Tag Archives: Velva Moses-Thompson

Briefing Document: Legal Analysis and Dispute Resolution in PebbleCreek Golf Resort HOA v. Bernard & Wiener

Executive Summary

This briefing document provides an exhaustive analysis of the administrative dispute between PebbleCreek Golf Resort Homeowners Association No. 1, Inc. (Petitioner/HOA) and homeowners Christopher Bernard and Deborah Wiener (Respondents) under Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) Docket No. 26F-H069-REL.

The matter originated from a petition filed by the HOA with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) on March 5, 2026, alleging two distinct Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R) violations on Lot 20 (16078 W. Sheila Lane, Goodyear, AZ 85395):

1. Installation of an unapproved river rock decorative border.
2. Installation and maintenance of an unapproved animal structure (dog pen/frame pet cover) visible from neighboring property.

Prior to the evidentiary hearing held on September 11, 2026, the parties settled the river rock border issue, resulting in a partial withdrawal of that claim on September 2, 2026. The evidentiary hearing before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson focused exclusively on whether the Respondents' dog pen violated Article IV, Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the HOA’s CC&Rs and Section E.8C/E.6 of the Architectural and Landscape Committee (ALC) Guidelines.

On October 5, 2026, ALJ Moses-Thompson issued a final Administrative Law Judge Decision ruling in favor of the HOA. The ALJ concluded that the dog pen was installed without prior written ALC approval and remained visible from neighboring property, violating Article IV, Sections 2(a) and 2(b). The Respondents were ordered to pay the HOA’s $500.00 ADRE filing fee and to abide by the CC&Rs. A civil penalty was denied because Respondent Christopher Bernard genuinely believed—albeit incorrectly—that the structure was non-violative and subject to selective enforcement.

Procedural Timeline and Case Background

The case progressed through multiple administrative orders, continuances, representative changes, and evidentiary submissions:

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Architectural Control and CC&R Standards

The dispute hinges on two primary provisions of the PebbleCreek Golf Resort CC&Rs (recorded in 1992 with the Maricopa County Recorder) and the 2024 ALC Guidelines:

• Article IV, Section 2(a) [Architectural Control]: Mandates that no structure, improvement, alteration, landscaping, or exterior work altering the appearance of any lot shall be commenced, erected, or maintained without prior written approval from the ALC.
• Article IV, Section 2(b) [Animals]: Explicitly provides:

"No structure for the care, housing or confinement of any animal or bird shall be maintained so as to be Visible From Neighboring Property, unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Committee."

• Definition of "Visible From Neighboring Property": Under Section TT (page 10) of the Declaration, an object is defined as visible if it can be seen by a 6-foot-tall person standing on a neighboring property at the level of the base of the structure being viewed.

Approved Screening vs. Faux Greenery

To attempt compliance without building a permanent wall, Respondents installed green faux foliage, synthetic vines, and lattice material along their open-air view fence.

The HOA presented testimony from General Manager William Barnard and Board President Jack Gregory establishing that:

1. Faux greenery, artificial plants, or faux fencing materials are never automatically approved and are consistently denied across the community.
2. Artificial plants are unapproved screening mechanisms because they do not eliminate multi-angle visibility, do not mitigate noise, deteriorate over time, and fail to provide permanent structural enclosure.
3. Natural vegetation (shrubs, vines) is permitted for general privacy between adjacent patios, but is strictly prohibited as a primary screening mechanism for animal enclosures or trash receptacles, as plants can die or leave gaps.
4. The HOA’s standard required cure for screening visible animal enclosures or trash containers on golf course lots is a solid cinder/block wall with an integrated gate.

“ [ Neighboring View / Golf Course / Street ] │ ▼ (Unapproved Screening Attempt) [ Faux Greenery / Synthetic Vines / Lattice ] │ <-- Does NOT satisfy CC&Rs ▼ [ Unapproved Dog Pen Structure ] (3'x7' Black-Framed & Netted Box with Pitched Roof) ▲ │ <-- HOA Required Cure [ Solid Cinder Block Wall & Gate ] “

2. HOA Enforcement Integrity vs. Homeowner Defenses

Selective Enforcement and Targeting Allegations

Respondent Christopher Bernard argued that the HOA engaged in harassment, moving goalposts, and selective enforcement, claiming Respondents had accumulated 27 different violation notices across 2025–2026. Bernard asserted that other residents maintained visible dog structures or had shrubbery approved to screen hot tubs.

