 fee was determined to be a permissible working capital contribution under the CC&Rs, not a fee restricted by the statutory cap on resale disclosure services.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the fee in question was determined to be a working capital fee/assessment governed by the CC&Rs and ARS § 33-1242(A)(2), and not subject to the limitation set forth in ARS § 33-1260.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged excessive fee collection for resale disclosure/transfer services

Petitioner alleged the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by charging a $660 fee, which he argued exceeded the statutory maximum of $400 for resale disclosure/transfer services. The Association argued the $660 fee was a working capital contribution mandated by CC&R section 8.13 and was mislabeled, and therefore not subject to the statutory limitations of § 33-1260.

Orders: Brian D. Sopatyk’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA fee dispute, Working capital fee, Transfer fee, Resale disclosure, Statutory interpretation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 571793.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:00:00 (96.8 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 580965.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:00:09 (61.2 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 593042.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:00:20 (100.9 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 593045.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:00:26 (59.2 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 531040.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:17:41 (67.9 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 540004.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:17:44 (154.0 KB)

Briefing: Sopatyk v. Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and outcomes of an administrative legal case brought by petitioner Brian Sopatyk against The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc. The core of the dispute was Mr. Sopatyk’s allegation that the Association charged a “transfer fee” of $660 upon the sale of a condominium unit, in violation of Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1260, which caps fees for resale disclosure services at an aggregate of $400.

Following an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) consistently ruled in favor of the Association, dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition on both occasions. The central finding was that the petitioner failed to prove a statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The Association successfully argued that the disputed $660 charge was not a resale disclosure fee governed by A.R.S. § 33-1260, but rather a “working capital fee” authorized by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Association admitted that this fee had been historically mislabeled as a “transfer fee,” an error it had since identified and corrected. The actual fee charged for resale disclosure documents was a separate, compliant $30 “statement fee.” The ALJ’s decision from the rehearing was certified as the final administrative decision in the matter on August 10, 2017.

Case Overview

Case Number

17F-H1716004-REL (Initial Hearing)
17F-H1716004-REL-RHG (Rehearing)

Jurisdiction

State of Arizona, Office of Administrative Hearings

Petitioner

Brian Sopatyk

Respondent

The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Core Allegation

Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1260, which limits fees for resale disclosure services to a maximum of $400.

Final Outcome

Petition Dismissed. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Chronology of Legal Proceedings

March 2, 2015

The Association issues a disclosure statement for Mr. Sopatyk’s purchase, showing a $660 “transfer fee” and a $30 “statement fee.”

May 18, 2016

Prompted by Mr. Sopatyk, the Association’s Board discusses the fee structure. It concludes the $660 fee is a mislabeled “working capital fee” and not a statutory violation.

August 9, 2016

Mr. Sopatyk files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging the violation.

November 14, 2016

The initial administrative hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

November 29, 2016

ALJ Shedden issues a decision dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

December 13, 2016

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate adopts the ALJ’s recommendation, issuing a Final Order to dismiss the petition.

Post-Dec. 2016

Mr. Sopatyk requests a rehearing of the matter.

June 9, 2017

The rehearing is conducted, again before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

June 26, 2017

ALJ Shedden issues a new decision, once again dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

August 10, 2017

With no modifying action from the Department of Real Estate, the ALJ’s June 26 decision is certified as the final administrative decision.

Core Dispute Analysis

The case centered on the interpretation and classification of two fees charged by the Association during the sale of Mr. Sopatyk’s condominium unit.

Petitioner’s Position (Brian Sopatyk)

• Allegation of Violation: Mr. Sopatyk alleged that the Association charged a “transfer fee” of $660, which directly contravened the $400 statutory maximum established by A.R.S. § 33-1260 for services related to resale disclosure.

• Evidence Presented: The petitioner submitted a March 2, 2015 disclosure form from the Association listing both a “660transferfee”anda”30 statement fee.” A HUD-1 disclosure statement for the purchase was also entered, showing the $660 “Transfer Fee” was split, with $330 paid from the buyer’s (Sopatyk’s) funds and $330 from the seller’s funds.

• Contradictory Testimony: The ALJ noted a discrepancy in the petitioner’s statements. The sworn petition stated the $660 fee was split between him and the seller, while his testimony at the rehearing claimed he “had in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price.” The ALJ decision stated, “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.”

• Requested Remedies: Mr. Sopatyk requested that the Association be ordered to comply with the statute, that refunds be paid to those who paid fees in excess of the statutory maximum, and that a civil penalty be imposed against the Association.

Respondent’s Position (The Lakeshore Village Condo. Assoc.)

• Distinction Between Fees: The Association’s central argument was that two separate and legally distinct fees were assessed:

1. A $30 Resale Statement Fee: This was the charge for preparing documents pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1260 and was well within the $400 limit.

2. A $660 Working Capital Fee: This fee was authorized under a separate provision, Section 8.13 of the Association’s CC&Rs, which mandates an assessment from each new owner equal to two monthly installments to fund the Association’s working capital (reserve) fund.

• “Mislabeled” Fee: The Association acknowledged that the $660 working capital fee was incorrectly labeled as a “transfer fee.” Association Manager Amy Telnes testified that she received erroneous information from the prior manager and had been using the wrong label.

• Board Action and Corrective Measures: The minutes from the May 18, 2016 Board meeting show that the Board, after reviewing a legal opinion, concluded the issue was one of “labeling, not violating the statute.” The Board directed Ms. Telnes to perform an accounting and transfer all such fees collected into the Reserve Account. To prevent future confusion, the Board also voted to assess a single $400 transfer fee on all future transactions, with no other fees.

• Fund Allocation: Ms. Telnes testified that the $660 fee was deposited into the Association’s reserve fund, consistent with its purpose as a working capital contribution, while the $30 fee was the charge pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1260(C).

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Rulings

ALJ Thomas Shedden presided over both the initial hearing and the rehearing, reaching the same conclusion in both instances.

Key Rulings and Legal Reasoning

• Burden of Proof: The ALJ established that Mr. Sopatyk, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proving the alleged violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

• Core Finding: The evidence demonstrated that the Association charged two distinct fees. The $30 fee was for document preparation under A.R.S. § 33-1260, while the $660 fee was a working capital assessment authorized by CC&R Section 8.13. The ALJ concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1260 was not applicable to the $660 fee.

• Conclusion on Violation: Based on the evidence, including the testimony of the Association manager and the board meeting minutes, the ALJ found that the $660 fee was mislabeled but was not collected for services related to resale disclosure. Therefore, Mr. Sopatyk did not meet his burden to show that the Association violated the statute.

• Rejection of Harm-Based Argument: The ALJ did not accept the Association’s argument that the claim should fail because Mr. Sopatyk did not personally pay over $400. The judge clarified that A.R.S. § 33-2199.01 “does not require this type of particularized harm, but rather applies to all statutory violations.”

• Dismissal of Petition: In both the November 29, 2016 decision and the June 26, 2017 decision, the order was to dismiss Mr. Sopatyk’s petition and deem the Association the prevailing party.

Final Disposition and Legal Status

The decision issued by ALJ Shedden on June 26, 2017, was transmitted to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The Department had until August 1, 2017, to accept, reject, or modify the decision. As no action was taken by the deadline, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued a Certification of Decision of Administrative Law Judge on August 10, 2017. This certification established the ALJ’s decision as the final administrative decision of the Department of Real Estate in the matter.

Key Legal Citations and Definitions

• A.R.S. § 33-1260 (Resale of Units; Information Required): This Arizona statute governs the information a condominium association must provide to a prospective purchaser. It explicitly limits the fees an association can charge for these services:

• CC&R Section 8.13 (Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund): This section of The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association’s governing documents provides the authority to collect a fee from new owners for a different purpose:

• Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof required for the petitioner to prevail, defined in the legal decisions as:

Study Guide: Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.

1. Identify the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and state the core legal violation the petitioner alleged.

2. What specific fees were charged during the petitioner’s condominium purchase that became the central point of the dispute?

3. According to the Association, what was the true nature of the $660 fee, and how did it explain the “transfer fee” label on the disclosure documents?

4. What role did Amy Telnes, the Association manager, play in explaining the history of the disputed fee?

5. What actions did the Association’s Board take during its meeting on May 18, 2016, to address the petitioner’s concerns and correct its internal procedures?

6. Who held the burden of proof in this matter, and what was the legal standard required to meet that burden?

7. What was the official outcome of the initial administrative hearing held on November 14, 2016?

8. Why was a re-hearing conducted, and what was the final outcome of that hearing on June 9, 2017?

9. According to the re-hearing decision, there was a significant contradiction between the petitioner’s sworn petition and his later testimony. What was this contradiction?

10. What was the legal basis, according to the Association’s CC&Rs, for collecting the $660 working capital fee?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Brian Sopatyk, and the respondent was The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc. Mr. Sopatyk alleged that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260 by charging a transfer fee in excess of the statutory maximum of $400.

2. The disputed fees were a $660 “transfer fee,” which was split between the buyer (Mr. Sopatyk) and the seller, and a separate $30 “statement fee” or “Resale Statement Fee.” The petitioner’s claim focused on the $660 fee being above the legal limit for resale disclosure services.

3. The Association argued the $660 fee was not a transfer fee for disclosure services but was a “working capital fee” authorized by its CC&Rs. It explained that the fee had been mislabeled as a “transfer fee” due to an error passed down from a previous property manager.

4. Amy Telnes testified that when she became the Association manager, she was incorrectly told the working capital fee was the transfer fee. She further testified that the $660 was deposited into the Association’s reserve fund, and the actual fee charged for disclosure under the statute was the separate $30 statement fee.

5. At the May 18, 2016, meeting, the Board concluded it was not in violation of the law but that its fee labeling was confusing. The Board directed Amy Telnes to perform an accounting and transfer all mislabeled fees into the Reserve Account and voted to assess a single, correctly labeled $400 transfer fee on all future transactions.

6. The petitioner, Brian Sopatyk, bore the burden of proof. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with the most convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

7. Following the initial hearing, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden found that Mr. Sopatyk had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the statute. The judge ordered that Mr. Sopatyk’s petition be dismissed.

8. A re-hearing was conducted after Mr. Sopatyk requested one following the initial decision. The final outcome of the June 9, 2017, re-hearing was the same as the first: the Administrative Law Judge found the petitioner did not meet his burden of proof and ordered the petition to be dismissed.

9. In his sworn petition, Mr. Sopatyk stated that the $660 transfer fee was split between him and the seller. However, during his testimony at the re-hearing, he stated that he had in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price of the unit.

10. The legal basis was Section 8.13 of the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). This section, titled “Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund,” called for an assessment from each new owner of two monthly installments of the annual fee to be deposited into the working capital fund.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more synthesized understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, incorporating specific facts, legal arguments, and procedural details from the source documents.

1. Trace the complete timeline of the case, beginning with the filing of the petition. Include key dates of filings, hearings, decisions, and final certifications, and describe the significance of each event in the legal process.

2. Analyze the central legal argument of the Respondent, The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association. Explain how the distinction between a “transfer fee” under ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260 and a “working capital fee” under the Association’s CC&Rs was crucial to the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.

3. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain why the petitioner, Brian Sopatyk, failed to meet this standard of proof in both the initial hearing and the re-hearing, citing specific evidence presented by the Association.

4. Evaluate the importance of the Association’s Board Meeting Minutes from May 18, 2016, as a piece of evidence. Detail the specific findings and resolutions from that meeting and explain how they were used to build the Association’s defense.

5. Examine the roles of the key individuals and entities in this administrative action. Describe the functions and contributions of Brian Sopatyk (Petitioner), Amy Telnes (Association Manager), Michael Cibellis (Association President), Thomas Shedden (Administrative Law Judge), and the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Thomas Shedden, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues a decision.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260

The Arizona statute that requires a condominium association to provide certain disclosure documents to a prospective purchaser. It also limits the fee an association can charge for the preparation of these documents to an aggregate of four hundred dollars.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this matter, the petitioner, Brian Sopatyk, bore the burden of proof.

An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. In this case, section 8.13 of the Association’s CC&Rs authorized the collection of a fee from new owners for a working capital fund.

Final Administrative Decision

The ultimate, legally binding decision in the administrative matter. In this case, the Administrative Law Judge’s decision became the final administrative decision after the Department of Real Estate did not act to accept, reject, or modify it within the statutory time limit.

HUD-1 Disclosure Statement

A document used in the petitioner’s property purchase that itemized all charges imposed upon a borrower and seller for a real estate transaction. It was used as evidence to show how the $660 “Transfer Fee” and $30 “Resale Statement Fee” were assessed and paid.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Brian Sopatyk was the petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as “The greater weight of the evidence… that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Reserve Fund

An account maintained by the Condominium Association. The Association referred to its “working capital fund” as the Reserve Fund, into which the disputed $660 fees were deposited.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc. was the respondent.

Statement Fee / Resale Statement Fee

A $30 fee charged by the Association for the preparation of disclosure documents. The Association argued this was the fee governed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260, which was compliant with the $400 statutory cap.

Transfer Fee

In the context of the petitioner’s allegation, a fee charged for resale disclosure services, limited to $400 by statute. In the context of the Association’s defense, this was the erroneous label applied to the working capital fee.

Working Capital Fee

A fee authorized by section 8.13 of the Association’s CC&Rs, assessed to each new owner to be deposited into the working capital fund (or Reserve Fund). The Association successfully argued that the disputed $660 fee was this type of fee, not one for resale disclosure.

How a $660 Fee Sparked a Legal Showdown: 5 Surprising Lessons from a Homeowner vs. HOA Dispute

We sign, we initial, we pay—assuming every line item on our closing documents is gospel. When buying a home in a condominium association, the stack of paperwork and list of fees can feel overwhelming. But what if one of those “standard” fees wasn’t standard at all?

For homeowner Brian Sopatyk, a single $660 charge from The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association wasn’t just a number; it was a thread he pulled that unraveled a surprising story of HOA governance, legal strategy, and the power of asking “why?” This post breaks down the five most impactful takeaways from a seemingly minor dispute that went all the way through a formal hearing and re-hearing.

1. A Simple Label Can Ignite a Legal Firestorm

A clerical error triggers a full-blown legal dispute.

The entire case hinged on a single, crucial mistake: the HOA mislabeled a “working capital fee” as a “transfer fee” on its disclosure forms.

Why was this one word so important? Because Mr. Sopatyk’s formal petition alleged that by charging a “$660 transfer fee,” the HOA violated Arizona statute 33-1260, which caps fees for resale disclosure services at a maximum of $400. On its face, the $660 charge looked like a clear violation of state law.

The Association’s manager, Amy Telnes, testified that when she took over her position, she was given erroneous information that the working capital fee was the transfer fee. As a result, the charge had been incorrectly labeled ever since. This simple administrative error was enough to trigger a formal petition to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, a full administrative hearing, and eventually, a re-hearing, proving how a small clerical mistake can escalate into a significant legal conflict.

2. In the Eyes of the Law, Substance Can Trump Form

Why the fee’s purpose mattered more than its name.

The Association’s core defense was that while the name of the fee was wrong, its purpose and authority were legitimate. The $660 charge, they argued, wasn’t for resale documents (the service capped by state law), but was a “working capital fee” authorized by an entirely different rule: the Association’s own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Specifically, Section 8.13 of the CC&Rs allowed for this assessment, with the funds designated for the Association’s reserve fund. This working capital fee, in contrast, was an assessment on the new owner as mandated by the CC&Rs to ensure the association’s financial health. The actual fee for the statutory disclosure documents was a separate, compliant $30 “Resale Statement Fee,” which was paid by the seller.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately agreed. The fee’s underlying purpose and the HOA’s authority to collect it (its substance) were deemed more important than its incorrect name on the form (its form). This is a crucial lesson for any homeowner challenging an HOA: it’s not enough to find a mistake on a form. You must be prepared to argue against the underlying authority and purpose of the action itself.