To refute the selective enforcement defense, the HOA submitted extensive administrative records:

• Community Compliance Metrics (Jan 1, 2026 – July 14, 2026):
• 972 courtesy violation letters issued community-wide.
• 1,035 total violations closed.
• 136 formal fine warning letters sent.
• 34 actual fine assessments levied.
• Comparative Denials (Exhibits 18.1–18.2 & 17.1–17.3): The HOA demonstrated that other applications for pet enclosures without block wall screening were uniformly denied, and citation notices were actively issued to other lot owners attempting to use faux greenery/fencing.
• Trash Enclosures (Exhibits 25.1–25.3): Requests for trash enclosures were only approved when constructed with an fully enclosing block wall and gate.

Neighbor Dispute and Coyote Protection Context

• Coyote Protection: Respondents testified the pen was utilized solely between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. to protect two 6-pound dogs from coyotes, as community rules prohibit altering open fences or harming wildlife.
• Neighbor Conflict: The adjacent neighbor submitted formal complaints regarding both the visibility of the pen from her side dining window and unpleasant odors arising from dog feces. Respondent Bernard disputed the smell issue, alleging the neighbor had thrown Drano tablets over the fence and lacked proper boundary fencing, thereby attracting coyotes to the area.

Economic and Aesthetic Impact Arguments

Respondents opposed constructing a block wall based on the following:

• Estimated construction cost of $8,000.00.
• Destruction of $1,500.00 worth of recently installed AstroTurf.
• Negative alteration of the front and rear aesthetics of a lot where they had recently invested $120,000.00 in backyard improvements.
• Respondents offered to construct the wall if the HOA subsidized 50% of the cost, an offer the HOA declined.

3. Administrative Law Judge Findings and Legal Reasoning

In the final Decision issued on October 5, 2026, ALJ Moses-Thompson systematically evaluated the statutory, contractual, and photographic evidence:

1. Jurisdiction & Standard of Proof: Under A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and A.R.S. § 33-1803, the ADRE and OAH have jurisdiction over Planned Community Act disputes. The HOA held the burden to prove violations by a preponderance of the evidence (A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)).
2. Unambiguous Restrictive Covenants: Under Arizona case law (Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553), unambiguous restrictive covenants must be enforced according to their express language and underlying purpose.
3. Core Violations Established:

• Article IV, Section 2(a): Unquestioned violation occurred because Respondents erected the dog pen in December 2024 without seeking or receiving prior written approval from the ALC.
• Article IV, Section 2(b): The preponderance of evidence—including photographs taken from the street and golf course (Exhibits 16.1–16.5) and Respondents' own post-hearing photos (Exhibit B: Photos 1653, 1655, 1656)—established that the structure was visible to a 6-foot-tall person standing on neighboring property.

1. Rejection of Civil Penalty: Although the HOA requested penalties for ongoing non-compliance, the ALJ declined to levy a civil penalty under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A). The record demonstrated that Bernard genuinely believed he was not violating the CC&Rs (relying on subjective interpretations of visibility, initial audit communications, and perceived selective enforcement).
2. Mandatory Statutory Relief: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), as the prevailing party, the HOA was statutorily entitled to an order directing Respondents to comply with the CC&Rs and reimburse the HOA's $500.00 filing fee within 30 days.

Important Quotes with Context

Statements by HOA Legal Counsel (Beth Mulcahy, Esq.)

• On the Binding Contractual Nature of CC&Rs:

"This declaration is a contract that binds the owners within the association to follow the terms of the contract, as well as the association needs to follow the terms of the contract… respondents here today, Mr. Bernard and Ms. Wiener are the owners of lot 20… they are required to follow the declaration, the bylaws, the architectural landscape guidelines, and all other governing documents."

• Context: Opening statement establishing that lot ownership automatically subjects residents to mandatory architectural review processes.

• On the Uniformity of Architectural Review:

"This is not selective enforcement. It's ordinary architectural review at 6,000 lot community association… Any selective enforcement or harassment defense is unsupported by the evidence heard today."

• Context: Closing argument dismantling Respondent's targeting claims by highlighting standard enforcement metrics.

Testimony of HOA Witnesses

• William Barnard (General Manager) on the Purpose of Fines:

"The bottom line is we're just trying to obtain compliance that's it. We're not trying to make money. It's not a revenue generator for us. And so, you know, the fine is after several notices have been given and no response or no correction."

• Context: Direct examination explaining why the HOA levied an $800 fine following uncured notices.

• William Barnard on Why Faux Foliage and Plants are Rejected:

"A pet enclosure or a garbage can, we do not allow plants to be used for situations like that because they don't completely screen and you know they can die and all of that. So in those two specific situations we don't allow shrubs or plants."

• Context: Cross/redirect examination clarifying the structural rationale behind prohibiting vegetation or artificial foliage as primary screening for animal structures.

• Jack Gregory (Board President) on the Purpose of Architectural Controls:

"Well, principally, it's to protect property values. It's to maintain the visual quality of the community using the established set of standards. And it also allows homeowners to understand what is acceptable within the community."

• Context: Direct examination outlining the Board's duty to maintain neighborhood aesthetics.

• Jack Gregory on Photo Verification:

"Exhibit 16.1, which was taken from the front of the house, was taken using an iPhone 16 camera… used a zoom feature just to make sure that, you know, for clarity, but even to the naked eye from the street… the dog pin was still visible."

• Context: Rebuttal testimony refuting Respondent's claims that photo evidence was fabricated or manipulated using high-powered binoculars.

Statements by Respondent (Christopher Bernard)

• On Frustration with Mandatory Wall Construction:

"What I don't want to have to do is tear up my AstroTurf and spend $8,000 to build a wall to enclose two miniature dogs. That's what we're unwilling to do. That's what we're being forced to do with no alternatives and no options presented from the HOA. Zero."

• Context: Closing argument detailing the financial and practical burden imposed by the HOA's block wall requirement.

• On Photographic Zooming and Distance:

"My fence is 97 feet from the street. The back fence is 162 feet from the golf course. Those pictures that you took, you were on top of my property in both instances or you zoomed in and took a pair of binoculars. That enclosure cannot be seen from the golf course and it certainly can't be seen from the street."

• Context: Defense presentation challenging the HOA's visual evidence regarding the visibility of the pen.

Rulings by Administrative Law Judge (Velva Moses-Thompson)

• On Findings of Fact Regarding Visibility:

"After reviewing the photographs, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finds that the photographs marked as 1653, 1655, and 1656 show that the animal structure is visible to neighboring property. The ALJ finds that remaining photos in Exhibit B do not refute this finding."

• Context: Finding of Fact No. 35 in the Final Decision analyzing post-hearing evidence submitted by Respondents.

• On Decision to Decline Civil Penalties:

"Although Mr. Bernard was incorrect in his allegations and assertions, the record shows that Mr. Bernard believed his dog pen was not in violation of the CC&Rs. Based on the foregrounding, the ALJ concludes that a civil penalty is not appropriate at this time."

• Context: Conclusion of Law No. 9 articulating why monetary penalties beyond fee reimbursement were withheld.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights

For Homeowners Association Boards and Management

1. Maintain Rigorous, Fact-Based Enforcement Logs:

• The HOA successfully defeated selective enforcement defenses by presenting concrete compliance statistics (972 courtesy notices, 34 fine assessments) and identical denial records for other lots (Exhibits 17, 18, and 25).
• Action: Continue compiling quantitative enforcement data to validate uniform standard application during administrative hearings.

1. Provide Clear Structural Specifications in Denial Notices:

• The ALC’s written denial on December 10, 2025, specifically suggested a "block wall with gate" as an acceptable cure, demonstrating that the HOA was offering constructive compliance pathways rather than outright prohibition.
• Action: Ensure all architectural denial notices explicitly outline permissible structural remedies and grant standard cure windows (e.g., 21 days).

1. Document Visibility from Standard Photographic Angles:

• Although Respondents challenged zoomed-in photos, witness testimony confirming that structures were visible "to the naked eye" from public/common vantage points (street, golf course) proved decisive.
• Action: When documenting violations, photo inspectors should take wide-angle context shots alongside zoomed detail shots from standard standing height (6 feet) at property boundaries.

For Homeowners in Planned Communities

1. Prior Written Approval Is Mandatory Before Installation:

• Installing exterior structures prior to receiving written ALC approval places the homeowner in an immediate, hard-to-defend breach of CC&Rs, eliminating leverage during subsequent negotiations.
• Action: Always submit detailed architectural applications—and receive explicit written approval—prior to purchasing or erecting exterior structures, regardless of intended usage (e.g., coyote protection).

1. Self-Help Screening Solutions Do Not Override Rules:

• Installing unapproved faux greenery, plastic vines, or reed fencing onto view fences often creates secondary violations rather than curing the primary visibility issue.
• Action: Verify whether non-permanent or synthetic materials are permissible under community guidelines before investing in temporary screening measures.

1. Distinguish Between Administrative Rules and Subjective Intent:

• Good faith beliefs, coyote threats, or investments in landscaping ($120,000) do not legalise CC&R non-compliance under Arizona law.
• Action: Focus administrative hearing defenses on objective CC&R language, precise definitions (such as the 6-foot eye-level standard), and official permit records rather than perceived harassment or cost disputes.