3. You Can Lose the Battle but Win the War

How a dismissed case led to a major policy victory.

Perhaps the most counter-intuitive outcome is that although Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed, his actions were the direct catalyst for a significant and positive policy change by the HOA.

In a summary of the Association’s May 18, 2016, Board Meeting, which was entered as evidence, the judge noted that the Board reviewed the very issue Mr. Sopatyk had raised. Under the pressure of his legal challenge, they came to a powerful conclusion about their own system, determining it was “confusing and unfair.”

As a direct result of this internal review prompted by the dispute, the Board voted to simplify its process. It resolved to assess a single, clear transfer fee of $400 on all future transactions, eliminating the other confusing fees. This proves that even an unsuccessful legal challenge can be a powerful tool, forcing an organization to confront and correct its own problematic practices for the benefit of all future members.

4. The ‘Burden of Proof’ Is More Than Just a Phrase

What it really means to have to prove your case.

In both the original decision and the re-hearing, the judge repeatedly stated that Mr. Sopatyk, as the petitioner, bore the “burden of proof.” This legal standard was critical to the outcome. It meant he had to prove his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which the court documents defined as:

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

In this case, it meant Mr. Sopatyk’s job was to prove that the $660 fee was, more likely than not, an illegal charge for resale documents. The HOA’s defense—that it was a legally separate “working capital fee” that was simply mislabeled—created enough doubt that he couldn’t clear this hurdle.

5. A Small Contradiction Can Damage Credibility

When every word you say (and write) is on the record.

A fascinating detail appeared in the re-hearing decision, highlighting how every word matters in a legal proceeding.

There was a discrepancy in Mr. Sopatyk’s statements. His sworn petition, filed on August 9, 2016, stated the $660 fee was “split between the seller and the buyer.” However, during the hearing, he testified that he had “in fact paid the entire $660.”

The judge noted this contradiction directly in footnote 3 of the re-hearing decision, stating: “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.” While not the deciding factor, this kind of inconsistency can subtly erode a petitioner’s standing. Remember the “burden of proof” from Takeaway 4? It requires convincing a judge to “incline a fair and impartial mind” to your side. Contradictions, even small ones, make that inclination much harder to achieve.

Conclusion: The Devil Is in the Details

This case is the perfect microcosm of community association disputes. It began with a clerical error (form), was adjudicated on intent (substance), was lost on a technicality (the burden of proof), yet resulted in a victory for transparency. Mr. Sopatyk may not have won his case, but he won a better system for his neighbors.

The ultimate lesson? In an HOA, the most powerful tool isn’t always a lawsuit—sometimes, it’s a magnifying glass. It leaves us with a thought-provoking question: When is it worth challenging the system for clarity and fairness, even if the outcome isn’t a clear ‘win’ on paper?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brian Sopatyk (petitioner)
    Represented himself at the initial hearing; sought rehearing
  • Nathan Andrews (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Jill M. Kennedy (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Judy Sopatyk (petitioner's wife)
    Co-purchaser of the condominium unit,
  • Chance Peterson (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group

Respondent Side

  • Bradley R. Jardine (HOA attorney)
    Jardine Baker Hickman & Houston
  • Amy Telnes (property manager/witness)
    The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.
    Association manager who testified,
  • Michael Cibellis (Association president/witness)
    The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.
    Testified at the rehearing

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Contact for requests for rehearing
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    OAH
    Signed the Certification of Decision,

Other Participants

  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (administrative staff)
    Administrative staff for transmission/mailing,

Brian Sopatk vs. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Assoc., Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716004-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-08-10
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1260. The contested $660 fee was determined to be a working capital contribution authorized by the Association's CC&Rs (section 8.13), which is distinct from the resale disclosure fees limited by statute.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brian Sopatyk Counsel Nathan Andrews, Esq. and Jill Kennedy, Esq.
Respondent The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc. Counsel Bradley R. Jardine, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1260. The contested $660 fee was determined to be a working capital contribution authorized by the Association's CC&Rs (section 8.13), which is distinct from the resale disclosure fees limited by statute.

Why this result: The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to show a statutory violation because the fee in question was a valid working capital fee collected under the CC&Rs, not an illegal transfer fee under A.R.S. § 33-1260.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of statutory maximum fee for resale disclosure/transfer documents.

Petitioner alleged the Association charged a $660 transfer fee, plus a $30 statement fee, violating A.R.S. § 33-1260, which limits aggregate fees for resale disclosure and transfer services to $400. The ALJ found the $660 fee was a working capital fee authorized by CC&R section 8.13, not a statutory disclosure fee, despite being mislabeled by the Association.

Orders: Petitioner Brian D. Sopatyk's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA fees, transfer fee, working capital fund, statutory compliance, burden of proof, condominium association, resale disclosure
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 1-243

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17f-H1716004-REL Decision – 531040.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:44:10 (67.9 KB)

17f-H1716004-REL Decision – 540004.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:44:12 (154.0 KB)

17f-H1716004-REL Decision – 531040.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:06:02 (67.9 KB)

17f-H1716004-REL Decision – 540004.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:06:07 (154.0 KB)

Briefing Document: Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of the case Brian Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc. (Case No. 17F-H1716004-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was Petitioner Brian Sopatyk’s allegation that the Respondent Condominium Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1260 by charging a $660 “transfer fee” upon the sale of a condominium unit, which exceeded the statutory maximum of $400 for resale disclosure services.

The Association’s defense centered on the argument that the $660 charge was not a disclosure fee but a separate “working capital fee” authorized by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Association contended that this fee had been erroneously mislabeled as a “transfer fee” due to a clerical error inherited by its current manager. The actual statutory fee for disclosure documents, the Association argued, was a separate $30 charge paid by the seller.

After an initial hearing in November 2016 and a subsequent re-hearing in June 2017, the Administrative Law Judge consistently found that Mr. Sopatyk failed to prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that the evidence supported the Association’s claim of a mislabeled working capital fee. Consequently, Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed on both occasions, and the Association was deemed the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Parties and Jurisdiction

Representation

Petitioner

Brian Sopatyk

On his own behalf (Initial Hearing); Nathan Andrews, Esq. & Jill Kennedy, Esq. (Re-Hearing)

Respondent

The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Bradley R. Jardine, Esq. (Both Hearings)

Jurisdiction

Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

Authority under A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, AZ

Core Allegation and Governing Statute

• Allegation: Brian Sopatyk alleged that The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by charging fees exceeding the statutory maximum for resale disclosure services. Specifically, a $660 fee labeled as a “transfer fee” was charged when he purchased his unit.

• Petitioner’s Request: Mr. Sopatyk sought an order for the Association to comply with the statute, issue refunds to all who paid fees in excess of the maximum, and for a civil penalty to be imposed.

• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1260 stipulates that a condominium association “may charge the unit owner a fee of no more than an aggregate of four hundred dollars to compensate the association for the costs incurred in the preparation of a statement or other documents furnished… for purposes of resale disclosure, lien estoppel and any other services related to the transfer or use of the property.” The statute explicitly forbids charging any other fees for these services except as authorized.

——————————————————————————–

Chronology of Legal Proceedings

March 2, 2015

The Association issues a “Disclosure Form” for Mr. Sopatyk’s purchase, listing a $660 transfer fee and a $30 statement fee.

May 18, 2016

The Association’s Board of Directors meets to address Mr. Sopatyk’s claim. They conclude the $660 fee was a mislabeled working capital fee and direct corrective accounting.

August 9, 2016

Mr. Sopatyk files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

November 14, 2016

The initial hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

November 29, 2016

ALJ Shedden issues a decision dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

December 13, 2016

The ADRE Commissioner, Judy Lowe, adopts the ALJ’s decision, issuing a Final Order dismissing the case.

February 7, 2017

A Notice of Re-Hearing is issued after Mr. Sopatyk requests one.

June 9, 2017

A re-hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

June 26, 2017

ALJ Shedden issues a new decision, again dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

August 1, 2017

The deadline passes for the ADRE to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s re-hearing decision. No action is taken.

August 10, 2017

The Office of Administrative Hearings certifies the ALJ’s decision from the re-hearing as the final administrative decision in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Brian Sopatyk)

• Primary Argument: The Association’s own documents, specifically the Disclosure Form and the HUD-1 settlement statement, explicitly labeled the $660 charge as a “Transfer Fee.” This amount is a prima facie violation of the $400 statutory cap in A.R.S. § 33-1260.

• Evidence Presented:

◦ March 2, 2015 Disclosure Form: Showed a required payment of a $660 “transfer fee” and a $30 “statement fee.”

◦ HUD-1 Settlement Statement: Documented that the $660 Transfer Fee was paid to the Association, with $330 paid from the Borrower’s (Sopatyk’s) funds and $330 from the Seller’s funds. It also showed the Seller paid a separate $30 Resale Statement Fee.

• Contradictory Testimony: In his sworn petition, Mr. Sopatyk stated the $660 fee was “split between the seller and the buyer.” However, during the re-hearing, he testified that he had “in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price of the unit.” The ALJ noted this discrepancy, stating “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.”

Respondent’s Position (The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association)

• Primary Argument: The $660 fee was not for resale disclosure services but was a working capital fee authorized by the Association’s CC&Rs. The “transfer fee” label was a historical clerical error that the Board had since identified and corrected.

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ CC&R Section 8.13 (“Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund”): This provision authorizes the Association to assess each new owner a fee of “at least twice the average monthly assessment” to be deposited into the working capital fund (referred to as the Reserve Fund). The monthly assessment was $328.83, making the $660 fee consistent with this rule.

◦ Testimony of Amy Telnes (Association Manager): Ms. Telnes testified that when she became manager, she was incorrectly informed that the working capital fee was the transfer fee. She affirmed that the $660 fee was deposited into the Association’s reserve fund and that the separate $30 fee was the one charged pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1260.

◦ May 18, 2016 Board Meeting Minutes: These minutes, entered into evidence, documented the Board’s conclusion that it was collecting a working capital contribution but “erroneously calling it a transfer fee.” The Board directed Ms. Telnes to perform an accounting and transfer all such fees collected after October 1, 2013, to the Reserve Account. The minutes also show the Board voted to change its fee structure moving forward to a single $400 fee to avoid future confusion.

——————————————————————————–

Judicial Findings and Final Disposition

Standard and Burden of Proof

Across both hearings, the ALJ established that the standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.” The burden of proof rested entirely on the petitioner, Mr. Sopatyk, to demonstrate that a violation had occurred.

Initial Hearing Decision (November 29, 2016)

• Findings of Fact: The ALJ found that the Association was charging a $660 working capital fee in accordance with its CC&Rs but had been mislabeling it. It was also charging a separate $30 document preparation fee.

• Conclusion of Law: Mr. Sopatyk did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.

• Order: The petition was dismissed, and the decision was adopted as final by the ADRE Commissioner on December 13, 2016.

Re-Hearing Decision (June 26, 2017)

• Findings of Fact: The re-hearing produced more detailed findings but led to the same conclusion. The ALJ found that the Association had authority under its CC&Rs to collect the $660 working capital fee and that the statutory disclosure statute did not apply to this charge. The fee applicable to the statute was the $30 charge paid by the seller.

• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ reiterated that Mr. Sopatyk failed to meet his burden of proof. The Association’s argument that the claim should fail because Sopatyk did not personally pay over $400 was deemed “not persuasive,” as the statute applies to all violations regardless of particularized harm.

• Order: The petition was again ordered to be dismissed.

Final Administrative Disposition

The ADRE took no action to modify or reject the ALJ’s re-hearing decision by the statutory deadline of August 1, 2017. As a result, the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the June 26, 2017 decision as the final administrative decision on August 10, 2017, concluding the matter in favor of the Respondent Association.

Study Guide: Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions based on the provided case documents. Each answer should be two to three sentences in length.

1. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did petitioner Brian Sopatyk allege that The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association violated, and what is the core requirement of that statute?

2. Identify the two fees charged in connection with Mr. Sopatyk’s unit purchase, the amount of each fee, and how they were documented on the HUD-1 disclosure statement.

3. What was the Association’s central argument for why the $660 fee did not violate the statute in question?

4. Who was the Association’s manager, and what explanation did she provide for the labeling of the $660 fee?

5. According to the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), what is the purpose of the fee outlined in section 8.13?

6. What was the outcome of the initial administrative hearing held on November 14, 2016?

7. During the rehearing, a discrepancy was noted between Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn petition and his testimony regarding the payment of the $660 fee. What was this discrepancy?

8. What corrective actions did the Association’s Board vote to take during its meeting on May 18, 2016, after Mr. Sopatyk raised the issue?

9. What is the standard of proof the petitioner was required to meet in this case, and did the Administrative Law Judge find that he met it?

10. What was the final, certified administrative decision in this matter after the rehearing on June 9, 2017?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Brian Sopatyk alleged a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260. This statute requires a condominium association to provide specific disclosure documents to a prospective purchaser and limits the aggregate fee for preparing these documents and other related services to no more than four hundred dollars.

2. The two fees were a $660 “Transfer Fee” and a $30 “Resale Statement Fee.” The HUD-1 disclosure statement shows the $660 fee was split, with $330 paid by the borrower (Sopatyk) and $330 paid by the seller, while the seller alone paid the $30 fee.

3. The Association’s central argument was that the $660 fee was not a transfer fee for disclosure services but was actually a “working capital fee” collected pursuant to section 8.13 of its CC&Rs. They contended that the fee had been incorrectly labeled as a “transfer fee” due to a clerical error.

4. The Association’s manager was Amy Telnes. She testified that when she became manager, she was incorrectly told the working capital fee was the transfer fee, and these fees had been mislabeled since that time.

5. According to CC&R section 8.13 (“Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund”), each new unit owner is to be assessed a fee of at least twice the average monthly assessment. These fees are to be deposited into the working capital fund, which the Association refers to as its Reserve Fund.

6. Following the initial hearing, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden found that Mr. Sopatyk had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the statute. The Judge’s decision was to dismiss Mr. Sopatyk’s petition, and this decision was adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.

7. In his sworn petition, Mr. Sopatyk stated that the $660 fee was split between him and the seller. However, at the hearing, he testified that he had in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price of the unit, meaning one of his statements had to be false.

8. The Board directed Ms. Telnes to account for all working capital fees and transfer them to the Reserve Account to correct the error. The Board also determined its system was confusing and voted to assess a single transfer fee of $400 (and no other fees) on all future transactions.

9. The petitioner, Mr. Sopatyk, bore the burden of proof and was required to meet the standard of a “preponderance of the evidence.” The Administrative Law Judge concluded in both hearings that Mr. Sopatyk did not meet this burden.

10. The final decision was that Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed again. On August 10, 2017, the Administrative Law Judge’s decision from the rehearing was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Real Estate because the Department took no action to reject or modify it.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

1. Analyze the legal concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain in detail why the evidence presented by the Association was deemed to have greater convincing force than the evidence presented by the Petitioner, leading to the dismissal of his petition.

2. Discuss the critical role of the Association’s governing documents, specifically CC&R section 8.13, in its successful defense. How did the language of this section allow the Association to re-characterize the disputed $660 fee and differentiate it from the fees regulated by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260?