Briefing Document: Coates v. The Ocotillo Community Association (Docket No. 26F-H170-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative dispute between petitioners Adrianne and Joseph Coates and respondent The Ocotillo Community Association (Docket No. 26F-H170-REL). The matter was formally set for hearing by the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) on July 27, 2026, and argued before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in Phoenix, Arizona, on August 31, 2026.

The central legal issue was whether the Ocotillo Community Association violated Article IV, Section 2(a) and Article XII, Section 2 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by denying the Coateses' architectural request to install permanent exterior security/eave lighting. The Petitioners alleged that the association denied their request without citing a written rule, applied unpublished standards, and failed to enforce rules uniformly while approving identical lighting on other properties.

Following testimony from the homeowners and Ocotillo board leadership, as well as an evaluation of design standards, photographic comparison evidence, and governing documents, ALJ Moses-Thompson issued a final decision on September 18, 2026. The tribunal found that Ocotillo acted within its legal authority under its CC&Rs and published Design Standards, as the Coateses' stucco home lacked sufficient structural eaves to conceal the light tracking system. Consequently, the tribunal determined that the Petitioners failed to prove non-uniform enforcement or a violation of governing documents, and ordered the petition dismissed.

Key Case Information & Administrative Details

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Architectural Control Standards vs. Home Structural Design

A primary point of contention in the proceedings was the application of published community design standards relative to the physical architecture of individual homes within the community.

• Governing CC&R Authority: Under Article IV, Section 2(a) of Ocotillo’s CC&Rs, the Ocotillo Design Review Board (ODRB) holds authority to establish written architectural guidelines and standards. The provision explicitly grants the ODRB authority to approve or reject proposed alterations or modifications based on engineering, architectural, and aesthetic considerations.
• Published Design Standards: On January 28, 2025, the ODRB adopted updated Design Standards and Community Rules. Chapter 3 governs permanent exterior lighting and requires written ODRB approval prior to installation. Key specifications for permanent eave lighting include:

1. The home must have a sufficient amount of eave to install tracks, and tracks must not protrude past the eave.
2. The preferred method is installing lights and tracks behind the eave or trim plane so they do not extend beyond it.
3. Alternatively, tracks may be placed at the bottom of the eave/trim, flush with the front face.
4. Lighting must point downward and cannot create "light trespass" onto adjacent streets or neighboring properties.

• The Structural Issue: The Coateses submitted their architectural request on January 8, 2026, seeking to install permanent security trim lights on the front and rear rooflines of their home. On January 15, 2026, the ODRB denied the request, stating the home lacked sufficient eave depth to hold the track and that the lights would be positioned at an exposed angle rather than pointing straight down.
• Architectural Incompatibility: ODRB Chairman Cory Whyte testified that the Coateses' residence features continuous stucco extending up to the roofline without overhangs, exposed wood, or fascia board. Because there is no overhang or recessed fascia, any installed track or bulb system remains fully exposed from the street and driveway rather than hidden or flush mounted as required by Chapter 3.

“ [Standard Eave/Fascia Design] [Coates Stucco Design] +-------------------+ +-------------------+ | Roof Structure | | Roof Structure | +---------+---------+ +---------+---------+ | Wood/Fascia | Stucco Wall | (Recessed Area) | (Extends to Roof) | [Hidden Track/Light] | [Exposed Track] v v Concealed from Street Fully Exposed to Street (Complies with Rules) (Non-Compliant) “

2. Uniformity of Enforcement and Comparative Property Analysis

The Petitioners contended that Ocotillo enforced architectural rules arbitrarily and selectively, alleging that identical permanent lighting systems had been approved on other homes across the community.

• Petitioners' Comparative Evidence: Mrs. Coates presented photographic evidence of approved properties (Lot 105 / 1270 West Drive and Lot 156) to argue that Ocotillo permitted permanent eave lighting on homes with similar front-facing profiles. She also referenced denied properties (Lot 46 and Lot 118) to demonstrate widespread restrictions.
• Respondent's Architectural Rebuttal: Cross-examination and witness testimony established critical structural differences between the properties:
• Approved Homes (Lots 105 & 156): These homes possess recessed wood eaves and deep fascia overhangs. This construction creates a recessed lip above or behind the trim board, allowing lighting tracks to be mounted flush and completely hidden from view.
• Denied Homes (Lots 46, 118, & Coates Residence): These homes share a common architectural style where stucco extends directly to the roof joinery without wooden fascia or recessed overhangs.
• Comparable Requests: Finding 13 records that the ODRB had denied lighting requests from owners with homes similar to the Coates home. The ALJ ultimately found that the Coateses had not proved non-uniform enforcement (1470453.pdf, pp. 4, 6).
• Photographic Testimony: Finding 17 records Mrs. Coates’s difficulty seeing the submitted photographs and expressly finds her testimony about them reliable. Separately, Findings 20–21 and Conclusion 5 address the construction differences and the space available to conceal the track (1470453.pdf, pp. 4–6).