3. Trace the procedural history of case No. 17F-H1716004-REL, from the filing of the petition to the final certified order. Identify the key dates, participants (judges, legal counsel, witnesses), and the function of the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Department of Real Estate in the process.

4. Examine the actions taken by the Association’s Board during its May 18, 2016, meeting. Evaluate whether these actions demonstrated good-faith governance and a proactive attempt to correct a procedural error, and discuss how the minutes from this meeting were used as evidence in the hearing.

5. Despite losing the case, Mr. Sopatyk’s petition prompted significant changes in the Association’s fee structure. Argue whether the petitioner’s actions ultimately served the public interest for future condominium purchasers in the Lakeshore Village community, even though he did not prevail in his specific legal claim.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Thomas Shedden, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision based on the evidence presented.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260

The Arizona statute that requires a condominium association to furnish a prospective purchaser with disclosure documents and other information. It explicitly limits the fee an association can charge for these services to “no more than an aggregate of four hundred dollars.”

Burden of Proof

The responsibility of a party in a legal case to prove their claims. In this matter, the burden of proof was on the petitioner, Brian Sopatyk.

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, which are the governing documents for the condominium association. Section 8.13 of the Lakeshore Village CC&Rs authorizes the collection of a fee for a working capital fund.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Brian Sopatyk.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case, defined as “The greater weight of the evidence… by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Respondent

The party defending against a petition. In this case, The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Reserve Fund

The account into which the Association deposits its working capital fees. It is also referred to as the Working Capital Fund.

Statement Fee / Resale Statement Fee

A $30 fee, separate from the disputed $660, that was paid by the seller to the Association for the preparation of the resale statement. This fee was considered part of the allowable charges under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260.

Transfer Fee

The label erroneously applied to the $660 fee on the disclosure statement and HUD-1 form. The central dispute of the case was whether this was a true transfer fee subject to the statutory cap or a mislabeled working capital fee.

Working Capital Fee

A fee authorized by CC&R section 8.13 to be assessed from each new unit owner for the purpose of funding the Association’s working capital fund (Reserve Fund). The Association successfully argued the $660 charge was this type of fee.

How a $660 Fee Sparked a Legal Showdown: 5 Surprising Lessons from a Homeowner vs. HOA Dispute

We sign, we initial, we pay—assuming every line item on our closing documents is gospel. When buying a home in a condominium association, the stack of paperwork and list of fees can feel overwhelming. But what if one of those “standard” fees wasn’t standard at all?

For homeowner Brian Sopatyk, a single $660 charge from The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association wasn’t just a number; it was a thread he pulled that unraveled a surprising story of HOA governance, legal strategy, and the power of asking “why?” This post breaks down the five most impactful takeaways from a seemingly minor dispute that went all the way through a formal hearing and re-hearing.

1. A Simple Label Can Ignite a Legal Firestorm

A clerical error triggers a full-blown legal dispute.

The entire case hinged on a single, crucial mistake: the HOA mislabeled a “working capital fee” as a “transfer fee” on its disclosure forms.

Why was this one word so important? Because Mr. Sopatyk’s formal petition alleged that by charging a “$660 transfer fee,” the HOA violated Arizona statute 33-1260, which caps fees for resale disclosure services at a maximum of $400. On its face, the $660 charge looked like a clear violation of state law.

The Association’s manager, Amy Telnes, testified that when she took over her position, she was given erroneous information that the working capital fee was the transfer fee. As a result, the charge had been incorrectly labeled ever since. This simple administrative error was enough to trigger a formal petition to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, a full administrative hearing, and eventually, a re-hearing, proving how a small clerical mistake can escalate into a significant legal conflict.

2. In the Eyes of the Law, Substance Can Trump Form

Why the fee’s purpose mattered more than its name.

The Association’s core defense was that while the name of the fee was wrong, its purpose and authority were legitimate. The $660 charge, they argued, wasn’t for resale documents (the service capped by state law), but was a “working capital fee” authorized by an entirely different rule: the Association’s own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Specifically, Section 8.13 of the CC&Rs allowed for this assessment, with the funds designated for the Association’s reserve fund. This working capital fee, in contrast, was an assessment on the new owner as mandated by the CC&Rs to ensure the association’s financial health. The actual fee for the statutory disclosure documents was a separate, compliant $30 “Resale Statement Fee,” which was paid by the seller.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately agreed. The fee’s underlying purpose and the HOA’s authority to collect it (its substance) were deemed more important than its incorrect name on the form (its form). This is a crucial lesson for any homeowner challenging an HOA: it’s not enough to find a mistake on a form. You must be prepared to argue against the underlying authority and purpose of the action itself.

3. You Can Lose the Battle but Win the War

How a dismissed case led to a major policy victory.

Perhaps the most counter-intuitive outcome is that although Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed, his actions were the direct catalyst for a significant and positive policy change by the HOA.

In a summary of the Association’s May 18, 2016, Board Meeting, which was entered as evidence, the judge noted that the Board reviewed the very issue Mr. Sopatyk had raised. Under the pressure of his legal challenge, they came to a powerful conclusion about their own system, determining it was “confusing and unfair.”

As a direct result of this internal review prompted by the dispute, the Board voted to simplify its process. It resolved to assess a single, clear transfer fee of $400 on all future transactions, eliminating the other confusing fees. This proves that even an unsuccessful legal challenge can be a powerful tool, forcing an organization to confront and correct its own problematic practices for the benefit of all future members.

4. The ‘Burden of Proof’ Is More Than Just a Phrase

What it really means to have to prove your case.

In both the original decision and the re-hearing, the judge repeatedly stated that Mr. Sopatyk, as the petitioner, bore the “burden of proof.” This legal standard was critical to the outcome. It meant he had to prove his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which the court documents defined as:

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

In this case, it meant Mr. Sopatyk’s job was to prove that the $660 fee was, more likely than not, an illegal charge for resale documents. The HOA’s defense—that it was a legally separate “working capital fee” that was simply mislabeled—created enough doubt that he couldn’t clear this hurdle.

5. A Small Contradiction Can Damage Credibility

When every word you say (and write) is on the record.

A fascinating detail appeared in the re-hearing decision, highlighting how every word matters in a legal proceeding.

There was a discrepancy in Mr. Sopatyk’s statements. His sworn petition, filed on August 9, 2016, stated the $660 fee was “split between the seller and the buyer.” However, during the hearing, he testified that he had “in fact paid the entire $660.”

The judge noted this contradiction directly in footnote 3 of the re-hearing decision, stating: “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.” While not the deciding factor, this kind of inconsistency can subtly erode a petitioner’s standing. Remember the “burden of proof” from Takeaway 4? It requires convincing a judge to “incline a fair and impartial mind” to your side. Contradictions, even small ones, make that inclination much harder to achieve.

Conclusion: The Devil Is in the Details

This case is the perfect microcosm of community association disputes. It began with a clerical error (form), was adjudicated on intent (substance), was lost on a technicality (the burden of proof), yet resulted in a victory for transparency. Mr. Sopatyk may not have won his case, but he won a better system for his neighbors.

The ultimate lesson? In an HOA, the most powerful tool isn’t always a lawsuit—sometimes, it’s a magnifying glass. It leaves us with a thought-provoking question: When is it worth challenging the system for clarity and fairness, even if the outcome isn’t a clear ‘win’ on paper?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brian Sopatyk (petitioner)
  • Nathan Andrews (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Jill M. Kennedy (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Chance Peterson (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Judy Sopatyk (party)
    Wife of petitioner and co-purchaser of the unit

Respondent Side

  • Bradley R. Jardine (HOA attorney)
    Jardine Baker Hickman & Houston
    Attorney for Respondent
  • Amy Telnes (property manager/witness)
    The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.
    Association manager who testified
  • Michael Cibellis (association president/witness)
    The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.
    Association president who testified at rehearing

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    OAH
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    ADRE
    Administrative contact for rehearing requests
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (administrative staff)
    Involved in copy mailing/distribution

David Carr vs. Sunset Plaza Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 16F-H1616011-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-09-09
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Association did not violate the By-Laws regarding the special meeting request and that the homeowners' attempted amendments were invalid because authority to amend rests with the Board.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David Carr Counsel —
Respondent Sunset Plaza Condo Association Counsel Paige Hulton

Alleged Violations

Article VI, Section 2 of By-Laws

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Association did not violate the By-Laws regarding the special meeting request and that the homeowners' attempted amendments were invalid because authority to amend rests with the Board.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove a violation of the By-Laws; the Board had authority to set the meeting schedule and the governing documents did not grant homeowners the power to amend By-Laws without Board action.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to call special meeting and recognize amendments

Petitioner alleged the HOA Board violated the By-Laws by denying a request for a special meeting and refusing to adopt amendments passed by homeowners at a meeting they organized themselves.

Orders: Petition dismissed. Respondent deemed prevailing party. Respondent's request for civil penalty against Petitioner denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

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

16F-H1616011-BFS Decision – 517259.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:58:21 (44.0 KB)

16F-H1616011-BFS Decision – 517327.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:58:27 (89.5 KB)

16F-H1616011-BFS Decision – 525294.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:58:32 (62.1 KB)

16F-H1616011-BFS Decision – 517259.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:17 (44.0 KB)

16F-H1616011-BFS Decision – 517327.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:17 (89.5 KB)

16F-H1616011-BFS Decision – 525294.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:17 (62.1 KB)

Briefing on Administrative Law Judge Decision: Carr v. Sunset Plaza Condo Association

Executive Summary

This briefing outlines the administrative legal proceedings and final decision in the matter of David Carr v. Sunset Plaza Condo Association (No. 16F-H1616011-BFS). The case originated from a dispute regarding the rights of homeowners to call special meetings and unilaterally amend association By-Laws and Rules.

The Petitioner, David Carr, alleged that the Sunset Plaza Condo Association violated its own By-Laws by refusing to schedule a requested special meeting and subsequently failing to recognize amendments passed by a subset of homeowners during an unsanctioned meeting. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Thomas Shedden, determined that the Association acted within its authority and that the power to amend By-Laws resides with the Board of Management, not the general membership. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the decision was certified as final by the Department of Real Estate on October 26, 2016.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Governance and Amendment Authority

The central conflict in this matter involved a misunderstanding of which body holds the authority to amend governing documents. The Petitioner argued that amendments passed by nine homeowners (a quorum of the sixteen-home association) at an unofficial meeting should be binding.

However, the analysis of the Association’s governing documents revealed a clear hierarchy:

  • By-Law Amendments: Article XIII of the By-Laws stipulates that amendments are made by a majority of a quorum of the Board at regular or special meetings, provided notice is given.
  • Rule Amendments: The Association’s Declaration [paragraph 3(K)] grants the Board authority to make and amend rules, which become binding once a majority of homeowners approve them in writing.
  • Petitioner Error: The ALJ noted that the Petitioner failed to provide legal authority showing homeowners have the power to independently amend By-Laws or Rules without Board action.
2. Procedural Compliance for Special Meetings

The dispute was triggered by a request for a special meeting under Article VI, Section 2 of the By-Laws, which allows five or more homeowners to apply in writing to the Board Chairman for such a meeting.

The Board's actions were found to be compliant because:

  • The homeowners' request letter explicitly stated that if their proposed date (February 13, 2016) was unacceptable, the meeting should be held within thirty days.
  • The Board denied the February 13 date but scheduled an open meeting for February 22, 2016—within the requested thirty-day window.
  • The Board provided an agenda and invited homeowners to submit additional items for discussion, thereby fulfilling the spirit and letter of the meeting request.
3. Evidentiary Standards and Burden of Proof

As the Petitioner, Mr. Carr carried the burden of proof to demonstrate a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The Association carried the same burden regarding its request for civil penalties against Mr. Carr.

  • Preponderance of the Evidence: Defined in the proceedings as evidence with "the most convincing force" and "superior evidentiary weight."
  • Findings: The ALJ ruled that Mr. Carr did not meet his burden of proof regarding the alleged violations. Conversely, while the Board prevailed, it failed to prove that Mr. Carr’s actions warranted a civil penalty, as misconstruing documents does not necessarily constitute a violation of those documents.
4. Administrative Jurisdiction and Reassignment

The case highlights a shift in Arizona administrative oversight. Originally, the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety issued the Notice of Hearing. However, effective July 1, 2016, responsibilities for such matters were reassigned to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote Context
"A special meeting of the membership may be called upon written application to the Board of Management’s Chairman by five or more homeowners." Context: The specific provision (Article VI, Section 2) of the By-Laws that the Petitioner claimed the Association violated.
"Mr. Carr was confused as to the nature of the condominium documents at issue, frequently referring to the Articles of Incorporation, but because the Association is not incorporated, there are no Articles." Context: ALJ Shedden noting the Petitioner's lack of legal clarity regarding the Association's corporate status and governing structure.
"The By-Laws and Declaration show that this authority [to amend] rests with the Board… Consequently, there is no authority for the Board to make the changes that were purportedly passed on February 13, 2016." Context: The legal reasoning for dismissing the claim that the homeowners' "vote" to change rules was valid.
"Although Mr. Carr has misconstrued the condominium documents at issue, the Association has not shown that he violated any of these documents." Context: The ALJ’s reasoning for denying the Association’s request to assess a civil penalty against the Petitioner.

Actionable Insights

For Association Boards
  • Strict Adherence to Timelines: When homeowners request a special meeting, the Board should respond within the requested timeframe or the timeframe dictated by the By-Laws. In this case, offering an alternative date within 30 days was sufficient to avoid a violation.
  • Document Hierarchy: Boards must maintain clear distinctions between the Declaration and the By-Laws. Consistency between these documents is vital to defending against claims of "conflict" between provisions.
  • Procedural Transparency: Providing an open meeting agenda and allowing homeowner input can serve as a defense against claims that the Board is "declining" to address member concerns.
For Homeowners
  • Verification of Amendment Power: Before attempting to vote on changes to association rules, members must verify through the By-Laws whether the power to amend lies with the membership or the Board.
  • Official vs. Unofficial Meetings: "Special meetings" held by homeowners without Board sanction—even if a quorum of members is present—may not have the legal authority to effect changes to governing documents.
  • Administrative Recourse: Parties dissatisfied with an ALJ decision have the right to request a rehearing from the Department of Real Estate or seek judicial review in Superior Court, provided they act within the statutory timeframes (typically within 30 days of the decision being certified).

Final Administrative Status

The decision rendered by ALJ Thomas Shedden on September 9, 2016, was transmitted to the Department of Real Estate. Because the Department took no action to reject or modify the decision by October 17, 2016, it was officially certified as the final administrative decision on October 26, 2016.

Study Guide: Administrative Law and Condominium Association Disputes

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and administrative principles found within the case of David Carr vs. Sunset Plaza Condo Association. It covers the regulatory framework, the nature of condominium governance, and the standards of proof applied in Arizona administrative hearings.

I. Case Overview and Key Entities

The Dispute

The case involves a petition filed by David Carr (Petitioner) against the Sunset Plaza Condo Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute centered on whether the Association's Board of Management violated its own By-Laws by denying a request for a special meeting and refusing to incorporate changes to the By-Laws and Rules voted upon by a subset of homeowners.

Principal Entities and Figures
  • Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH): The Phoenix-based office responsible for conducting hearings on administrative matters.
  • Arizona Department of Real Estate: The agency with authority over this matter as of July 1, 2016. It assumed responsibilities previously held by the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
  • Thomas Shedden: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the hearing and issued the decision.
  • David Carr: The Petitioner, a homeowner who represented himself in the proceedings.
  • Sunset Plaza Condo Association: The Respondent, an unincorporated association represented by legal counsel.