3. Procedural History, Board Appeals, and Demonstration Tracks

The record documents the full sequence of administrative and procedural events leading to the hearing:

“ [Jan 8, 2026] [Jan 15, 2026] [Feb 11, 2026] [Mar 4, 2026] [Apr 29, 2026] [Aug 31, 2026] [Sep 18, 2026] Coateses Submit ODRB Issues Design Manager Coateses File Board of Directors OAH Administrative ALJ Issues Final Design Request Initial Denial Leaves Voicemail Formal Board Denies Appeal Hearing Conducted Order Dismissing For Lighting Letter Re: Sample Track Appeal Letter Letter In Phoenix, AZ Petition “

• Sample Track Dispute: Following initial discussions, ODRB Design Review Manager left a voicemail (transcribed into evidence as Exhibit 6 Appendix A) indicating that if the contractor mounted a short sample track section, board representatives could review it. The Coateses installed a color-matched sample track on their single-car garage and notified the HOA.
• Site Inspection Testimony: Mrs. Coates alleged that the ODRB had not reviewed the installed sample. Finding 15 records Mr. Whyte’s explanation that a member may have driven past the home, and that the ODRB would not send two members because that would constitute a meeting that must be public. This is the decision’s account of his testimony, not an independent ruling establishing a general quorum threshold (1470453.pdf, p. 4).
• Board Appeal Hearing: The Coateses appealed the ODRB's denial to the Association's Board of Directors on March 4, 2026. The Board reviewed the design request, initial denial, physical attributes, and potential for light trespass/visibility. On April 29, 2026, the Board issued a final letter upholding the ODRB's denial.

4. Legal Framework and Administrative Ruling

The hearing was adjudicated under specific Arizona statutory and administrative guidelines:

• Statutory Jurisdiction: Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-2199(B) empowers homeowners in planned communities to petition the Department of Real Estate for administrative hearings regarding CC&R disputes pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1803. Adjudication is assigned to the Office of Administrative Hearings.
• Burden of Proof: Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2) and A.A.C. R2-19-119, the Petitioners bear the legal burden to establish a CC&R violation by a preponderance of the evidence (showing that the allegation is more probably true than not).
• Interpretation of Restrictive Covenants: Under Arizona case law (Powell v. Washburn), unambiguous restrictive covenants must be enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties, reading the governing documents as a whole in light of their underlying purpose.
• ALJ Findings and Legal Conclusions:

1. Ocotillo's CC&Rs (Article IV, Section 2(a)) and published Design Standards clearly empower the ODRB to deny permanent eave lighting when a home lacks sufficient eave depth to conceal lighting tracks.
2. The preponderance of the evidence established that the Coates residence lacked adequate eaves or fascia overhangs to mount and hide the track system.
3. The ODRB appropriately applied its published standards and enforced them consistently among homes with similar structural designs.
4. The Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proving non-uniform enforcement or a breach of Article IV, Section 2(a) or Article XII, Section 2.

• Final Order: On September 18, 2026, ALJ Moses-Thompson officially dismissed the Coateses' petition.

Important Quotes with Context

The following table presents key statements from the hearing transcript and official administrative record, providing context and illustrating the core arguments of each party.

Actionable Insights & Practical Takeaways

The proceedings and administrative decision in Coates v. The Ocotillo Community Association offer practical lessons for homeowners, HOAs, design review committees, and legal practitioners:

For Homeowners

• Evaluate Structural Eligibility Before Applying: Published design guidelines often contain specific physical prerequisites (such as recessed overhangs or fascia depth). Homeowners should confirm their home's specific architectural style can physically accommodate the modification before purchasing materials or hiring contractors.
• Compare the Evidence in This Case: The approved homes had features that allowed their lighting tracks to be concealed, while the Coates home lacked sufficient eave space. The ALJ found that these petitioners had not proved non-uniform enforcement. The decision does not make identical structural conditions a universal prerequisite for a selective-enforcement claim (1470453.pdf, pp. 5–6).
• Document Sample Installations Clearly: If an HOA permits a sample installation, ensure high-resolution photos are taken from multiple angles (street level, driveway, direct underside) to demonstrate compliance with visibility and screening rules.