II. Key Legal and Procedural Concepts

1. Regulatory Jurisdiction

Under ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11, the Department of Real Estate holds the authority to oversee disputes involving condominium documents and community associations.

2. Condominium Governing Documents

The hierarchy and authority of an association are defined by specific documents:

  • By-Laws: Regulations governing the internal management of the association. In this case, Article VI, Section 2 governed the calling of special meetings, and Article XIII governed the amendment process.
  • Declaration: A document outlining the broader powers of the Board and the Association. At Sunset Plaza, paragraph 3(K) of the Declaration granted the Board authority to make and amend rules, subject to homeowner approval.
  • Articles of Incorporation: These were notably absent in this case because the Sunset Plaza Condo Association is not incorporated.
3. Burden of Proof: Preponderance of the Evidence

In administrative hearings under ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119, the standard of proof is the "preponderance of the evidence." This is defined as the greater weight of evidence that has the most convincing force. It does not require the elimination of all reasonable doubt but must incline an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

4. Administrative Decision Certification

An ALJ's decision is not always the final word immediately. The process includes:

  • Transmittal: The ALJ transmits the decision to the relevant agency (Department of Real Estate).
  • Review Period: The agency has a set timeframe (in this case, approximately 35 days) to accept, reject, or modify the decision.
  • Certification: If the agency takes no action within the statutory timeframe, the ALJ’s decision is certified as the final administrative decision by operation of law (A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D)).

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. Which agency originally issued the Notice of Hearing for this matter, and which agency eventually took over its responsibilities?
  2. According to Article VI, Section 2 of the Sunset Plaza By-Laws, what is the requirement for calling a special meeting of the membership?
  3. On what grounds did the Board deny the homeowners' request for a special meeting on February 13, 2016?
  4. What was the outcome of the unofficial meeting held by nine homeowners on February 13, 2016?
  5. How many homes are in the Sunset Plaza Condo Association, and how many homeowners constitute a quorum?
  6. According to Article XIII of the By-Laws, who has the authority to amend the By-Laws, and what is required?
  7. Why was David Carr's argument regarding the "Articles of Incorporation" dismissed?
  8. What is the effective date of an ALJ decision once it has been certified by the Director?
  9. The Association requested a civil penalty against Mr. Carr. Why did the ALJ deny this request?
  10. What are the two primary options for a party who loses an administrative decision and wishes to challenge it?

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Balance of Authority: Analyze the conflict between the homeowners' attempt to self-govern and the Board's established legal authority. In the context of Carr vs. Sunset Plaza, explain why the homeowners' vote to change the By-Laws was deemed invalid despite achieving a quorum.
  2. Procedural Fairness in Administrative Actions: Discuss the Board’s response to the request for a special meeting. Did the Board’s decision to schedule an open meeting on February 22 instead of the requested February 13 meet the "sufficient facts and circumstances" threshold to avoid a violation of the By-Laws? Support your argument with the ALJ's findings.
  3. The Standard of Evidence: Define "preponderance of the evidence" as used in this case. Contrast it with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal law. Why is the preponderance standard appropriate for administrative disputes between homeowners and associations?
  4. The Finality of Administrative Decisions: Describe the lifecycle of an administrative decision from the hearing to certification. Explain the significance of A.R.S. § 41-1092.08 regarding agency inaction and the resulting "final agency action."

V. Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) An official who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies.
ALJCERT A designation indicating that an ALJ decision has been certified as the final agency action.
By-Laws The rules and regulations adopted by an organization for its administration and management.
Civil Penalty A financial fine imposed by an administrative judge for violations of statutes or community documents.
Declaration A legal document that defines the rights and obligations of property owners within a common interest development.
Petitioner The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, David Carr).
Preponderance of the Evidence Evidence that has superior weight or convincing force, making a fact more likely than not.
Quorum The minimum number of members of an assembly that must be present to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.
Respondent The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, Sunset Plaza Condo Association).
Superior Court The court of general jurisdiction where parties may seek judicial review of a final administrative decision.

Understanding the Limits of Homeowner Autonomy: Lessons from the Sunset Plaza Case

1. Introduction: The Conflict at Sunset Plaza

In the complex landscape of community association governance, a recurring friction point exists between the elected Board of Directors and homeowners who feel their interests are being sidelined. This tension reached a legal flashpoint in the case of Carr v. Sunset Plaza Condo Association, where a group of homeowners attempted a "rebel" takeover of the community’s governing documents.

Frustrated by what they perceived as Board inaction, these owners organized a "special meeting" to force a slate of amendments. However, as this case demonstrates, passion for reform does not supersede the rule of law. David Carr’s subsequent legal challenge provides a masterclass in the common pitfalls of pro se litigants—most notably illustrated by his persistent confusion regarding the association's legal status, as he repeatedly referenced nonexistent "Articles of Incorporation" for an unincorporated association. The central question remains: Can homeowners unilaterally rewrite community rules when they feel the Board is being unresponsive?

2. The Catalyst: A Request for Action

The dispute began in early 2016 with a lack of formality that would later undermine the homeowners' legal standing. Six homeowners submitted an undated letter to the Board of Management requesting a special meeting for February 13, 2016, to vote on various community issues. The letter did, however, provide a concession: if the proposed date was unacceptable, the meeting should be held "within thirty days."

The Board, exercising its administrative discretion, issued a notice on February 4, 2016, denying the February 13th request. Instead, they pointed to a scheduled open meeting on February 22, 2016, providing an agenda and an invitation for members to submit discussion items. This move was a tactical and legal fulfillment of their duties under the By-Laws.

Article VI, Section 2 "A special meeting of the membership may be called upon written application to the Board of Management’s Chairman by five or more homeowners."

3. The "Rebel" Meeting of February 13

Refusing to accept the Board's alternative, the homeowners opted for "self-help" governance. On February 5, 2016, homeowner Leslie Grant notified the community that the February 13th meeting would proceed regardless of Board approval. To further this unsanctioned effort, Ms. Grant distributed "replacement ballots" to the membership on February 10, just three days before their gathering.

On February 13, nine homeowners—representing a quorum of the sixteen-home association—met and voted to pass eleven revisions to the By-Laws and Rules. When the Board predictably refused to recognize these votes, the battle moved to the courts. It is worth noting that while this dispute brewed, the Board demonstrated proper procedural authority by formally amending the By-Laws themselves, effective March 24, 2016—a sharp contrast to the homeowners' informal maneuvers.

4. The Legal Battle: Carr v. Sunset Plaza Condo Association

On April 4, 2016, David Carr filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. Following a legislative shift, jurisdiction was transferred to the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 1, 2016. To prevail, Carr had to meet the "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard.

Preponderance of the Evidence: The greater weight of the evidence… evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Thomas Shedden, found that the "greater weight" of evidence favored the Association. The Board’s decision to offer the February 22nd meeting was deemed a reasonable and timely response to the homeowners' own request for a meeting "within thirty days."

Petitioner’s Claims vs. Court Findings

Petitioner’s Claims Court Findings
The Board violated Article VI, Section 2 by refusing the February 13th special meeting. No Violation: The Board acted reasonably by providing a meeting on Feb 22, which fell within the "thirty-day" window suggested in the homeowners' own letter.
The Feb 13th vote was valid because a quorum of homeowners was present. Invalid Action: Per Article XIII, the authority to amend By-Laws is reserved for the Board, not a quorum of homeowners acting independently.
The Board must be forced to incorporate the eleven revisions passed on Feb 13th. No Legal Basis: Under Paragraph 3(K) of the Declaration, homeowners lack the authority to initiate and pass By-Law amendments unilaterally.
5. Key Legal Takeaway: Who Truly Holds the Power?

The ALJ’s ruling underscores the "hierarchy of documents" that serves as the bedrock of community law. Expert review of the Sunset Plaza records even revealed a clerical mess: the re-typed Declaration contained a typographical error, featuring two "Paragraph 2s" and no "Paragraph 3," meaning the Board’s rule-making authority (Paragraph 3(K)) was often cited as 2(K) in correspondence. Despite such record-keeping flaws, the legal hierarchy remained clear:

  • Article XIII of the By-Laws: Explicitly reserves the power to amend By-Laws to a majority of a quorum of the Board.
  • Paragraph 3(K) of the Declaration: Confirms the Board’s authority to make and amend rules.

The ALJ clarified a nuanced distinction: while the Board drafts and amends rules, those rules only become binding once approved by a majority of homeowners in writing. Crucially, this is a veto or confirmation power, not a legislative power. Homeowners cannot bypass the Board to create their own laws.

6. The Final Verdict and Certification

On September 9, 2016, ALJ Shedden dismissed David Carr’s petition. While the Association pushed for Carr to be hit with civil penalties for filing a "frivolous" petition, the Judge declined. He noted that while Carr was legally mistaken and had "misconstrued" the documents—largely due to his confusion over the association's lack of incorporation—his actions did not rise to the level of a fineable violation.

The procedural finality of the case is a reminder of administrative timelines. The decision was transmitted to the Department of Real Estate on September 12, 2016. Because the Department took no action to modify or reject the decision by the October 17, 2016 deadline, the ALJ’s decision was officially certified as final on October 26, 2016.

7. Conclusion: Navigating Condo Governance

The Carr v. Sunset Plaza case is a cautionary tale for those who favor "rebel" governance over established procedure. For homeowners and boards, three critical takeaways emerge:

  1. Adhere to the Document Hierarchy: The Declaration and By-Laws are not mere suggestions; they are binding contracts. Amendments must originate from the body granted authority by those documents—usually the Board.
  2. A Quorum is Not a Mandate: While a quorum allows a meeting to conduct business, it does not grant homeowners the power to perform acts (like amending By-Laws) that the governing documents specifically reserve for the Board of Directors.
  3. Reasonable Alternatives Prevent Litigation: The Association’s strongest defense was the Board's willingness to facilitate dialogue. By offering the February 22nd meeting as a reasonable alternative to the homeowners' demand, the Board neutralized the claim that they were "refusing" to meet.

Effective change in a community association is achieved through the ballot box and formal amendment processes, not through unsanctioned meetings and "replacement ballots." Following the law is always more cost-effective than a failed day in court.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • David Carr (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Paige Hulton (attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
    Attorney for Respondent at hearing
  • Beth Mulcahy (attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
    Listed on mailing list for final certification

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding Administrative Law Judge
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Processed mailing of certification

Other Participants

  • Leslie Grant (homeowner)
    Wrote letters regarding special meeting; provided replacement ballot

Walter Ward Griffith Jr. v. Alisanos Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1516011-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-04-08
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner. Although the Petitioner installed the tree ring without explicit written approval in 2009, the Respondent conducted routine inspections and had constructive notice of the improvement at that time but failed to object until 2014. Due to the delay and constructive notice, Respondent failed to meet its burden of proof to show a violation.
Filing Fees Refunded $750.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. Counsel —
Respondent Alisanos Community Association Counsel Mark Sahl, Esq. and Greg Stein, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 7.7

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner. Although the Petitioner installed the tree ring without explicit written approval in 2009, the Respondent conducted routine inspections and had constructive notice of the improvement at that time but failed to object until 2014. Due to the delay and constructive notice, Respondent failed to meet its burden of proof to show a violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Exterior Alteration (Concrete Tree Ring)

Respondent alleged Petitioner violated CC&R Section 7.7 by installing a concrete ring around a jacaranda tree without Architectural Review Committee approval. Petitioner argued the ring was approved with the tree or that Respondent had constructive notice.

Orders: Respondent must repay to Petitioner his filing fee of $750.00.

Filing fee: $750.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 3
  • 4
  • 15
  • 16

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

15F-H1516011-BFS Decision – 491042.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:56:22 (92.5 KB)

15F-H1516011-BFS Decision – 499790.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:56:26 (60.3 KB)

15F-H1516011-BFS Decision – 491042.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:40 (92.5 KB)

15F-H1516011-BFS Decision – 499790.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:40 (60.3 KB)

Legal Briefing: Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. vs. Alisanos Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative law proceedings and final decision in the matter of Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. vs. Alisanos Community Association (No. 15F-H1516011-BFS). The dispute centered on whether a concrete ring surrounding a jacaranda tree in the Petitioner’s yard constituted a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

While the Respondent (the Association) alleged that the Petitioner had altered the exterior appearance of his property without prior approval from the Architectural Review Committee, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Petitioner. The decision was based on the Association’s failure to act in a timely manner despite having constructive notice of the improvement for several years. Consequently, the Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party, and the Association was ordered to refund his $750.00 filing fee. The decision was certified as the final agency action on June 3, 2016.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. The Scope of Architectural Approval

The primary conflict involved Section 7.7 of the CC&Rs, which prohibits any work that alters the exterior appearance of a property without the approval of the Architectural Review Committee.

  • The 2008 Approval: In December 2008, the Association approved the Petitioner's request to plant a jacaranda tree.
  • Ambiguity in Documentation: The Petitioner argued that "squiggly lines" on his submitted sketch represented the concrete tree ring, implying that the ring was approved along with the tree.
  • Symbol Interpretation: The ALJ noted that while Petitioner was not required to use professional landscaping symbols, squiggly lines are typically interpreted as trees or bushes. The Petitioner himself admitted that other similar lines on the same plan represented bushes.
2. Constructive vs. Actual Notice

A pivotal theme in the case was the timeline between the installation of the ring and the Association’s enforcement action.

  • Installation Timeline: The Petitioner installed the concrete ring in early 2009, a process that took five to six months.
  • Inspection History: The Association conducted "routine inspections" as early as April 2009. Although these inspections resulted in letters regarding artificial grass, they did not mention the tree ring.
  • The "Visibility" Defense: The Association argued the ring only became noticeable in 2012 or 2013 due to ground settling or tree roots lifting the concrete. However, the ALJ found that because the Association reserved the right to inspect and had conducted routine checks during the installation period, they had "constructive notice" (the legal standard that they should have known) of the ring as of 2009.
3. Burden of Proof and Legal Standards

The proceedings were governed by the standard of "preponderance of the evidence," meaning the evidence must have the most convincing force.

  • Responsibility: The Respondent bore the burden of proving the violation occurred. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving his affirmative defense (that the ring was approved).
  • Failure to Meet Burden: The ALJ concluded that because the Association waited until 2014 to formally notify the Petitioner of the alleged violation—despite having notice in 2009—it failed to meet its burden of showing a current, actionable violation of Section 7.7.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote Source Context Significance
"The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent had constructive notice of the tree ring in 2009." Conclusions of Law, Para. 4 This finding was the turning point of the case, neutralizing the Association's argument that the ring was unapproved.
"Petitioner testified that that squiggly line was intended to show the tree ring… Petitioner also testified however that the other squiggly lines represent bushes or trees, not concrete rings." Findings of Fact, Para. 6 Highlights the inconsistency in the Petitioner’s defense regarding his architectural plans.
"It is reasonable to conclude that Respondent had actual notice as well, but that conclusion is not necessary to the resolution of this matter." Footnote 3 Suggests the ALJ believed the Association likely knew of the ring's existence even earlier than they admitted.
"Respondent has not met its burden to show that Petitioner is in violation of CC&R section 7.7." Conclusions of Law, Para. 5 The final legal determination resulting in the dismissal of the Association's claim.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs)
  • Timeliness of Enforcement: Associations must act promptly when a potential violation is discovered. Delaying enforcement for several years—especially when routine inspections have been performed—can lead to a loss of the right to enforce the CC&R provision due to constructive notice.
  • Detailed Inspection Records: Records of routine inspections should be comprehensive. If an inspector views a property and fails to note an obvious alteration, the Association may be legally deemed to have accepted that alteration.
  • Clarity in Approval Letters: When approving landscaping or exterior changes, the approval notice should explicitly list what is approved and what is excluded to avoid future disputes over ambiguous sketches or "squiggly lines."
For Property Owners
  • Documentation Retention: The Petitioner’s ability to produce the 2008 approval letter and the 2009 inspection correspondence was vital in establishing the timeline of the Association's awareness.
  • Clarity in Applications: To avoid legal disputes, homeowners should use clear labels or standard symbols in architectural requests rather than ambiguous markings that could be misinterpreted as vegetation rather than hardscaping.

Final Decision Status

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision, issued on April 8, 2016, was transmitted to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. Because the Department took no action to accept, reject, or modify the decision by the May 23, 2016 deadline, the decision was certified as final on June 3, 2016. The Association was legally bound to repay the $750.00 filing fee to the Petitioner.

Griffith v. Alisanos Community Association: Legal Case Study Guide

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. v. Alisanos Community Association (No. 15F-H1516011-BFS). It examines the dispute over property alterations, the application of community Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the legal standards for administrative hearings in Arizona.

Key Case Concepts

1. The Core Dispute: CC&R Section 7.7

The central legal issue involved whether the Petitioner, Walter Ward Griffith, Jr., violated Section 7.7 of the Alisanos Community Association CC&Rs. This section stipulates that no work altering the exterior appearance of a property may be performed without the express approval of the Association’s Architectural Review Committee.

2. Burden of Proof and Legal Standards

In this administrative proceeding, the following standards applied:

  • Respondent's Burden: The Alisanos Community Association bore the burden of proving that the Petitioner committed the alleged violation.
  • Petitioner's Burden: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving any "affirmative defense" (a fact that defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the opponent's claim).
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof required was a "preponderance of the evidence," defined as evidence that carries the most convincing force and superior weight, rather than the absolute number of witnesses.
3. Constructive Notice

A pivotal concept in the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision was "constructive notice." This legal principle suggests that a party is treated as having knowledge of a fact if they could have discovered it through reasonable care or inspection, even if they claim no actual knowledge.

4. Administrative Finality

The case demonstrates the process of an ALJ decision becoming final. Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety had a specific window to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s decision. When no action was taken by the deadline (May 23, 2016), the decision was certified as final.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

Q1: What specific physical feature of the property was the subject of the Alisanos Community Association’s violation claim?

  • Answer: A concrete ring surrounding a jacaranda tree in the Petitioner’s yard.

Q2: What did the Petitioner argue the "squiggly lines" on his 2008 landscaping sketch represented?

  • Answer: The Petitioner argued the squiggly line in the general location of the jacaranda tree was intended to represent the tree ring, implying the Association had approved the ring when it approved the tree.

Q3: Why did the ALJ reject the video evidence from the March 8, 2015, Board meeting provided by the Petitioner?

  • Answer: The video did not support the Petitioner's claim that the Board acknowledged the tree ring was approved; instead, it showed the Board member was discussing artificial grass.

Q4: On what grounds did the Association claim they did not notice the tree ring until 2012 or 2013?

  • Answer: The Association argued the ring was not evident until the ground settled or tree roots lifted the ring, making it more visible.

Q5: What was the primary reason the ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner?

  • Answer: The ALJ determined the Association had "constructive notice" of the tree ring as early as 2009 due to routine inspections and the Petitioner’s testimony, yet they failed to provide written notice of a violation until 2014.

Q6: What financial remedy was awarded to the Petitioner?

  • Answer: The Respondent was ordered to repay the Petitioner’s filing fee of $750.00.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The Interpretation of Architectural Plans

Analyze the conflict between the Petitioner’s use of "squiggly lines" to denote a concrete ring and the Association’s claim that such symbols typically represent vegetation. Should homeowners be held to professional landscaping standards when submitting plans to an Architectural Review Committee, or does the burden lie with the Committee to seek clarification on ambiguous symbols before granting approval? Use the facts of the case to support your argument.

2. Constructive Notice and Homeowner Association Oversight

The ALJ ruled that the Association had constructive notice of the tree ring in 2009, making their 2014 violation notice untimely. Discuss the implications of this ruling for Community Associations. Does this standard place an unreasonable burden on volunteer boards to catch every minor CC&R violation during routine inspections, or is it a necessary protection for homeowners against delayed enforcement?

3. The Mechanics of the Preponderance of the Evidence

Using the definition provided in the ALJ's Conclusions of Law, evaluate the evidence presented by the Respondent regarding the visibility of the tree ring versus the evidence of the 2009 "routine inspection." Explain how the "greater weight of evidence" shifted toward the Petitioner despite the Association’s claim that the ring was hidden by the soil.

Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) A judge who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies (in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings).
Affirmative Defense A defense in which the defendant (or petitioner in this context) introduces evidence which, if found to be credible, will negate civil liability even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts.
CC&Rs Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the rules of a neighborhood homeowner association that determine what can and cannot be done with a property.
Certification of Decision The process by which an ALJ decision is officially designated as the final administrative decision of an agency.
Constructive Notice The legal fiction that signifies a person or entity should have known a fact because it was discoverable through reasonable effort.
Preponderance of the Evidence The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning that the proposition is more likely to be true than not true.
Respondent The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, the Alisanos Community Association).
Section 7.7 The specific clause in the Alisanos CC&Rs requiring approval for any work that alters the exterior appearance of a property.
Superior Court The court where a party may seek judicial review of an administrative decision after the administrative remedies have been exhausted.
Transmitted The formal delivery of the ALJ's decision to the relevant government department for review.

The Case of the Concrete Ring: Why HOA Timelines Matter More Than "Squiggly Lines"

1. Introduction: The $750 Lesson in HOA Governance

In the complex landscape of Homeowners Association (HOA) governance, many boards operate under the mistaken belief that their enforcement power is indefinite. However, the case of Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. v. Alisanos Community Association serves as a powerful reminder that administrative negligence and delayed action can strip an association of its authority. This dispute, centered on a homeowner’s unapproved masonry, is a landmark victory for homeowner rights against arbitrary and sluggish enforcement.

"When an Association ignores a visible modification for five years, they don't just lose the argument—they lose the right to enforce."

2. The Dispute: Squiggly Lines and Architectural Approval

The conflict began with a 2008 landscape plan. While the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) formally approved a jacaranda tree, a concrete ring subsequently built around it became the catalyst for litigation years later. Mr. Griffith argued his original plan included "squiggly lines" representing the ring. While the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately sided with the homeowner on the timeline, the "squiggly line" defense itself was a legal reach that homeowners should avoid.

Petitioner's Interpretation Industry Standard/ALJ View
Squiggly lines were intended to represent the concrete tree ring as part of the approved 2008 plan. Squiggly lines are industry-standard symbols for vegetation, such as trees or bushes.
The ring was "implicitly" approved because the overall sketch was signed off by the ARC. The Petitioner admitted his other squiggly lines represented bushes, undermining his masonry argument.

While the ALJ found that the ring was not technically approved in 2008, this interpretative "loss" for the homeowner was rendered moot by the Association’s failure to act within a reasonable legal window.

3. A Timeline of the Transformation (2008–2015)

The history of this case reveals a staggering level of administrative neglect by the Alisanos Community Association. As a Legal Analyst, I find the following timeline a textbook example of how not to manage community standards:

  1. December 16, 2008: The HOA approves the planting of a jacaranda tree but remains silent on any masonry structures.
  2. Early 2009: Mr. Griffith spends five to six months digging and pouring the concrete ring—a highly visible, labor-intensive process.
  3. April 1, 2009: The HOA conducts a "routine inspection." They notice unfinished artificial grass but fail to mention the obvious masonry work happening around the tree.
  4. 2012–2013: Board member Brian Moore later testifies that it was only during this period that the area began to look "odd" and the ring became noticeable.
  5. January 7, 2014: The HOA issues its first written concern. Demonstrating administrative incompetence, the letter confused and conflated the ring with a different, unrelated tree removal issue.
  6. October 21, 2015: More than six years after construction, the HOA issues a formal violation notice under CC&R Section 7.7.
4. The Turning Point: "Constructive Notice" vs. Ground Settling

To excuse their six-year delay, the Association attempted a "latent defect" defense. They argued the ring was invisible for years, only surfacing when the ground settled or tree roots lifted the concrete. Judge Thomas Shedden rejected this, pointing to the Association’s own governing documents.

Under the CC&Rs, the Board reserved the express right to inspect completed improvements. This right creates a legal obligation: if an Association has the contractual opportunity to see a modification, the law assumes they have seen it.

Key Legal Concept: Constructive Notice Constructive notice is a legal inference that a party knows a fact because they could have discovered it through reasonable diligence. Because the Association performed "routine inspections" in 2009 and held the "right to inspect" under the CC&Rs, they were legally charged with knowledge of the ring the moment it was built. If a violation is "open and obvious," the clock for enforcement begins immediately.

5. The Verdict: Victory for the Homeowner

In administrative law, the "burden of proof" is the pivot on which cases turn. Per Conclusion of Law Paragraph 1, the Association bore the burden of proving a violation occurred by a preponderance of the evidence—meaning the evidence must show it is "more likely than not" that their claims are valid.

Because the Association had constructive notice in 2009 but waited until 2014 to act, the ALJ ruled they had failed to meet their burden. The Final Agency Action ordered the following:

  • Prevailing Party: Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. was declared the prevailing party.
  • Financial Restitution: The Association was ordered to repay Mr. Griffith his $750.00 filing fee within thirty days of the final Order (issued April 2016).
6. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Associations
The Importance of Clear Landscaping Symbols

Homeowners should never rely on "squiggly lines" to represent permanent structures. While Mr. Griffith won his case on the timeline, his own testimony—admitting that other squiggles meant plants—nearly cost him the "approval" argument. Explicit labels are the only way to ensure an affirmative defense holds up in court.

The Danger of Delayed Enforcement

For Associations, the enforcement "clock" starts when a violation is visible, not when the Board finally decides to care about it. Delaying action for years transforms a clear-cut violation into an unenforceable "grandfathered" modification through the doctrine of constructive notice.

The Weight of "Routine Inspections"

Routine inspections are a double-edged sword. While they help catch violations, they also set the legal timestamp for when the Association should have known about a modification. An inspection that fails to note an obvious concrete ring is not just a missed detail—it is a legal waiver of the Association's right to enforce the CC&Rs.

7. Final Summary and Conclusion

The Griffith v. Alisanos case is a victory for community rights, proving that homeowners are protected from arbitrary, retroactive enforcement. While CC&Rs are binding contracts, they do not grant Boards the right to sleep on their duties for half a decade and then demand costly removals. Clear communication, diligent inspections, and prompt action are the only paths to sustainable community management. When Boards fail to be diligent, the law will favor the homeowner.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Mark Sahl (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen PLC
    Appeared for Respondent
  • Greg Stein (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen PLC
    Appeared for Respondent
  • Brian Moore (board member)
    Alisanos Community Association
    Testified at hearing
  • Greg Kotsakis (committee member)
    Alisanos Community Association
    Architectural Review Committee member
  • Augustus Shaw (board member)
    Alisanos Community Association
    Mentioned in video recording regarding board meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Debra Blake (Interim Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Joni Cage (staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Care of recipient for Debra Blake
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed mailing certification

Attila Revesz vs. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium ,Association of Phoenix

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1415008-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2015-05-22
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Attila Revesz Counsel —
Respondent Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix Counsel Craig Boates

Alleged Violations

Article 2.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge deemed Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association the prevailing party and dismissed Attila Revesz's petition. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws regarding the annual meeting and quorum requirements.

Why this result: The ALJ found credible testimony that a quorum was present (including a member via telephone) and Petitioner offered no substantial evidence to the contrary.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold valid annual meeting

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated Bylaws Article 2.1 by failing to hold a valid annual meeting. Petitioner claimed a quorum was not present because a board member attended by telephone, which Petitioner disputed. The ALJ found credible testimony that the board member attended by phone and a quorum of homeowners was present.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Article 2.1 of Bylaws

Decision Documents

15F-H1415008-BFS-rhg Decision – 463171.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:14 (62.4 KB)

15F-H1415008-BFS-rhg Decision – 469839.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:15 (62.6 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Attila Revesz vs. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document details the administrative proceedings and final decision regarding Case No. 15F-H1415008-BFS. The petitioner, Attila Revesz, a member of the Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix, alleged that the Association violated Article 2.1 of its Bylaws by failing to hold an annual meeting in 2014.

The Respondent, Shadow Mountain Villas, contended that a meeting held on May 22, 2014, constituted a valid annual meeting. The central conflict of the case rested on whether a proper quorum of Board members and homeowners was present during this meeting. Following a hearing held on May 7, 2015, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden determined that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The petition was dismissed, and the decision was certified as the final administrative action of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on July 1, 2015.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. The Validity of the 2014 Annual Meeting

The core of the dispute was the Petitioner's claim that no annual meeting occurred in 2014. While a meeting did take place on May 22, 2014, the Petitioner argued it was invalid due to:

  • Lack of a Board Quorum: Three Board members are required for a quorum. Two were present in person, but the third (Angelo Peri) participated via telephone.
  • Lack of a Homeowner Quorum: The Petitioner challenged whether enough homeowners were present, either in person or by proxy, to conduct business.

The Respondent provided testimony from Jo-Ann Greenstein, vice-president of RealManage, who affirmed that a quorum was met for both the Board and the homeowners.

2. Evidentiary Standards and Credibility

The decision hinged largely on the credibility of witness testimony regarding the telephonic presence of Board member Angelo Peri:

  • Testimony Conflict: A witness for the Petitioner, Rick Sanchez, testified he did not see a telephone or hear anyone on a phone during the meeting. Conversely, Ms. Greenstein testified that Mr. Peri was present via cell phone, noting the room lacked a landline.
  • Documentary Errors: Draft minutes of the meeting initially listed Mr. Peri as absent. Ms. Greenstein clarified that these were errors typical of draft documents and that the final adopted minutes correctly showed Mr. Peri as present.
3. Petitioner Inconsistency

A significant factor in the ALJ’s decision was the behavior of the Petitioner following the contested meeting. Despite challenging the meeting's validity, the Petitioner and his witness, Mr. Sanchez, were elected to the Board at that very meeting via voice-vote. Evidence showed that during 2014, both individuals acted in their capacity as Board members based on those election results. The ALJ noted that by acting as a director, the Petitioner implicitly accepted the validity of the meeting where he was elected.

4. Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings

As the Petitioner, Mr. Revesz bore the legal burden to prove the Association’s violation by a "preponderance of the evidence." The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner did not provide substantial evidence to rebut the Respondent's testimony regarding quorum or the finality of the approved minutes.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote Context
"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." The legal definition of "Preponderance of the Evidence" used by the ALJ to evaluate the case (citing Black’s Law Dictionary).
"This finding is strongly supported by the fact that Mr. Revesz, by acting as a director or Board member during 2014, accepted that he had been elected as Board member at the May 22, 2014 annual meeting." The ALJ's justification for crediting the Respondent's version of events, noting the Petitioner's contradictory actions.
"Ms. Greenstein provided credible testimony that Mr. Peri was present by telephone at the May 22, 2014 annual meeting and that there was a quorum." The ALJ’s formal finding regarding the presence of the necessary Board members to validate the meeting.
"No action by the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety was received… the attached Administrative Law Judge Decision is certified as the final administrative decision." The statement by Interim Director Greg Hanchett confirming that the decision became final because the Department did not modify or reject it within the statutory timeframe.