For Homeowners Associations & Design Review Boards

• Identify the Rules Applied: The ALJ applied Ocotillo’s CC&Rs and its adopted Design Standards to this application and found that the ODRB appropriately denied it because the home lacked sufficient eave space to hide the track (1470453.pdf, p. 6).
• Keep Testimony Separate from Legal Conclusions: The written decision recounts Whyte’s explanation for the site-inspection procedure. Its Conclusions of Law resolve the architectural application and enforcement claim, rather than deciding a general open-meeting rule for site visits (1470453.pdf, pp. 4, 6).
• Document Architectural Distinctions in Denials: Denial letters should cite specific published guideline sections (e.g., Chapter 3, Permanent Eave Lighting) and detail the exact physical non-compliance observed (e.g., lack of recessed fascia), creating a clear administrative record if challenged.

For Legal Representatives

• Read the Comparisons in Context: Photographs and testimony about eave space and track visibility mattered to this record. The conclusion was that the Coateses had not proved their alleged violations, not that construction differences automatically defeat every unequal-enforcement claim (1470453.pdf, pp. 5–6).
• Ensure Exhibit Completeness Early: Complete copies of proposed hearing exhibits should be exchanged with opposing parties prior to administrative proceedings to avoid procedural delays regarding exhibit sharing and foundation objections.

Briefing: Kansfield vs. Del Webb at Dove Mountain Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative hearing and subsequent decision regarding the dispute between Petitioners Karen and Marenis Kansfield and the Respondent, Del Webb at Dove Mountain Community Association, Inc. (Case No. 26F-H045-REL).

The conflict originated from an incident on December 5, 2025, during a community Christmas party. The Kansfields were forcefully ordered to leave the event by a community employee, Barb Truman, on the grounds that they had not purchased tickets in their own names but were instead using tickets transferred from their neighbors, the Secotts. The Kansfields alleged that the Association violated several articles of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), specifically regarding rights to common area use, due process for the suspension of rights, and the requirement for similar treatment of members.

Following a hearing on July 6, 2026, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson issued a decision on July 27, 2026, dismissing the petition. The ALJ concluded that the Association acted within its rights to enforce a non-transferable ticket policy and that the Kansfields failed to prove a violation of the CC&Rs, despite the acknowledged unprofessional conduct of the Association’s staff.

Key Themes and Analysis

1. The Validity of "Non-Transferable" Ticket Policies

A central point of contention was whether the Association had a formal rule prohibiting the transfer of event registrations.

• Petitioner Perspective: The Kansfields argued that no written rule in the governing documents prohibited ticket transfers. They maintained that they had verbal permission from an employee, Mitch Allen, to use the Secotts' tickets.
• Respondent Perspective: The Association argued that while perhaps not explicitly in the CC&Rs, the Social Committee had a clear understanding and practice that tickets were non-transferable.
• ALJ Finding: The ALJ found that the Social Committee had indeed adopted a rule that tickets could not be transferred. This was corroborated by evidence that the Kansfields were instructed by their neighbor to "pretend" to be the Secotts, suggesting an awareness that a direct transfer was not permitted.

2. Common Area Access vs. Restricted Event Participation

The Kansfields alleged violations of Article II, Sections 2.1 and 2.2, which grant members non-exclusive easements to use and enjoy common areas and recreational facilities.

• The Conflict: The Kansfields viewed their removal from the Saguaro Center as a denial of their fundamental right to access community property.
• The Defense: The Association argued that these rights are subject to the Board’s authority to adopt rules and regulations, including limiting the number of occupants for specific events.
• Legal Conclusion: The ALJ ruled that the Association did not violate Article II. Because the Kansfields had not purchased tickets for the sold-out event, their right to access that specific event was legally restricted by the Association's occupancy and registration rules.

3. Employee Professionalism and Association Liability

The hearing revealed significant evidence of hostile behavior by community employee Barb Truman.

• The Incident: Witness testimony from Stacy Brown and the Kansfields established that Truman used profanity ("I don't get paid enough to put up with this s***"), shouted at the petitioners in the parking lot, and directed staff to call 911 despite no evidence of a physical threat.
• Association Response: The Association admitted the treatment was "poor" and "regrettable" and confirmed that Truman was disciplined by her employer, Associated Asset Management.
• Legal Distinction: The ALJ noted that while she "sympathizes with the way that the Kansfields were treated," unprofessional conduct by an employee does not automatically constitute a violation of the CC&Rs.

4. Due Process and Sanctions

The Kansfields argued under Article IV, Section 4.2, that they were entitled to notice and a hearing before their rights to the community center were suspended.