Procedural Timeline and Certification

The administrative process followed a specific statutory timeline:

  • February 6, 2015: Notice of Hearing issued.
  • May 7, 2015: Hearing conducted.
  • May 22, 2015: ALJ Decision transmitted to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
  • June 26, 2015: Deadline for the Department to accept, reject, or modify the decision.
  • July 1, 2015: Decision certified as final after no action was taken by the Department.

Actionable Insights

Documentation and Minutes

The case highlights the importance of accurate record-keeping. While draft minutes contained errors regarding attendance, the eventual adoption of corrected minutes in March 2015 served as critical evidence. Organizations should ensure that minutes are reviewed and formally approved to establish a definitive record of proceedings.

Telephonic Participation

The decision confirms that telephonic participation (in this case, via cell phone) can satisfy quorum requirements, provided it is documented and the individual is considered "present."

Consistency in Legal Challenges

Challenging the validity of a meeting while simultaneously benefiting from and acting upon the outcomes of that meeting (such as an election) significantly weakens a petitioner's standing and credibility in an administrative hearing.

Rights to Appeal

Parties dissatisfied with a certified final decision have the right to:

  1. Request a rehearing from the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(A).
  2. Seek judicial review in Superior Court, though they may be required to request a rehearing first. Filing a notice of action with the Office of Administrative Hearings is required within ten days of filing a complaint for judicial review.

Study Guide: Attila Revesz v. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing and subsequent certification in the matter of Attila Revesz v. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix (Case No. 15F-H1415008-BFS). It outlines the legal standards, factual disputes, and administrative procedures involved in this case.

I. Case Overview and Key Facts

The dispute centers on a petition filed by Attila Revesz, a homeowner and member of the Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association. Revesz alleged that the Association violated Article 2.1 of its Bylaws by failing to hold a proper annual meeting in 2014.

The Central Dispute

The Association maintained that an annual meeting was held on May 22, 2014. Revesz contested the validity of this meeting based on two primary arguments:

  1. Lack of Board Quorum: Revesz argued there were not enough Board members present.
  2. Lack of Homeowner Quorum: Revesz argued there were not enough homeowners present to conduct business.
Evidence and Testimony
  • The Petitioner’s Case: Rick Sanchez testified he did not see a phone or hear anyone on a phone during the meeting. Draft minutes initially listed Board member Angelo Peri as absent.
  • The Respondent’s Case: Jo-Ann Greenstein (RealManage) testified that a quorum of homeowners was present (personally or by proxy). She clarified that while there was no landline in the room, Board member Angelo Peri attended via cell phone.
  • The Conflict of Action: Following the May 22, 2014 meeting, Revesz and Sanchez were elected to the Board by voice-vote and subsequently acted in their capacities as Board members throughout 2014. This behavior was cited by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) as evidence that they accepted the validity of the meeting at the time.

II. Key Concepts and Legal Standards

1. Burden and Standard of Proof

Under Arizona Administrative Code § R2-19-119, the Petitioner carries the burden of proof. The required standard is a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition, making the fact sought to be proven "more probable than not."

2. Quorum Requirements
  • Board Quorum: For Shadow Mountain Villas, three Board members constitute a quorum.
  • Homeowner Quorum: Must be established through members present in person or via proxy.
  • Telephonic Presence: The case established that presence via cell phone constitutes being present for the purposes of a quorum, even if a physical landline is not available.
3. Administrative Procedure
  • Agency Action: The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety has a specific window to accept, reject, or modify an ALJ's decision.
  • Final Certification: If the Department takes no action within the statutory timeframe (pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08), the ALJ’s decision is automatically certified as the final administrative decision.

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. Who was the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the hearing?
  2. What was the specific Bylaw article allegedly violated by the Association?
  3. On what date was the contested annual meeting held?
  4. According to the Association's records, how many Board members are required for a quorum?
  5. What was the Association's explanation for the draft minutes listing Angelo Peri as absent?
  6. Why was the Board election on May 22, 2014, conducted by voice-vote rather than a written ballot?
  7. By what date did the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety have to act before the ALJ decision was automatically certified?
  8. What error was noted regarding Attila Revesz's name in the Board meeting minutes?
  9. Who provided the testimony regarding the presence of homeowners via proxy?
  10. What is the first step a party must take if they wish to challenge the final administrative decision in Superior Court?

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Preponderance of Evidence: Analyze the ALJ’s determination that Revesz failed to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Discuss how the Association’s testimony regarding telephonic attendance and the Petitioner’s own subsequent actions as a Board member weighed against the Petitioner's claims.
  2. The Validity of Telephonic Participation: Evaluate the implications of the ALJ's finding that a Board member's presence via cell phone satisfies quorum requirements. How does this decision reflect the practicalities of modern administrative meetings versus traditional landline or in-person requirements?
  3. Administrative Certification and Finality: Explain the process by which an ALJ decision becomes "final." Discuss the significance of the June 26, 2015, deadline in this case and what the Department’s inaction meant for the legal standing of the ALJ's original order.

V. Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) An official who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies.
Bates Numbers A numbering system used to identify and track individual pages of evidence or documents in a legal matter.
Certification The process by which an ALJ decision is officially designated as the final agency action, often due to the passage of time without modification by a director.
Preponderance of the Evidence The legal standard of proof in civil and administrative cases; evidence that makes a claim more likely to be true than not.
Proxy Authority given by one person to another to act or vote on their behalf, often used to establish a quorum in homeowner association meetings.
Quorum The minimum number of members of an assembly or board that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.
Respondent The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed; in this case, the Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association.
Voice-vote A voting method in which those in favor say "aye" and those opposed say "no," used here because the number of candidates matched the number of open seats.

Quorum, Cell Phones, and Irony: Lessons from an HOA Legal Dispute

The Hook: When Governance Becomes Personal

In the world of Homeowners Association (HOA) governance, a single cell phone can be the difference between a valid election and a total administrative collapse. The legal showdown of Attila Revesz vs. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix serves as a masterclass in how meeting formalities, witness credibility, and digital presence dictate the legitimacy of association leadership. What began as a homeowner's challenge to a 2014 annual meeting evolved into a high-stakes investigation into the very definition of "presence" in the digital age.

The Core Complaint: A Question of Legitimacy

The dispute was initiated on November 28, 2014, when Petitioner and homeowner Attila Revesz filed a "Single Issue Petition" against the Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association. Mr. Revesz alleged that the Association had fundamentally violated Article 2.1 of its Bylaws by failing to hold a valid annual meeting in 2014.

At the heart of the Petitioner's argument was the claim that the meeting conducted on May 22, 2014, was a legal nullity. He contended that the Association failed to achieve a quorum for both the Board of Directors and the homeowners. Under the Association’s governing documents, three Board members are required to constitute a quorum. Mr. Revesz argued that since this threshold was not met, any business conducted—including the election of new directors—was invalid.

The Quorum Controversy: Presence via Cell Phone

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was tasked with reconciling two wildly different accounts of the May 22nd meeting. The Association asserted that a Board quorum was achieved through the attendance of Russell Hutchinson and Shelly Rothgeb in person, supplemented by Board member Angelo Peri via telephone.

  • Witness Volatility: The hearing featured a dramatic shift in testimony. Rick Sanchez, appearing for the Petitioner, initially admitted during cross-examination that the meeting minutes were approved without objection in March 2015. However, under follow-up questioning by Mr. Revesz, Mr. Sanchez reversed his position, claiming no vote had occurred. This inconsistency weakened the Petitioner’s case in real-time.
  • The "Draft" Minute Fallacy: Mr. Revesz relied on draft minutes which listed Mr. Peri as absent. The Association countered with the final minutes adopted in March 2015, which recorded Mr. Peri’s telephonic presence. Jo-Ann Greenstein, vice-president of the management firm RealManage, testified that draft minutes are inherently prone to clerical errors. A prime example of this administrative fallibility was found in the Board meeting minutes, where Mr. Revesz himself was erroneously listed as "Attilla Balbo."

Key Evidence While the Petitioner’s witness noted the absence of a landline in the room, the ALJ found the manager’s testimony more credible. The Association successfully established that modern technology satisfies attendance requirements; Board Member Angelo Peri’s participation via cell phone was sufficient to constitute a quorum.

The Paradox of the Petitioner: An Unexpected Election

Perhaps the most striking element of this case is the "ironic twist" detailed in Finding of Fact #12. Attila Revesz, the man suing to declare the meeting invalid, was actually elected to the Board at that very meeting. Because there were only three candidates for three open positions, the election was finalized by a simple voice vote.

From a legal standpoint, Mr. Revesz’s subsequent behavior created an "estoppel-adjacent" scenario. After the meeting, he and Mr. Sanchez accepted their positions and actively served as Board members throughout the remainder of 2014. The ALJ noted that by acting in an official capacity and exercising the powers granted by that election, the Petitioner tacitly validated the legitimacy of the meeting he later sought to overturn.

Legal Standards: The "Preponderance of Evidence"

In administrative hearings, the burden of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," but rather a lower threshold known as the Preponderance of the Evidence.

Element Description
Standard of Proof Preponderance of the Evidence (A.A.C. § R2-19-119).
Definition Evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposition (more probable than not).
Burden of Proof Rests entirely on the Petitioner (Mr. Revesz).
Result of Failure If the evidence is "tied" or unconvincing, the Petitioner fails to meet the burden and loses the case.

The ALJ determined that Mr. Revesz failed to meet this burden. While the Petitioner questioned the homeowner quorum, he provided no substantial evidence to rebut Ms. Greenstein’s testimony that a quorum was reached through a combination of personal attendance and proxies.

The Final Verdict: Certification and Dismissal

On May 22, 2015, the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision in favor of Shadow Mountain Villas. Per Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 41-1092.08), the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety was granted a window until June 26, 2015, to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s findings.

Because the Department took no action by the June 26 deadline, the decision was officially certified as the final administrative decision on July 1, 2015. The final order deemed the Association the prevailing party and dismissed Mr. Revesz’s petition in its entirety.

Key Takeaways for HOA Members

  • Prioritize Formal Adoption Over Draft Records: Draft minutes are legally unreliable. Boards must ensure that the formal approval process is used to correct clerical errors (like the "Attilla Balbo" misspelling) before records are finalized.
  • Digital Presence is Legal Presence: Unless specifically prohibited by an HOA’s bylaws, telephonic participation—including via cell phone—is a valid method for establishing a quorum.
  • Conduct Constitutes Acceptance: A homeowner cannot easily challenge the validity of an election if they have spent months acting as an elected official. Your behavior as a member or director can serve as a legal validation of the Association’s actions.
  • The Rebuttal Requirement: To challenge a manager’s testimony regarding homeowner quorums and proxies, a petitioner must provide "substantial evidence." Mere skepticism of the results is insufficient to meet the burden of proof.

Attila Revesz vs. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1415008-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2015-05-22
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge deemed Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association the prevailing party and dismissed Attila Revesz's petition. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws regarding the annual meeting and quorum requirements.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Attila Revesz Counsel —
Respondent Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix Counsel Craig Boates

Alleged Violations

Article 2.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge deemed Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association the prevailing party and dismissed Attila Revesz's petition. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws regarding the annual meeting and quorum requirements.

Why this result: The ALJ found credible testimony that a quorum was present (including a member via telephone) and Petitioner offered no substantial evidence to the contrary.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold valid annual meeting

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated Bylaws Article 2.1 by failing to hold a valid annual meeting. Petitioner claimed a quorum was not present because a board member attended by telephone, which Petitioner disputed. The ALJ found credible testimony that the board member attended by phone and a quorum of homeowners was present.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Article 2.1 of Bylaws

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

15F-H1415008-BFS Decision – 442072.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:51:25 (83.9 KB)

15F-H1415008-BFS Decision – 447098.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:51:31 (62.5 KB)

15F-H1415008-BFS Decision – 442072.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:10 (83.9 KB)

15F-H1415008-BFS Decision – 447098.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:10 (62.5 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Attila Revesz vs. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document details the administrative proceedings and final decision regarding Case No. 15F-H1415008-BFS. The petitioner, Attila Revesz, a member of the Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix, alleged that the Association violated Article 2.1 of its Bylaws by failing to hold an annual meeting in 2014.

The Respondent, Shadow Mountain Villas, contended that a meeting held on May 22, 2014, constituted a valid annual meeting. The central conflict of the case rested on whether a proper quorum of Board members and homeowners was present during this meeting. Following a hearing held on May 7, 2015, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden determined that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The petition was dismissed, and the decision was certified as the final administrative action of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on July 1, 2015.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. The Validity of the 2014 Annual Meeting

The core of the dispute was the Petitioner's claim that no annual meeting occurred in 2014. While a meeting did take place on May 22, 2014, the Petitioner argued it was invalid due to:

  • Lack of a Board Quorum: Three Board members are required for a quorum. Two were present in person, but the third (Angelo Peri) participated via telephone.
  • Lack of a Homeowner Quorum: The Petitioner challenged whether enough homeowners were present, either in person or by proxy, to conduct business.

The Respondent provided testimony from Jo-Ann Greenstein, vice-president of RealManage, who affirmed that a quorum was met for both the Board and the homeowners.

2. Evidentiary Standards and Credibility

The decision hinged largely on the credibility of witness testimony regarding the telephonic presence of Board member Angelo Peri:

  • Testimony Conflict: A witness for the Petitioner, Rick Sanchez, testified he did not see a telephone or hear anyone on a phone during the meeting. Conversely, Ms. Greenstein testified that Mr. Peri was present via cell phone, noting the room lacked a landline.
  • Documentary Errors: Draft minutes of the meeting initially listed Mr. Peri as absent. Ms. Greenstein clarified that these were errors typical of draft documents and that the final adopted minutes correctly showed Mr. Peri as present.
3. Petitioner Inconsistency

A significant factor in the ALJ’s decision was the behavior of the Petitioner following the contested meeting. Despite challenging the meeting's validity, the Petitioner and his witness, Mr. Sanchez, were elected to the Board at that very meeting via voice-vote. Evidence showed that during 2014, both individuals acted in their capacity as Board members based on those election results. The ALJ noted that by acting as a director, the Petitioner implicitly accepted the validity of the meeting where he was elected.

4. Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings

As the Petitioner, Mr. Revesz bore the legal burden to prove the Association’s violation by a "preponderance of the evidence." The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner did not provide substantial evidence to rebut the Respondent's testimony regarding quorum or the finality of the approved minutes.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote Context
"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." The legal definition of "Preponderance of the Evidence" used by the ALJ to evaluate the case (citing Black’s Law Dictionary).
"This finding is strongly supported by the fact that Mr. Revesz, by acting as a director or Board member during 2014, accepted that he had been elected as Board member at the May 22, 2014 annual meeting." The ALJ's justification for crediting the Respondent's version of events, noting the Petitioner's contradictory actions.
"Ms. Greenstein provided credible testimony that Mr. Peri was present by telephone at the May 22, 2014 annual meeting and that there was a quorum." The ALJ’s formal finding regarding the presence of the necessary Board members to validate the meeting.
"No action by the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety was received… the attached Administrative Law Judge Decision is certified as the final administrative decision." The statement by Interim Director Greg Hanchett confirming that the decision became final because the Department did not modify or reject it within the statutory timeframe.

Procedural Timeline and Certification

The administrative process followed a specific statutory timeline:

  • February 6, 2015: Notice of Hearing issued.
  • May 7, 2015: Hearing conducted.
  • May 22, 2015: ALJ Decision transmitted to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
  • June 26, 2015: Deadline for the Department to accept, reject, or modify the decision.
  • July 1, 2015: Decision certified as final after no action was taken by the Department.

Actionable Insights

Documentation and Minutes

The case highlights the importance of accurate record-keeping. While draft minutes contained errors regarding attendance, the eventual adoption of corrected minutes in March 2015 served as critical evidence. Organizations should ensure that minutes are reviewed and formally approved to establish a definitive record of proceedings.

Telephonic Participation

The decision confirms that telephonic participation (in this case, via cell phone) can satisfy quorum requirements, provided it is documented and the individual is considered "present."

Consistency in Legal Challenges

Challenging the validity of a meeting while simultaneously benefiting from and acting upon the outcomes of that meeting (such as an election) significantly weakens a petitioner's standing and credibility in an administrative hearing.

Rights to Appeal

Parties dissatisfied with a certified final decision have the right to:

  1. Request a rehearing from the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(A).
  2. Seek judicial review in Superior Court, though they may be required to request a rehearing first. Filing a notice of action with the Office of Administrative Hearings is required within ten days of filing a complaint for judicial review.

Study Guide: Attila Revesz v. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing and subsequent certification in the matter of Attila Revesz v. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix (Case No. 15F-H1415008-BFS). It outlines the legal standards, factual disputes, and administrative procedures involved in this case.

I. Case Overview and Key Facts

The dispute centers on a petition filed by Attila Revesz, a homeowner and member of the Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association. Revesz alleged that the Association violated Article 2.1 of its Bylaws by failing to hold a proper annual meeting in 2014.

The Central Dispute

The Association maintained that an annual meeting was held on May 22, 2014. Revesz contested the validity of this meeting based on two primary arguments:

  1. Lack of Board Quorum: Revesz argued there were not enough Board members present.
  2. Lack of Homeowner Quorum: Revesz argued there were not enough homeowners present to conduct business.
Evidence and Testimony
  • The Petitioner’s Case: Rick Sanchez testified he did not see a phone or hear anyone on a phone during the meeting. Draft minutes initially listed Board member Angelo Peri as absent.
  • The Respondent’s Case: Jo-Ann Greenstein (RealManage) testified that a quorum of homeowners was present (personally or by proxy). She clarified that while there was no landline in the room, Board member Angelo Peri attended via cell phone.
  • The Conflict of Action: Following the May 22, 2014 meeting, Revesz and Sanchez were elected to the Board by voice-vote and subsequently acted in their capacities as Board members throughout 2014. This behavior was cited by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) as evidence that they accepted the validity of the meeting at the time.

II. Key Concepts and Legal Standards

1. Burden and Standard of Proof

Under Arizona Administrative Code § R2-19-119, the Petitioner carries the burden of proof. The required standard is a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition, making the fact sought to be proven "more probable than not."

2. Quorum Requirements
  • Board Quorum: For Shadow Mountain Villas, three Board members constitute a quorum.
  • Homeowner Quorum: Must be established through members present in person or via proxy.
  • Telephonic Presence: The case established that presence via cell phone constitutes being present for the purposes of a quorum, even if a physical landline is not available.
3. Administrative Procedure
  • Agency Action: The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety has a specific window to accept, reject, or modify an ALJ's decision.
  • Final Certification: If the Department takes no action within the statutory timeframe (pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08), the ALJ’s decision is automatically certified as the final administrative decision.

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. Who was the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the hearing?
  2. What was the specific Bylaw article allegedly violated by the Association?
  3. On what date was the contested annual meeting held?
  4. According to the Association's records, how many Board members are required for a quorum?
  5. What was the Association's explanation for the draft minutes listing Angelo Peri as absent?
  6. Why was the Board election on May 22, 2014, conducted by voice-vote rather than a written ballot?
  7. By what date did the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety have to act before the ALJ decision was automatically certified?
  8. What error was noted regarding Attila Revesz's name in the Board meeting minutes?
  9. Who provided the testimony regarding the presence of homeowners via proxy?
  10. What is the first step a party must take if they wish to challenge the final administrative decision in Superior Court?

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Preponderance of Evidence: Analyze the ALJ’s determination that Revesz failed to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Discuss how the Association’s testimony regarding telephonic attendance and the Petitioner’s own subsequent actions as a Board member weighed against the Petitioner's claims.
  2. The Validity of Telephonic Participation: Evaluate the implications of the ALJ's finding that a Board member's presence via cell phone satisfies quorum requirements. How does this decision reflect the practicalities of modern administrative meetings versus traditional landline or in-person requirements?
  3. Administrative Certification and Finality: Explain the process by which an ALJ decision becomes "final." Discuss the significance of the June 26, 2015, deadline in this case and what the Department’s inaction meant for the legal standing of the ALJ's original order.

V. Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) An official who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies.
Bates Numbers A numbering system used to identify and track individual pages of evidence or documents in a legal matter.
Certification The process by which an ALJ decision is officially designated as the final agency action, often due to the passage of time without modification by a director.
Preponderance of the Evidence The legal standard of proof in civil and administrative cases; evidence that makes a claim more likely to be true than not.
Proxy Authority given by one person to another to act or vote on their behalf, often used to establish a quorum in homeowner association meetings.
Quorum The minimum number of members of an assembly or board that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.
Respondent The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed; in this case, the Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association.
Voice-vote A voting method in which those in favor say "aye" and those opposed say "no," used here because the number of candidates matched the number of open seats.

Quorum, Cell Phones, and Irony: Lessons from an HOA Legal Dispute

The Hook: When Governance Becomes Personal

In the world of Homeowners Association (HOA) governance, a single cell phone can be the difference between a valid election and a total administrative collapse. The legal showdown of Attila Revesz vs. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix serves as a masterclass in how meeting formalities, witness credibility, and digital presence dictate the legitimacy of association leadership. What began as a homeowner's challenge to a 2014 annual meeting evolved into a high-stakes investigation into the very definition of "presence" in the digital age.

The Core Complaint: A Question of Legitimacy

The dispute was initiated on November 28, 2014, when Petitioner and homeowner Attila Revesz filed a "Single Issue Petition" against the Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association. Mr. Revesz alleged that the Association had fundamentally violated Article 2.1 of its Bylaws by failing to hold a valid annual meeting in 2014.

At the heart of the Petitioner's argument was the claim that the meeting conducted on May 22, 2014, was a legal nullity. He contended that the Association failed to achieve a quorum for both the Board of Directors and the homeowners. Under the Association’s governing documents, three Board members are required to constitute a quorum. Mr. Revesz argued that since this threshold was not met, any business conducted—including the election of new directors—was invalid.

The Quorum Controversy: Presence via Cell Phone

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was tasked with reconciling two wildly different accounts of the May 22nd meeting. The Association asserted that a Board quorum was achieved through the attendance of Russell Hutchinson and Shelly Rothgeb in person, supplemented by Board member Angelo Peri via telephone.

  • Witness Volatility: The hearing featured a dramatic shift in testimony. Rick Sanchez, appearing for the Petitioner, initially admitted during cross-examination that the meeting minutes were approved without objection in March 2015. However, under follow-up questioning by Mr. Revesz, Mr. Sanchez reversed his position, claiming no vote had occurred. This inconsistency weakened the Petitioner’s case in real-time.
  • The "Draft" Minute Fallacy: Mr. Revesz relied on draft minutes which listed Mr. Peri as absent. The Association countered with the final minutes adopted in March 2015, which recorded Mr. Peri’s telephonic presence. Jo-Ann Greenstein, vice-president of the management firm RealManage, testified that draft minutes are inherently prone to clerical errors. A prime example of this administrative fallibility was found in the Board meeting minutes, where Mr. Revesz himself was erroneously listed as "Attilla Balbo."

Key Evidence While the Petitioner’s witness noted the absence of a landline in the room, the ALJ found the manager’s testimony more credible. The Association successfully established that modern technology satisfies attendance requirements; Board Member Angelo Peri’s participation via cell phone was sufficient to constitute a quorum.

The Paradox of the Petitioner: An Unexpected Election

Perhaps the most striking element of this case is the "ironic twist" detailed in Finding of Fact #12. Attila Revesz, the man suing to declare the meeting invalid, was actually elected to the Board at that very meeting. Because there were only three candidates for three open positions, the election was finalized by a simple voice vote.

From a legal standpoint, Mr. Revesz’s subsequent behavior created an "estoppel-adjacent" scenario. After the meeting, he and Mr. Sanchez accepted their positions and actively served as Board members throughout the remainder of 2014. The ALJ noted that by acting in an official capacity and exercising the powers granted by that election, the Petitioner tacitly validated the legitimacy of the meeting he later sought to overturn.

Legal Standards: The "Preponderance of Evidence"

In administrative hearings, the burden of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," but rather a lower threshold known as the Preponderance of the Evidence.

Element Description
Standard of Proof Preponderance of the Evidence (A.A.C. § R2-19-119).
Definition Evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposition (more probable than not).
Burden of Proof Rests entirely on the Petitioner (Mr. Revesz).
Result of Failure If the evidence is "tied" or unconvincing, the Petitioner fails to meet the burden and loses the case.

The ALJ determined that Mr. Revesz failed to meet this burden. While the Petitioner questioned the homeowner quorum, he provided no substantial evidence to rebut Ms. Greenstein’s testimony that a quorum was reached through a combination of personal attendance and proxies.

The Final Verdict: Certification and Dismissal

On May 22, 2015, the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision in favor of Shadow Mountain Villas. Per Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 41-1092.08), the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety was granted a window until June 26, 2015, to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s findings.

Because the Department took no action by the June 26 deadline, the decision was officially certified as the final administrative decision on July 1, 2015. The final order deemed the Association the prevailing party and dismissed Mr. Revesz’s petition in its entirety.

Key Takeaways for HOA Members

  • Prioritize Formal Adoption Over Draft Records: Draft minutes are legally unreliable. Boards must ensure that the formal approval process is used to correct clerical errors (like the "Attilla Balbo" misspelling) before records are finalized.
  • Digital Presence is Legal Presence: Unless specifically prohibited by an HOA’s bylaws, telephonic participation—including via cell phone—is a valid method for establishing a quorum.
  • Conduct Constitutes Acceptance: A homeowner cannot easily challenge the validity of an election if they have spent months acting as an elected official. Your behavior as a member or director can serve as a legal validation of the Association’s actions.
  • The Rebuttal Requirement: To challenge a manager’s testimony regarding homeowner quorums and proxies, a petitioner must provide "substantial evidence." Mere skepticism of the results is insufficient to meet the burden of proof.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Attila Revesz (Petitioner)
    Homeowner
    Also referred to erroneously as Attilla Balbo in board minutes
  • Rick Sanchez (witness)
    Testified for Petitioner; acted as board member in 2014

Respondent Side

  • Craig Boates (attorney)
    Boates & Crump, PLLC; Boates Law Firm, PLLC
    Full name Craighton T. Boates
  • Jo-Ann Greenstein (witness)
    RealManage
    Vice-president of RealManage (agent for Respondent)
  • Russell Hutchinson (board member)
    Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association
    Present at May 22, 2014 meeting
  • Shelly Rothgeb (board member)
    Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association
    Present at May 22, 2014 meeting
  • Angelo Peri (board member)
    Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association
    Present via telephone at May 22, 2014 meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presided over hearing and rehearing dismissal
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of transmitted decision
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decisions
  • Debra Blake (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Interim Director; recipient of transmitted decision
  • Joni Cage (staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Care of for Debra Blake
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/e-mailed/faxed copies of decisions

Kenneth Nowell vs. Greenfield Village RV Resort

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 14F-H1415011-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2015-05-11
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the CC&Rs or Bylaws regarding land acquisition, financial assessments, or construction projects.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kenneth Nowell Counsel —
Respondent Greenfield Village RV Resort Association, Inc. Counsel Steven D. Leach

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs 6.4, 6.5; Bylaws 6.4, 10.2
Bylaws 6.4
CC&Rs 3.25, 6.4(b)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the CC&Rs or Bylaws regarding land acquisition, financial assessments, or construction projects.

Why this result: Burden of proof not met; Association actions were found to be within their authority and properly voted upon where required.

Key Issues & Findings

Land Purchase and Funding of Improvements

Petitioner alleged the Association violated governing documents by purchasing land and levying assessments/loans without a 2/3 vote. The ALJ found the Association had authority and the required majority votes were obtained.

Orders: Dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 3
  • 4
  • 12
  • 15
  • 16
  • 24

The $20,000 Option

Petitioner alleged the Board required a membership vote to purchase a $20,000 land option. The ALJ found the expenditure did not exceed the threshold requiring a vote.

Orders: Dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 18
  • 19
  • 20

The Beverage Serving Center

Petitioner alleged the Board constructed a serving center without a vote (changing common area nature) and improperly used reserve funds. The ALJ found it was a replacement (allowed) and did not change the nature of the area.

Orders: Dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 20
  • 21
  • 22

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

14F-H1415011-BFS Decision – 440536.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:50:50 (117.3 KB)

14F-H1415011-BFS Decision – 446583.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:50:59 (61.6 KB)

14F-H1415011-BFS Decision – 440536.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-28T11:12:09 (117.3 KB)

14F-H1415011-BFS Decision – 446583.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-28T11:12:09 (61.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Nowell v. Greenfield Village RV Resort (Case No. 14F-H1415011-BFS)

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the administrative hearing and final decision regarding a dispute between Kenneth Nowell (Petitioner) and Greenfield Village RV Resort Association, Inc. (Respondent). Mr. Nowell alleged several violations of the Association’s governing Community Documents—comprising the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The core of the dispute involved the Association’s authority to purchase land, the methods used to fund improvements, the purchase of a land option, and the construction of a beverage serving center. Following a hearing on April 21, 2015, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden determined that Mr. Nowell failed to prove his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. On June 26, 2015, the ALJ's decision was certified as the final administrative action, dismissing Mr. Nowell’s petition and naming Greenfield Village RV Resort as the prevailing party.

Analysis of Key Themes

1. Board Authority and Governance Hierarchy

A central theme of the case is the scope of the Board’s power versus the rights of the Association members. The ALJ established a clear hierarchy for the "Community Documents":

  • Articles of Incorporation: Control if they conflict with the Bylaws.
  • CC&Rs: Control if they conflict with the Bylaws.
  • Board Discretion: Under CC&Rs § 4.1 and § 11.9, the Board is empowered to act on behalf of the Association unless a specific membership vote is required by the Community Documents.
2. Fiscal Responsibility and Assessment Classification

The dispute highlighted the legal distinctions between types of assessments and expenditures:

  • General Assessments: Used for operating expenses and the Replacement and Repair Reserve Fund.
  • Special Assessments: Used for construction or replacement of items in Common Areas.
  • Capital Expenditures: Defined as distinct from maintenance expenses, requiring membership approval if they exceed $20,000.
  • Borrowing Limits: The Association is restricted from borrowing more than $20,000 without a majority vote of the membership.
3. Evidentiary Standards in Administrative Hearings

The case underscores the burden of proof required in such proceedings. The Petitioner was required to prove that violations were "more probable than not" (preponderance of the evidence). The ALJ found that the Petitioner provided little evidence and often relied on mistaken interpretations of the governing documents.

Detailed Analysis of Disputed Actions

The Land Purchase and Financing

In February 2014, the Association held an election regarding the purchase of land at 4711 East Main Street, Mesa, for $940,000 and improvements estimated at $862,500.

Issue Petitioner Allegation ALJ Finding
Authority The Association lacks the authority to acquire property. The Articles of Incorporation (§§ 2 and 3) explicitly grant the Association authority to acquire property.
Vote Threshold A 2/3 majority was required for the assessments. Only a majority vote is required for general and special assessments per CC&Rs §§ 6.4, 6.5 and Bylaws § 6.1.
Funding Source Land was paid for via an improper special assessment. Evidence showed the land was purchased via a general assessment, which was properly ratified.
The $20,000 Land Option

Prior to the 2014 election, the Board spent $20,000 from operating funds to secure an option on the land.

  • Ruling: The ALJ found that because the expenditure did not exceed $20,000, it did not trigger the Bylaw requirement for a membership vote. The Board acted within its authority under the $20,000 threshold for capital expenditures.
The Beverage Serving Center

A new beverage center was constructed on higher ground to replace an older center prone to flooding. The project cost approximately $79,000, funded by a combination of a $50,000 reserve fund allocation, a $20,000 operating fund allocation, and an $8,000 donation from a tennis club.

  • Ruling on Nature of Area: The Petitioner failed to show that the center changed the "nature or purposes" of the Common Area, which would have required membership approval under CC&Rs § 3.25.
  • Ruling on Reserve Funds: The ALJ determined the center was a "replacement" for an existing facility. Under CC&Rs § 6.4(b), the Board is authorized to use reserve funds for the replacement of improvements in Common Areas.

Important Quotes with Context

"Unless the CC&Rs, the Bylaws, or the Articles of Incorporation specifically require a vote of the Membership, the Board may act on the Association’s behalf."

  • Context: This finding clarifies the default state of governance within the RV resort, placing the burden on the Petitioner to find specific prohibitions against Board actions.

"Mr. Nowell’s allegations… [are] predicated on Mr. Nowell’s mistaken opinion that the Association may not purchase land."

  • Context: The ALJ noted that the Petitioner's legal arguments were fundamentally flawed because they ignored the broad powers granted to the Association in its Articles of Incorporation.

"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."

  • Context: The ALJ's definition of "preponderance of the evidence," which served as the legal yardstick that the Petitioner failed to meet.

Actionable Insights

For Association Boards
  • Strict Adherence to Expenditure Thresholds: The Board successfully defended its $20,000 option purchase because it remained exactly at the limit. Boards should be meticulously aware of "bright-line" financial triggers in their Bylaws.
  • Ratification is Critical: The fact that the annual budget and assessments were ratified by a majority of the membership was a primary factor in the Association's victory.
  • Document Hierarchy Knowledge: Boards should ensure that their actions are supported by the Articles of Incorporation, as these can override conflicting Bylaws.
For Members/Petitioners
  • Burden of Proof: Petitioners must provide specific evidence rather than opinions. In this case, acknowledging a lack of certainty regarding the allegations (as the Petitioner did during the hearing) significantly weakened the case.
  • Read the Articles of Incorporation: Many restrictions or permissions are found in the Articles, not just the CC&Rs. A misunderstanding of these foundational documents can lead to the dismissal of a petition.
  • Distinguish Maintenance from Capital Improvement: Understanding the legal definition of a "replacement" vs. a "new construction" is vital when challenging the use of reserve funds.

Kenneth Nowell vs. Greenfield Village RV Resort: Administrative Law Study Guide

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal proceedings between Kenneth Nowell and the Greenfield Village RV Resort Association, Inc. (Case No. 14F-H1415011-BFS). It covers the governance of homeowners' associations, legal standards of proof, and the interpretation of community governing documents.

I. Case Overview and Key Concepts

1. Regulatory Framework and Governing Documents

The Greenfield Village RV Resort is governed by a hierarchy of "Community Documents." When these documents conflict, a specific order of precedence applies:

  • Articles of Incorporation: The primary document establishing the Association's purpose, including its right to acquire and manage property.
  • Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): Also referred to as the "Declaration," these outline the use of common areas and the authority to levy assessments. They take precedence over the Bylaws.
  • Bylaws: These detail the operational procedures of the Board and the Association, including voting requirements for expenditures and borrowing.
2. Legal Standard: Preponderance of the Evidence

In administrative hearings of this nature, the burden of proof lies with the Petitioner (the person bringing the complaint). The standard used is a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition, showing that the alleged facts are "more probable than not."

3. Board Authority vs. Membership Approval

Under the Community Documents:

  • General Authority: The Board may act on the Association’s behalf unless the Community Documents specifically require a vote of the membership.
  • Majority Vote Requirements: A majority of votes cast is required to ratify the budget, general assessments, and special assessments.
  • The $20,000 Threshold: Membership approval is specifically required for capital expenditures (distinct from maintenance) exceeding $20,000 and for borrowing in excess of $20,000.
  • Common Area Changes: Consent of the Association is required for alterations that change the nature and purposes of the Common Area.

II. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. What were the three primary events central to Kenneth Nowell’s allegations against the Association? Answer: The Association's purchase and financing of land and related improvements at 4711 East Main Street, the Board’s purchase of a $20,000 option on that same land, and the Board's approval to construct a new beverage serving center.

2. According to the Bylaws, what is the specific voting requirement for a "special assessment"? Answer: A special assessment must be ratified by a majority of votes cast at a meeting of the Association.

3. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determine that the $20,000 expenditure for a land option did not require a membership vote? Answer: Section 6.4 of the Bylaws requires a vote for capital expenditures greater than $20,000. Because the expenditure was exactly $20,000 and the Petitioner failed to prove it was a "capital expenditure" requiring a vote, the Board’s action was upheld.

4. How does the Association define the difference between a general assessment for "Operating Expenses" and a "Replacement and Repair Reserve Fund"? Answer: Operating expenses cover required or appropriate activities to carry out Association purposes, while the Replacement and Repair Reserve Fund is maintained specifically for periodic replacement and repair of improvements in Common Areas.

5. What is the hierarchy of authority if the CC&Rs and the Bylaws conflict? Answer: According to Bylaw § 12.2, the CC&Rs control when they conflict with the Bylaws. Similarly, the Articles of Incorporation control if they conflict with the Bylaws.

6. What was the outcome of the 2014 election regarding the land purchase and borrowing? Answer: The membership approved purchasing the land for $940,000 (Issue #2), a general assessment/budget to fund the purchase (Issue #3), a special assessment for improvements (Issue #5), and borrowing up to $1,598,500 for related loans (Issue #6).

III. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. Analysis of Board Discretion and Fiduciary Duty

The ALJ found that the Board did not violate the CC&Rs when constructing a new $79,000 beverage serving center. Discuss the distinction made between a "capital expenditure" and a "replacement" as defined in Section 6.4(b) of the CC&Rs. How does the source of funding (donations, reserve funds, and operating funds) impact the legality of a Board’s decision to build without a full membership vote?

2. Evaluating the Burden of Proof in Administrative Law

In this case, Kenneth Nowell acknowledged at the hearing that he was unsure of the specific allegations he had raised and presented "little evidence." Analyze the importance of the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. How does this standard protect an organization from unsubstantiated claims by individual members, and what must a petitioner provide to successfully challenge a Board's decision?

3. The Scope of Association Purpose

Mr. Nowell argued that the Association did not have the authority to acquire property under Section 4.1 of the CC&Rs. However, the ALJ cited the Articles of Incorporation to rule otherwise. Examine the relationship between different governing documents. Why is it essential for an Information Architect or Legal Professional to review the Articles of Incorporation in addition to the CC&Rs when determining the legal powers of a Homeowners Association?

IV. Glossary of Important Terms

  • ALJ (Administrative Law Judge): A presiding officer in an administrative hearing who hears evidence and issues a decision (in this case, Thomas Shedden).
  • Articles of Incorporation: The legal document that creates the Association and defines its primary purposes and powers.
  • Capital Expenditure: Funds used by an organization to acquire, upgrade, and maintain physical assets such as property or buildings, distinguished from day-to-day maintenance expenses.
  • CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The declaration that governs the use of land and the rights/obligations of the Association and its members.
  • Common Area: Property within the resort intended for the use and enjoyment of all Association members, such as tennis courts or recreational facilities.
  • General Assessment: Periodic fees collected from members to cover operating expenses and reserve funds.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The legal standard of proof in civil and administrative cases; it means a fact is more likely to be true than not true.
  • Ratification: The formal validation or approval of a proposed action (such as a budget or assessment) by the membership.
  • Special Assessment: A one-time fee charged to members to cover specific projects, such as major improvements or unexpected repairs, which must be approved by a majority vote.
  • Supplemental Budget: A financial plan created to address expenses not covered in the original annual budget, which the Board may only enter into if provided for in the governing documents.

Understanding Community Governance: Key Lessons from the Greenfield Village RV Resort Legal Decision

1. Introduction: When Community Vision Meets Legal Challenges

In the complex landscape of residential association management, major capital projects—such as land acquisitions and facility expansions—frequently serve as catalysts for internal friction. When a community’s vision for growth clashes with individual dissent, the resulting legal disputes often hinge on the meticulous interpretation of governing documents. Such was the case in Kenneth Nowell vs. Greenfield Village RV Resort (No. 14F-H1415011-BFS), a high-stakes matter adjudicated in April 2015 involving a project with a total value exceeding $1.8 million.

The dispute arose when a resident challenged the Board's authority to execute a massive expansion and facility upgrade. This case serves as a definitive study for board members and homeowners alike, illustrating how the specific language in community documents and adherence to voting procedures determine the legality of board actions.

2. The Governance Hierarchy: Articles, Bylaws, and CC&Rs

Governance at Greenfield Village is dictated by a set of "Community Documents" that operate under a strict legal hierarchy. As an expert analyst, it is critical to note that these documents are not co-equal. According to Section 12.2 of the Bylaws, conflicts are resolved through the following prioritizations:

  • Articles of Incorporation: These are the supreme authority. When the Articles conflict with the Bylaws, the Articles control.
  • CC&Rs (Declaration): These establish the primary rights and obligations of the community. When the CC&Rs conflict with the Bylaws, the CC&Rs control.
  • Bylaws: These serve as the operational framework for the Board but remain subordinate to both the Articles and the CC&Rs.

Under Sections 4.1 and 11.9 of the CC&Rs, the Board of Directors is granted the general authority to manage the business and affairs of the Association. Crucially, the Board is empowered to act on behalf of the Association in all instances unless a specific vote of the membership is expressly required by the Community Documents.

3. The $1.8 Million Expansion: A Case Study in Proper Procedure

The focal point of the Nowell case was a February 12, 2014, election regarding the purchase and improvement of land at 4711 East Main Street. This project was a significant undertaking for the Association, involving the following financial commitments:

  • Land Purchase Price: $940,000, structured to be paid in five annual installments.
  • Improvements: Estimated at $862,500.
  • Financing: The membership approved a total borrowing capacity of up to $1,598,500 to facilitate these two components.

The Association correctly utilized two distinct assessment categories to fund the project, grounded in the CC&Rs:

  1. General Assessments (CC&R § 6.4): Applied to the land purchase. These assessments cover operating expenses and the "Replacement and Repair Reserve Fund." Because the land purchase was integrated into the annual budget over five years, it was categorized as an operating expense.
  2. Special Assessments (CC&R § 6.5): Applied to the $862,500 in improvements. These are specifically reserved for the construction, reconstruction, or repair of items in the Common Area.

From a governance perspective, the success of this project was bolstered by overwhelming membership support. Despite being given a five-year payment option, approximately 87% of the membership chose to pay their assessments in full in advance, providing a powerful mandate for the Board’s actions.

4. Debunking the "Two-Thirds" Myth: Voting Requirements Explained

A recurring point of contention in community disputes is the misunderstanding of voting thresholds. The Petitioner in the Nowell case argued that a two-thirds majority was required to approve the land purchase and assessments. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), however, debunked this "myth" by citing CC&Rs §§ 6.4 and 6.5 and Bylaws § 6.1.

The Voting Standard: To ratify budgets, general assessments, or special assessments, the Association requires only a majority of the votes cast at a meeting where a quorum is present—not a two-thirds majority.

The evidence demonstrated that the Association had correctly followed these procedures, and the majority vote obtained during the February 2014 election was legally sufficient.

5. The $20,000 Threshold: Managing Capital Expenditures

Bylaws Sections 6.4 and 10.2 impose a $20,000 limit on certain Board actions. Specifically, any "capital expenditure" (distinct from maintenance) or loan exceeding $20,000 requires membership approval. The Nowell case examined two specific board actions against this threshold:

  • The Land Purchase Option: The Board spent $20,000 from operating funds to secure an option on the Main Street land prior to the formal election. The court ruled this was a valid exercise of Board authority; it did not exceed the $20,000 limit and served as a necessary "due diligence" step using operating funds before seeking a full membership vote.
  • The Beverage Serving Center: The Board authorized a $79,000 replacement of a beverage center that had been suffering from safety issues due to its flood-prone location. This project was funded by an $8,000 donation from the tennis club, $50,000 from the Long Range Fund (managed by the Long Range Planning Committee), and $20,000 from operating funds.

The ALJ ruled that this did not violate the $20,000 capital expenditure rule because the center was a replacement of an existing facility rather than a brand-new capital addition. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to prove that a replacement intended to rectify a flooding safety issue constituted a "capital expenditure" as defined in the Bylaws.

6. The Burden of Proof: Why the Petitioner’s Case Was Dismissed

In administrative proceedings, the "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard requires the petitioner to prove that their allegations are "more probable than not." The Nowell case highlighted the difficulties faced by pro se litigants; in fact, the ALJ noted that the Petitioner acknowledged during the hearing that he was "not sure what allegations he had raised" due to confusion over his initial filings.

The Association prevailed through the "credible testimony" of President Ron Thorstad and the definitive legal "checkmate" found in the Articles of Incorporation §§ 2 and 3, which explicitly grant the Association the power to "acquire property." This supreme document superseded the Petitioner’s claims that the Association lacked the authority to buy land. Consequently, all allegations regarding violations of CC&R sections 3.25, 6.4, 6.5 and Bylaws sections 6.4 and 10.2 were dismissed.

7. Conclusion: Practical Takeaways for Association Members

The Nowell vs. Greenfield Village decision offers vital practical takeaways for ensuring effective community governance:

  1. Prioritize the Articles of Incorporation: The right to acquire property or engage in major business acts is often established at the highest level of the document hierarchy. Boards should look to the Articles first to establish foundational authority.
  2. The Maintenance vs. Capital Distinction: Replacing or repairing an existing facility (especially for safety or flood mitigation) may be classified as maintenance or replacement, which often grants the Board more flexibility than the "capital expenditure" rules used for entirely new additions.
  3. Documentation is Defensive: The Association’s victory was secured by maintaining clear records of election results and ratified budgets. When a board can prove that it followed the specific "majority of votes cast" standard and correctly utilized funds (like the Long Range Fund), it is shielded from legal challenge.

Ultimately, transparency in the budget process and a rigorous adherence to the established hierarchy of governing documents protect the community's assets and the Board's decision-making integrity.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kenneth Nowell (Petitioner)
    Resident appearing on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Steven D. Leach (attorney)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
    Attorney for Respondent
  • Ron Thorstad (witness)
    Greenfield Village RV Resort Association, Inc.
    Association President; testified at hearing

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Director listed on transmission
  • Greg Hanchett (OAH Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Interim Director; signed Certification of Decision
  • Debra Blake (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Director; recipient of certified decision
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Debra Blake
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (OAH Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed mailing certificate