• Analysis: The Association contended that they were not "suspending" the Kansfields' membership rights in a general sense; they were merely enforcing the rules of a specific ticketed event.
• Legal Conclusion: The ALJ determined that Article IV gives the Board discretion to impose sanctions but does not create a duty to follow formal sanctioning procedures before requiring someone to leave an event for which they are not registered.

Important Quotes and Context

Testimony on the Incident

Stacy Brown (Witness): "The Del Webb Barb Truman… was getting very adamant… It was obvious that this was turning into something that was not comfortable… Barb got quite upset and followed them out the door… with very inappropriate comments… 'I don't make enough money to put up with your s***.'"

• Context: This testimony supported the Kansfields' claim of hostile treatment and showed that the incident was public, occurring in front of other residents and ruining the event's atmosphere.

The "Smoking Gun" for the Defense

Jason Smith (Respondent Counsel): "Mitch said all you need to do when you check in is say you're John and Carol Secott, your impersonators."

• Context: Smith read this from a text message (Exhibit A) sent by Carol Secott to Karen Kansfield. This quote was critical in proving that the petitioners knew they were not technically authorized to attend under their own names, undermining their claim of a "straightforward" right to access.

Petitioner Argument on Governing Documents

Karen Kansfield: "This case is about a straightforward but serious violation of our rights as homeowners… This was not a rules enforcement action. It was arbitrary and unequal denial of access."

• Context: This highlights the petitioners' core argument: that the Association's actions were not based on established law but were an arbitrary exercise of power.

Administrative Law Judge's Reasoning

ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson: "While the ALJ sympathizes with the way that the Kansfields were treated at the 2025 Christmas party, there was no evidence presented that Del Webb’s actions violated the provisions of the CC&Rs cited in the petition."

• Context: This quote from the final decision illustrates the legal boundary between "bad behavior" and "illegal violation of governing documents."

Summary of CC&R Allegations and Rulings

Actionable Insights

• Formalize Event Policies: Associations should ensure that "understanding" or "practices" regarding ticket transfers are codified in written rules and clearly printed on event flyers or registration forms to avoid claims of "arbitrary" enforcement.
• Separation of Conduct and Law: Management should be aware that while an employee's unprofessional behavior (like the use of profanity or unnecessary 911 calls) can lead to internal disciplinary action, it may not constitute a breach of the Association’s governing documents unless it specifically infringes on a defined right.
• Documentation of Rules: The use of "impersonators" in text messages served as significant evidence of a known rule violation. Parties should be aware that informal communications (texts, emails) are discoverable and carry high evidentiary weight in administrative hearings.
• Burden of Proof in "Similar Treatment" Claims: To succeed in a claim of unequal treatment (Article 12.4), a petitioner must provide specific evidence of "similarly situated" individuals who were treated differently. General assertions that others "likely" did the same thing are insufficient for a legal preponderance of evidence.

Briefing Document: Suzanne Thomas v. Woodland Hills Improvement Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing Suzanne Thomas v. Woodland Hills Improvement Association (No. 25F-H075-REL), conducted before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The dispute centered on a petition filed by homeowner Suzanne Thomas (Petitioner) alleging that the Woodland Hills Improvement Association (Respondent/Association) violated Section 8.1 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to plant winter rye grass and maintain a grassy common area.

The conflict reflects a broader struggle between long-standing community traditions and a new Board of Directors’ efforts to modernize governance, address aging infrastructure, and respond to environmental realities in Tucson, Arizona. Following hearings on March 16 and March 24, 2026, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson issued a decision on April 13, 2026, dismissing the petition. The ALJ concluded that the CC&Rs do not mandate the planting of grass and that the Association’s previous practices of seasonal seeding were based on informal agreements rather than codified requirements.

Case Overview and Procedural History

The proceedings involved multiple continuances and a transition to virtual hearings due to a flood at the OAH offices.

Analysis of Key Themes

1. Interpretation of Governing Documents

The central legal question was whether CC&R Section 8.1, which lists "mowing grass" and "sprinkler system" as common area expenses, created an affirmative duty for the Board to maintain a lawn.

• Petitioner’s Argument: Section 8.1 implies the community was designed as a "grassy park." Petitioner argued that because the document includes "mowing grass" in the pro-rata share of operating expenses, the Board cannot unilaterally decide to eliminate it.
• Board’s Argument: The Board contended that Section 8.1 is a general guideline for how dues may be spent if certain assets exist. If the Board decides to remove grass, "mowing" is no longer a necessary expense. They argued that the common area is under the Board's jurisdiction and management.

2. Informal Precedent vs. Formal Governance

The hearing revealed a history of "informal" operations within the 19-home community.

• Historical Practice: For over 12 years, the community planted winter rye grass. Testimony from Frank Cushing and Barbara Evers indicated this was funded through a "balloon payment" or "assessment" collected every fall to avoid raising monthly dues.
• Board Modernization: The current Board (elected in late 2024) sought to formalize these processes. They argued that because the grass seeding was never part of the formal annual pro-rata budget, it constituted a "Special Assessment" requiring a two-thirds majority vote under CC&R Section 8.7. A vote was held, but it failed to reach the 13-vote threshold, leading the Board to cancel the seeding.

3. Financial and Ecological Stewardship

The Board justified the move to xeriscaping (desert landscaping) through two primary lenses:

• Fiscal Responsibility: Treasurer Shawn Kopriva testified that grass maintenance and watering previously consumed 74% of the Association's budget. The community is 53 years old and requires urgent repairs to galvanized pipes, rusting ironwork around the pool, and lamp posts.
• Ecological Reality: The Board cited Tucson’s dwindling water tables and potential 77% reduction in Colorado River water allotments. They argued that planting "ornamental grass" that only survives five months a year is irresponsible.

4. Impact on Community Assets and Aesthetics

• Property Values: Petitioner provided evidence (Zillow/MLS listings) suggesting that homes in their community ("Woodland Hills 1") sold for higher prices than the twin community ("Woodland Hills 2") because of the lush grass and tree canopy.
• The "Legacy Trees": Both parties expressed concern for 90+ "heritage" mesquite trees. Petitioner argued that stopping the sprinklers would kill trees that have adapted to shallow watering for 50 years. The Board countered that shallow watering from sprinklers made the trees unstable and dangerous, as evidenced by limbs falling onto patios.

Important Quotes and Context

Regarding CC&R Duties

"It is not mandating we have grass. It’s saying to a homeowner that if we have grass, your dues may go to paying for the grass."

— Melissa Tone, Board Secretary Context: Explaining the Board's interpretation of Section 8.1 as a permissive rather than mandatory spending guideline.

Regarding Historical Practice

"We were very, very informal or we were a very informal organization up until the current regime… it was a normal assessment as a balloon payment essentially on our normal dues."

— Frank Cushing, Witness and Former President Context: Describing the community's 12-year history of paying for winter grass without a formal 2/3 vote.

Regarding the Shift to Xeriscaping

"We have an opportunity right now to pivot from the past to the future and that future should be xeriscaping attracting pollinators and birds that this region is known for."

— Melissa Tone, Board Secretary Context: Outlining the Board’s vision to move away from high-maintenance turf toward sustainable desert beauty.

Regarding Legal Authority

"The common area is under the jurisdiction, the choice of the board at the time… the any cost, any special assessment would come under a vote."

— Mary Claire Lazar, Board President Context: Summarizing legal counsel received regarding the Board's power to change landscaping without a community vote, provided they use existing funds rather than new assessments.

Key Data Points

• Financial Impact of Grass: Seeding costs approximately $6,000 annually.
• Historical Budget Allocation: Grass and water accounted for 74% of the total budget under previous leadership.
• Infrastructure Liability: Replacing the galvanized pipe system is estimated at $75,000; pool ironwork repairs are estimated at over $15,000.
• Community Size: The Association consists of 19 townhomes.
• Grass Vote Results (2025): 11 votes in favor of seeding, 8 votes against. (Failed to meet the 13-vote requirement for a Special Assessment).

Actionable Insights and Conclusions

Legal Precedent Established

The ALJ’s decision clarifies that specific mentions of maintenance tasks (like "mowing grass") in CC&Rs do not necessarily mandate the perpetual existence of the asset being maintained. Unless the governing documents explicitly require a specific type of landscaping, the Board retains the authority to modify common areas as part of its management duties.

Governance Requirements

The dispute highlights the danger of "informal" financial arrangements in HOAs. The Association's failure to codify the grass payment as a regular assessment allowed the current Board to reclassify it as a Special Assessment, effectively giving a minority of homeowners (those voting "no") the power to block the tradition.

Transition to Sustainability

The Association is now legally cleared to proceed with its xeriscaping plan. To ensure community cohesion following this divisive case, the following steps were identified during the hearing:

• Incremental Implementation: The Board plans a gradual transition to desert landscaping to manage costs and allow residents to adapt.
• Strategic "Islands": The Board is considering artificial turf "islands" (approximately 3,000 sq. ft. total) to maintain some greenery while eliminating water use.
• Tree Care: Specialized watering plans for the heritage mesquite trees (drip systems or deep watering) are necessary to prevent the "decline and death" warned of by the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension.